Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.

[TurtleWA]

Sadly it has happened again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/live-updates-shooting-high-school-parkland-fla-multiple-injuries-reported-200936418.html

[plastroncafe]

Glad the authorities have a suspect in custody.
Am looking forward to them standing trial.

When I last checked Florida had the death penalty.

[Andrew NDB]

Seeing some screencaps of the guy's now-shut down Instagram where he had comments talking about "Allhu akbar!" over and over again.

It might be bullsh** though.

[Autbot_Benz]

The guy was wearing a MAGA hat on his instagram so doesn't surprise me he was a Trump lover.

As long as the Republicans are the bitches of the NRA nothing will happen. Best part is on twitter when Republican senators say thoughts and prayers people retweet them and post how much money they took from the NRA.

[Katie]

Actually state records indicate he was a registered Democrat. The MAGA hat was likely some kind of ruse...or maybe he switched sides. Who knows. Or cares. Kids died.

Killing innocent people is not a left or right only issue.

This was a messed up kid who apparently thought Elliot Rogers was some kind of Hero.

[Storm Eagle]

He had to do this on Valentine's Day. Who rejected him?

[plastroncafe]

It's Ash Wednesday too.
Though that might not mean anything either.

I'm still really surprised they got him alive.

[Sumac]

The guy was wearing a MAGA hat on his instagram so doesn't surprise me he was a Trump lover.

As long as the Republicans are the bitches of the NRA nothing will happen. Best part is on twitter when Republican senators say thoughts and prayers people retweet them and post how much money they took from the NRA.
Because there was no shooting during Obama presidency, no sir.

How about not bringing your personal agenda into stuff like this?

[Autbot_Benz]

I never said no shootings happened under obama plenty did. this is the 8th shooting in the first seven weeks of the year. but lets keep with thoughts and prayers that will help :roll:

[ProphetofGanja]

...this is the 8th shooting in the first seven weeks of the year.

*18th, sadly

[Autbot_Benz]

The Associated Press‏Verified account @AP

BREAKING: Leader of white nationalist group has confirmed suspect in Florida school shooting was member of his organization.

[plastroncafe]

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/964187511017869316

Seems the source for that Allu Akbar Instagram was some shotty reporting from Infowars.

I think my favorite part is that this particular media Outlet released that the shooter was a communist based on a picture of someone else wearing a 10 year old shirt of the Day t-shirt.

I'll have to tell the friend of mine who also bought that shirt that now he's apparently a member of the Communist Party...

[Autbot_Benz]

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/964187511017869316

Seems the source for that Allu Akbar Instagram was some shotty reporting from Infowars.

I think my favorite part is that this particular media Outlet released that the shooter was a communist based on a picture of someone else wearing a 10 year old shirt of the Day t-shirt.

I'll have to tell the friend of mine who also bought that shirt that now he's apparently a member of the Communist Party...

anyone who believes anything Info Wars says needs to have there head examined :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/964187511017869316

Seems the source for that Allu Akbar Instagram was some shotty reporting from Infowars.

Shoddy reporting!?

I'll have you know, you uninformed liberal woman, that Alex Jones is the only hero brave enough to warn us about how THEY TURNED THE FRIGGIN' FROGS GAY!!!!

[plastroncafe]

Shoddy reporting!?

I'll have you know, you uninformed liberal woman, that Alex Jones is the only hero brave enough to warn us about how THEY TURNED THE FRIGGIN' FROGS GAY!!!!

https://memeguy.com/photos/images/mrw-asked-if-the-bottle-of-wine-i-brought-is-any-good-106032.gif

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

So, how many more mass shootings before we start cracking down on men with a history of violence?

Kid was already identified by the school as a potential threat; he wasn't allowed on campus with a gun; other students said he had already been labeled as a probable shooter.

So... are we ever going to take this seriously?

... And this is why I'd rather make fun of Alex Jones. Much less depressing. Who doesn't love a gay frog?

[plastroncafe]

So, how many more mass shootings before we start cracking down on men with a history of violence?


This is a very good question.
And now would be a great time for all the #NotAllMen #WhatAboutTheMen MRA folks to come in and lead the discussion.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

This is a very good question.
And now would be a great time for all the #NotAllMen #WhatAboutTheMen MRA folks to come in and lead the discussion.

I've been thinking about this a lot since yesterday, due to our cultural and even my own personal circumstances.

We need to stop portraying angry as cool. Angry is not cool. Walking around with a bad attitude and a chip on our shoulder, with barely restrained violence and mayhem, is dangerous and psychotic.

Raphael is not a role model. Wolverine is not a role model.

Emotional control is a GOOD thing. More Vulcan, less Romulan.

But good luck selling gun-hoarding Southern men on that.

[plastroncafe]

I've been thinking about this a lot since yesterday, due to our cultural and even my own personal circumstances.

We need to stop portraying angry as cool. Angry is not cool. Walking around with a bad attitude and a chip on our shoulder, with barely restrained violence and mayhem, is dangerous and psychotic.

Raphael is not a role model. Wolverine is not a role model.

Emotional control is a GOOD thing. More Vulcan, less Romulan.

But good luck selling gun-hoarding Southern men on that.

Something my old shrink used to say was that Anger, righteous grounded anger, is the force by which we overcome obstacles.

This is different from rage, which is unfocused destruction for the sake of destruction.
Being, and getting, angry isn't the problem. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being emotional and having emotions.
In my opinion that's just an easy way for an unaffected person to shut down someone who was/is legitimately wronged.

I'm not saying that's always the case, just that it's an easy course of events to adopt.

There is nothing inherently more virtuous in the person who doesn't appear to be angry.
Or being emotionally non-invested in a thing.
And culturally...American Masculinity has prided, and damn near defined itself, as lacking outward emotions.
I think that's a mistake.

Raph isn't a rolemodel. Neither is Wolverine.
Or Tony Soprano, or Walter White.

They're all monsters in their own way.
But they're not monsters for getting angry.
They're monsters because they do don't anything productive with their anger.

They're just bigger toddlers not using their words.

[TurtleWA]

What is happening now that it seems like there are so many school shootings?

I mean we have always had mental illness. We always had weapons. A person in the 1970s could have easily murdered an entire classroom with two pistols. Or used a hunting rifle as a sniper. If it’s because it’s always in the news and encourages copies I ’m not sure if I accept that because TV, radio and news papers have been popular for decades.

So what is going on? Is it really because of access to weapons, mental health and media?

[AquaParade]

What is happening now that it seems like there are so many school shootings?

I mean we have always had mental illness. We always had weapons. A person in the 1970s could have easily murdered an entire classroom with two pistols. Or used a hunting rifle as a sniper. If it’s because it’s always in the news and encourages copies I ’m not sure if I accept that because TV, radio and news papers have been popular for decades.

So what is going on? Is it really because of access to weapons, mental health and media?

That's the million dollar question.

I would probably agree with anyone who thinks we need to make guns less accessible. Though I'm also not naive enough to think that will stem the problem by itself.

[Andrew NDB]

That's the million dollar question.

I would probably agree with anyone who thinks we need to make guns less accessible. Though I'm also not naive enough to think that will stem the problem by itself.

I couldn't tell you what the gun laws are in the other 49 states, but I'm OK with the rest of the country adopting the same pretty tough laws we have here in WA. I'm told it's one of the toughest.

Beyond that? No. Try spanking your kid once in a while, don't worry about what guns I have.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Something my old shrink used to say was that Anger, righteous grounded anger, is the force by which we overcome obstacles.

This is different from rage, which is unfocused destruction for the sake of destruction.
Being, and getting, angry isn't the problem. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being emotional and having emotions.
In my opinion that's just an easy way for an unaffected person to shut down someone who was/is legitimately wronged.

I'm not saying that's always the case, just that it's an easy course of events to adopt.

There is nothing inherently more virtuous in the person who doesn't appear to be angry.
Or being emotionally non-invested in a thing.
And culturally...American Masculinity has prided, and damn near defined itself, as lacking outward emotions.
I think that's a mistake.

Raph isn't a rolemodel. Neither is Wolverine.
Or Tony Soprano, or Walter White.

They're all monsters in their own way.
But they're not monsters for getting angry.
They're monsters because they do don't anything productive with their anger.

They're just bigger toddlers not using their words.

Oh, I'm not actually advocating for Vulcan lack of emotion or saying that anger itself is unnatural or wrong. But what is it and why is it? What do we choose to do with it or because of it?

From my perspective, American Masculinity disavows all positive emotions and yet fetishes anger. Mexicans, gays, blacks, liberals, women... far easier to rage at them or fester in bitterness than look at ourselves and ask "Is the problem maybe me? And should I change something about myself to resolve this problem?"

That's what I see a lot of down here, anyway.

[Autbot_Benz]

Lets Stop worrying about Muslims and Minorites and worry about these crazy white kids with mental issues who are part of Alt Right groups.

[Jester]

I think that's the big thing TurtleWA, no one knows. People blame gun culture, but that's been around for years, people blame media showcasing it, or even movies and videogames glorifying it, but those have been here part of the public sphere for a bit, too. Maybe it's a combination of both, maybe it's a 3rd issue...it's not a simple black and white thing. We can't see inside someone's head. What would make one person find a place to be alone and cry and find some constructive outlet could prompt a different person to choose to take a gun to school. Maybe better and less stigmatized mental health programs could help? I dunna...

[plastroncafe]

My armchair answer is that there are some men who don't know how to man, because they've never had to think about what makes a man before.

In short, what makes now different from then is the combined culture shift brought on by the Women's and Queer Rights movements.

With rigid gender roles one didn't have to THINK about what makes a man or a woman, because the culture just told you. Men do this. Women do this. And so long as a man didn't do something considered female, he was pretty much okay.

But that line started to blur in the 60s and 70s and onward.
I remember being told in the 80s that if a man had an earring "Left was right, and Right was wrong." Because having an earring in your right ear meant that you were gay. And that...that was almost the worst thing a man could be. Because gay dudes were basically women.

Don't throw that ball like a girl.
Don't cry like a girl.
Don't run like a girl.

All boys had to be was...not a girl.
Well...if girls know how to do all these things for themselves, what's left for boys to be?

So from where I'm standing the issue is that we've got a bunch of guys who don't know where they stand. They're anxious, and they're lashing out.
I don't think this isn't a mental illness issue, I think it's a cultural one.

Someone needs to define Masculinity as something it is, rather than relying on what it's not.

Oh, I'm not actually advocating for Vulcan lack of emotion or saying that anger itself is unnatural or wrong. But what is it and why is it? What do we choose to do with it or because of it?

From my perspective, American Masculinity disavows all positive emotions and yet fetishes anger. Mexicans, gays, blacks, liberals, women... far easier to rage at them or fester in bitterness than look at ourselves and ask "Is the problem maybe me? And should I change something about myself to resolve this problem?"

That's what I see a lot of down here, anyway.

I agree entirely.
And when I see the phrase Toxic Masculinity, that's what I think of.
Not that Masculinity is in and of itself toxic, because...it's not, but there are people practicing a weaponized fundamentalist version of it that are doing a whole lot of damage.

[Papenbrook]

You know, I think I know why people who have mental health issues don't bother to get any help from society at large. Subsequently, I now know why people who are physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually different from the norm tend to be one of the most discriminated against.

It all has to start with the prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry online and offline. Using ableist terminology to describe people who are neurodivergent (or who are otherwise differently abled). Mocking an individual's intelligence by using an extremely biased measurement of intellect (the I.Q. system). Bullying and outright manipulating people by exploiting and controlling their perception of reality. Taking advantage of them by forcing them to do whatever you want. Making light of physical and emotional self-harm or otherwise encouraging it. Demonizing them by making them feel unloved and unwanted. Making them feel uncomfortable by using their descriptions in an unsavory manner. Making them feel that it's somehow wrong to be different from what's considered "normal".

I know that we tend to have a biased perspective of our reality; I know that we all have a skewed moral perception that creates our own knowledge, which can, in turn, lead to a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. However, it's honestly disgusting that our society can stoop to this sort of low.

Shame on everyone who doesn't bother to accept, respect, and care about our fellow human beings (or really, any living being/ organism). Shame on everyone for doing nothing to stop these sorts of tragedies from happening.

To Autbot_Benz: Being discriminatory again, I see.

But then again, I didn't expect better from you.

Just please, take your unfiltered bigotry elsewhere, please! It's too repulsive, honestly. I couldn't even bother to quote your comments!

-----------------------------------------------

I would like to give my apologies and condolences to the individuals who were personally affected by this tragedy. Not one single person in the world deserves to lose their friends/ loved ones like this.

I would also like to apologize on behalf of people who make light of/ on topics such as these.

(To anyone who is different physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually, there is nothing wrong with you. You are who you are, which is perfectly fine. Despite what others may think of you, know that you are not flawed because you don't fit in dominantly.)

Have a good day.

[Andrew NDB]

Oh, I'm not actually advocating for Vulcan lack of emotion

Or to put another way... there's Vulcans... and then there's the Vulcans who embrace Kohlinahr. Probably don't be like the latter.

[Autbot_Benz]

You know, I think I know why people who have mental health issues don't bother to get any help from society at large. Subsequently, I now know why people who are physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually different from the norm tend to be one of the most discriminated against.

It all has to start with the prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry online and offline. Using ableist terminology to describe people who are neurodivergent (or who are otherwise differently abled). Mocking an individual's intelligence by using an extremely biased measurement of intellect (the I.Q. system). Bullying and outright manipulating people by exploiting and controlling their perception of reality. Taking advantage of them by forcing them to do whatever you want. Making light of physical and emotional self-harm or otherwise encouraging it.

I know that we tend to have a biased perspective of our reality; I know that we all have a skewed moral perception that creates our own knowledge, which can, in turn, lead to a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. However, it's honestly disgusting that our society can stoop to this sort of low.

Shame on everyone who doesn't bother to accept, respect, and care about our fellow human beings (or really, any living being/ organism). Shame on everyone for doing nothing to stop these sorts of tragedies from happening.

To Autbot_Benz: Being discriminatory again, I see.

But then again, I didn't expect better from you.

Just please, take your unfiltered bigotry elsewhere, please! It's too repulsive, honestly. I couldn't even bother to quote your comments!

-----------------------------------------------

I would like to give my apologies and condolences to the individuals who were personally affected by this tragedy. Not one single person in the world deserves to lose their friends/ loved ones like this.

I would also like to apologize on behalf of people who make light of/ on topics such as these.

Have a good day.

I am not a bigot you easily triggered dunce. I was stating if we actually put as much effort with mentally unstable white guys who get guns and shoot up schools than about minorities some of this could be prevented. Now go back to your safe space and think before you say something

also we need to get rid of the AR 15 gun that was the one used in this and other shootings

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Or to put another way... there's Vulcans... and then there's the Vulcans who embrace Kohlinahr. Probably don't be like the latter.

Sure! And don't be the Vulcan security agents from Enterprise who were bombing Andoria and hiding their crap in a monastery... :tgrin:

[dl316bh]

lmOfcXlbv1U

So, how many more mass shootings before we start cracking down on men with a history of violence?

Kid was already identified by the school as a potential threat; he wasn't allowed on campus with a gun; other students said he had already been labeled as a probable shooter.

So... are we ever going to take this seriously?
Nothing's happening under this administration, so three to seven years. That goes for anything from gun control to mental health. The latter's just not an agenda with the current government - hell, they'd love to make it harder for anyone to get affordable anything in health care - and the former's always a crapshoot no matter what administration or political party you have. Sooner or later something is going to give, though, but what shape that takes is the question.

I realize that's a depressing answer to the question, but there's hope that, long term, something will change. Even if it's the very long term, but talking about that would take an hour.

The Associated Press‏Verified account @AP

BREAKING: Leader of white nationalist group has confirmed suspect in Florida school shooting was member of his organization.
Yup.

http://uproxx.com/news/nikolas-cruz-white-nationalist-militia/

Seems the source for that Allu Akbar Instagram was some shotty reporting from Infowars.
Even if it wasn't Infowars - I wouldn't believe them if their tongues were notarized - I'd have been dubious until it was absolutely confirmed. Certain outlets still try to push that whenever any shooting happens to the point I don't believe it until proven otherwise, just because there are still a lot of places that don't do enough due diligence until after the fact.

[plastroncafe]

Nothing's happening under this administration, so three to seven years. That goes for anything from gun control to mental health. The latter's just not an agenda with the current government - hell, they'd love to make it harder for anyone to get affordable anything in health care - and the former's always a crapshoot no matter what administration or political party you have. Sooner or later something is going to give, though, but what shape that takes is the question.



I don't think we need this administration to be involved in a solution.
Don't get me wrong, it'd be great to have their support, but...this is all stuff we could ostensibly combat on our own, within our own communities.

I was saying to someone else earlier today, I don't think people who don't know about a subject should be writing legislation about that subject. Regardless of subject. People who don't know the science aren't qualified to legislate on matters of science, and people who don't know about firearms are ill-equipped to legislate about firearms.

Any change from the Gun Fandom is going to have to come from within.
Just like any change that's going to come from American Masculinity is going to have to come from American Men.

This is their cue.
The stage is theirs.

[TurtleWA]

Oh, I'm not actually advocating for Vulcan lack of emotion or saying that anger itself is unnatural or wrong. But what is it and why is it? What do we choose to do with it or because of it?

Anger is the surface emotion so often a primary/core feeling is what is felt immediately before we feel anger. At least that’s what people say right. It could never hurt to help children as young as possible start to recognize these core feelings and learn to process them. Very interesting stat if true. “98 percent of the attackers experienced or perceived a major loss prior to the attack.”

https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/u-s-school-shooting-statistics-us/

[Papenbrook]

To Autbot_Benz:

Are you sure? You sure do act like one most of the time. I shouldn't be surprised, however.

Honestly, do you get your jollies off of tragedies like this? Are you really this selfish and entitled?

Wait, ... nevermind. I already know the answer.

To Everyone else:

Please, stop making this about you. Stop making this about your own personal views of reality and society.

Now's not the time.

[plastroncafe]

To Everyone else:

Please, stop making this about you. Stop making this about your own personal views of reality and society.

Now's not the time.

I respectfully disagree, now is exactly the time.

[Andrew NDB]

Any change from the Gun Fandom is going to have to come from within.
Just like any change that's going to come from American Masculinity is going to have to come from American Men.

This is their cue.
The stage is theirs.

All right, step aside... not on board with arming the teachers with a gun in a biometric lockbox in each classroom? Fine. Trained, armed guards in the schools, mandatory 2 at each doing constant sweeps of the perimeter. Let's get on it (nobody will, by the way, things will just be locked in a "Gun Control" stalemate with discussion that doesn't solve anything... the "Gun Fandom" will be blocked at every end from any solution that doesn't involve "let's take away more guns").

"But Columbine had armed guards... and 13 people died there!" <--- is a popular sentiment.

And that's true. But they invariably saved a ton more (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/armed-school-guard-at-columbine-saved-lives/).

A chance at saving lives vs. an absolute, 100% certainty of sky's-the-limit casualties when gunmen are let to roam school hallways uncontested while the police are still 20, 30 minutes away from even beginning to mount an offense... I don't think it's even a question.

[plastroncafe]

All right, step aside... not on board with arming the teachers with a gun in a biometric lockbox in each classroom? Fine. Trained, armed guards in the schools, mandatory 2 at each doing constant sweeps of the perimeter. Let's get on it (nobody will, by the way, things will just be locked in a "Gun Control" stalemate with discussion that doesn't solve anything).

"But Columbine had armed guards... and 13 people died there!" <--- is a popular sentiment.

And that's true. But they invariably saved a ton more (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/armed-school-guard-at-columbine-saved-lives/).

A chance at saving lives vs. an absolute, 100% certainty of sky's-the-limit casualties when gunmen are let to roam school hallways uncontested while the police are still 20, 30 minutes away from even beginning to mount an offense... I don't think it's even a question.

Cool.
How are you going to fund that?
And how are you going to fund the insurance for that. Because I'll be honest, a bullet fired from a gun used to protect me will injure me just as much as one fired at me to harm me. So you can be assured I'll be suing the pants of anyone I can to cover the costs of my medical bills.
And...when do those changes appear on your actual platform, when you actually run for political office?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

To Everyone else:

Please, stop making this about you. Stop making this about your own personal views of reality and society.

Now's not the time.

If not now, when?

Your "thoughts and prayers" are far more useless than debating an issue that isn't going away and trying to devise solutions.

We have the power of the vote. If we are not informed, we cannot vote for solutions and people who push said solutions.

So tell us, Purple Kraken... when?

[Andrew NDB]

Cool.
How are you going to fund that?
And how are you going to fund the insurance for that. Because I'll be honest, a bullet fired from a gun used to protect me will injure me just as much as one fired at me to harm me. So you can be assured I'll be suing the pants of anyone I can to cover the costs of my medical bills.

I agree there'd need to be insurance for that, probably on a federal level. That is one raise to taxes I would be happy to pay. No one could expect a student catching an accidental bullet to just be a "whoops!"

Much better than the alternative: "I sure hope that gunman doesn't pick my classroom door to kick in!" Because then you're dead for sure, not even a chance to hope to get accidentally winged by a security guard. Unless you're this man.

https://media.tenor.com/images/f08c38415d7c47d76d6e9c86fb4123ab/tenor.gif

[plastroncafe]

I agree there'd need to be insurance for that, probably on a federal level. That is one raise to taxes I would be happy to pay. No one could expect a student catching an accidental bullet to just be a "whoops!"

Much better than the alternative: "I sure hope that gunman doesn't pick my classroom door to kick in!" Because then you're dead for sure, unless you're Neo.

As a Federal tax? No, I'm not willing to pay that unless gun laws are leveled across the states. Unless that happens it should be a state by state endeavor.
If that's something that could happen, then maybe it should be under the National Guard's jurisdiction.

[Papenbrook]

I respectfully disagree, now is exactly the time.

You're using this time to be blissfully unaware, heavily indifferent, or even purposefully careless, about the struggles that individuals who are physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually different have within our society.

In fact, you are actively participating in the negative atmosphere that envelopes negative bias around these individuals. You are shrouding them with false stereotypes, microaggressions and misconceptions. You are even making them feel not only unwelcome, but unsafe as well. Please, stop.

[plastroncafe]

You're using this time to be blissfully unaware, heavily indifferent, or even purposefully careless, about the struggles that individuals who are physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually different have within our society.

In fact, you are actively participating in the negative atmosphere that envelopes negative bias around these individuals. You are shrouding them with false stereotypes, microaggressions and misconceptions. You are even making them feel not only unwelcome, but unsafe as well. Please, stop.

Which individuals are we talking about?
Just so we're on the same page.

[Andrew NDB]

As a Federal tax? No, I'm not willing to pay that unless gun laws are leveled across the states.

I'm OK with them being leveled first.

[Sumac]

Please, stop making this about you. Stop making this about your own personal views of reality and society.

Now's not the time.
OK, let's cry, be sad and do nothing.

Always solves all problems.

[plastroncafe]

I'm OK with them being leveled first.

That's going to be a hard sell to your fellow fans, who are all about a) smaller government, and b) not having to pay for government.
I wish you luck.

[Papenbrook]

If not now, when?

Your "thoughts and prayers" are far more useless than debating an issue that isn't going away and trying to devise solutions.

We have the power of the vote. If we are not informed, we cannot vote for solutions and people who push said solutions.

So tell us, Purple Kraken... when?

Well, Raph Attack, even if individuals were "informed about solutions" and "had the power to vote for solutions", it still wouldn't solve one of the most prevailing issues that society faces today: accepting, respecting, and caring for people who are physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually different and diverse.

Until that happens, I seriously doubt that society would improve.

Which individuals are we talking about?
Just so we're on the same page.

I'm talking about all of them.

Stop making light on such topics, please.

[Sumac]

You're using this time to be blissfully unaware, heavily indifferent, or even purposefully careless, about the struggles that individuals who are physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually different have within our society.

In fact, you are actively participating in the negative atmosphere that envelopes negative bias around these individuals. You are shrouding them with false stereotypes, microaggressions and misconceptions. You are even making them feel not only unwelcome, but unsafe as well. Please, stop.
Wow, it's like you are reading from a book "Left vocabulary for dummies".

Also, I don't see in this thread people going around saying some negative stuff about potential psychos, save for PC expected stint about "evils of men", which is not so much psychological issue, as social one.

If I understand you correctly you want to be sad about psychos killing people and...? What else exactly?

I'm talking about all of them.
Stop making light on such topics, please.
What exactly does it mean?
I don't see people here laughing about it, as well, as I don't see threads making light of psychological problems or whatnot.

It seems you just trying to find some reason to be offended on empty spot and can't find exactly why.
Can you be more clear with what exactly you want to say, without making useless general statements "we should be nicer to each other"?

[Papenbrook]

Wow, it's like you are reading from a book "Left vocabulary for dummies".

Thank you for your compliment.

Also, I don't see in this thread people going around saying some negative stuff about potential psychos, save for PC expected stint about "evils of men", which is not so much psychological issue, as social one.

If I understand you correctly you want to be sad about psychos killing people and...? What else exactly?

No. What I am trying to convey is that the vast majority of people are unaware, indifferent, or don't even care about the bigger realization.

The world is immoral, and it's getting worse by the minute. So many aspects of society have caused this tragedy, and yet many individuals only focus on/ pay attention to a few aspects.

Yes, the regulation of gun control, the socialization of hatred and anger, the corruption of the American governmental system, the protection of American schools and education, the prevention to bullying and discrimination, etc. - they are all important. However, it means absolutely nothing if people are only focusing on a few aspects, or ignoring the most important one. (I will admit, I'm guilty of this as well.)

It's depressing, honestly.

[dl316bh]

You're using this time to be blissfully unaware, heavily indifferent, or even purposefully careless, about the struggles that individuals who are physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and/or intellectually different have within our society.

In fact, you are actively participating in the negative atmosphere that envelopes negative bias around these individuals. You are shrouding them with false stereotypes, microaggressions and misconceptions. You are even making them feel not only unwelcome, but unsafe as well. Please, stop.
God dammit, I really didn't want to say anything about this...

Look. What do you even think you're doing, or what you're talking about is even doing? It's, realistically, as useless as "thoughts and prayers". "Don't talk about this, it's not the time" is something used to shut down actual discussions of symptoms and causes. It's great that you feel bad for victims and even the people with the mental issues that leads to this stuff, but what is that doing for anyone? It's not a zero sum game. Most people already realize that mental health is an issue contributing too and want that in conjunction. People can keep focus on more than one thing at a time.

I try not to say the obvious about these sort of things, or say "thoughts and prayers" or "feeling bad about the victims" or "the mentally ill are a problem too" partly because, yeah, no duh, of course I feel bad, I'm not a sociopath, partly because I'm tired of all this and partly because it feels as much "making it about me" as anything. It's more for feeling better about oneself than anything. It's outright stating an acknowledgement of things, so it doesn't feel like ignoring it, saying a nice sentiment, then moving on with life until the next one. The people affected sure aren't reading these comments anyway; at best, the only people who are are friends or strangers and unless spiritualism is involved we all know good vibes don't do jack. So who is it benefiting, other than making ourselves feel like we're not terrible people, because we didn't just ignore it? We did the bare minimum. It feels hollow to me.

We can send all the nice thoughts and sentiment we want, and feel bad for mentally ill people who do these things, but it's not going to change a thing and chastising people actually discussing the problems because reasons is about as useless. At least they want something to change. And yeah, talking about it is doing just as little, but dammit, this makes people mad and angry and frustrated because kids are f***ing dying and no one is taking even the most basic of steps to at least try to do anything about it, which would benefit the people dead a lot more than well wishes or thoughts. Maybe talking about it and getting worked up gets people to vote, and maybe something happens. I don't know. But it isn't any less useful than the alternative.

As a side note, even some of the survivors are angry and yelling "do something about this" on social media as well, so, you know, I doubt they'd be too upset.

I agree there'd need to be insurance for that, probably on a federal level. That is one raise to taxes I would be happy to pay. No one could expect a student catching an accidental bullet to just be a "whoops!"
Yeah, well, good luck with that, because even having the money to get counselors is gonna be real hard with the sort of budgets this admin wants, much less for armed guards or tax raises to pay for insurance.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/school-safety-cuts-trump-administration-348968?cmpid=sf

As a side note, I can remember being in high school, which is a high stress time and not the fun and games people use rose tinted glasses to think of it as. I can tell you one thing that would never have helped me feel better about the possibility of guns in my school, shooting at people, are guns on the premises all the time. And the way some teachers were - and are, in schools across the country - letting THEM have them sounds like an even worse idea.

It felt screwed up as it was when Columbine happened at the time I was in middle school, going into high school and suddenly my school was all but locked up tight during class hours on top of rule changes.

[Autbot_Benz]

so first Pappenbrook calls me a bigot and than says i get off on gun tragedies.
Hey Pappenbrook **** YOU worthless Pussy . Maybe if you and the Right would stop with the Thoughts and Prayers and actually did something we could help stop these tragedies

It wouldn't surprise me if Pappenbrook thinks the killer is misunderstood and would take his side

[plastroncafe]

The ideological purity your striving for is commendable, but in the end it's just not tenable.

Total War isn't possible. A person is limited the the number of battle fronts they're capable of fighting. And if I can be blunt for a moment, it's not your place to dictate to me what hills I should be defending and for how long.

I know my limits, you don't.
It's ablelist for you to assume, so please refrain from doing so going forward.

We were having a productive conversation, free of personal insults and disparagement prior to your engagement.

[Sumac]

No. What I am trying to convey is that the vast majority of people are unaware, indifferent, or don't even care about the bigger realization.

The world is immoral, and it's getting worse by the minute. So many aspects of society have caused this tragedy, and yet many individuals only focus on/ pay attention to a few aspects.

Yes, the regulation of gun control, the socialization of hatred and anger, the corruption of the American governmental system, the protection of American schools and education, the prevention to bullying and discrimination, etc. - they are all important. However, it means absolutely nothing if people are only focusing on a few aspects, or ignoring the most important one. (I will admit, I'm guilty of this as well.)

It's depressing, honestly.
So basically we should be like you - wallowing in depression and self-pity, bemoaning evils of society and at the same time doing and saying nothing, because, it potentially might offend someone.

Have fun then, my brave text warrior. I am sure, dead people will be very happy that some psychos were not offended. You know, it's much more important to not offend anyone, instead of saving lives.

By chance, have you escaped Demolition Man universe?

It wouldn't surprise me if Pappenbrook thinks the killer is misunderstood and would take his side
Actually it sounds like it might be the case.

[Papenbrook]

All right.

How about we address the bullying, discrimination, and outright demonization of people who are different a.k.a. not "normal"? Oh now, that might require some actual effort in our not so moral society?

How about we address the public safety of our schools? No, too expensive for capitalism.

How about we stop promoting violence, hatred, and anger towards each other? No, society's too "good" for that.

You know what's sad about the above? It's somewhat easier to apply those things in our society, but we are too selfish to even consider it.

[Redeemer]

*18th, sadly
If your'e are talking about the number school shootings that stats is misleading. I would be careful looking at information given who polarizing this topic is, especially bc people tend to mislead stats to push their agenda. One of the so called"school shootings" was an adult who committed scuicide in the parking lot, another was an accidental discharge of an officer's weapon. I will try to find the source to prove my point, but that stat is misleading. But regardless one school shooting is too many. :cry:

Because there was no shooting during Obama presidency, no sir.

How about not bringing your personal agenda into stuff like this?

This is not a republican or democratic issue imo. Obama had a super-majority congress in his first two years in office and could have passed a law for stricter gun control or probably could have wrote an executive order on the subject. Trump hopefully will do something, but I doubt it.

Also this guy passed a background check and legally purchased this gun...... Unfortunately.....

[plastroncafe]

"It wouldn't surprise me if they thinks the killer is misunderstood and would take his side."

This is something I'm interested in finding out.
What were his motivations?

Was this something he always wanted to do, but didn't have the skills?
Was it the radicalization by the white supremacist enclave inspired him?

We can put all the guns we want in our schools, but that's still only putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
We need to build a fence before the drop, and to do that we need to address what was going on with this kid.

The vast majority of these things are done by men/boys.
Why?

[dl316bh]

How about we address the bullying, discrimination, and outright demonization of people who are different a.k.a. not "normal"? Oh now, that might require some actual effort in our not so moral society?

How about we address the public safety of our schools? No, too expensive for capitalism.

How about we stop promoting violence, hatred, and anger towards each other? No, society's too "good" for that.
Yeah, that's wonderful and all, but that's all long term things society's already fighting over and even if it changed tomorrow, would also take a lot of time to settle in our society and have the necessary effects. It sure isn't going to immediately help the next seventeen kids to die. So, you know, you need long term solutions and short term.

As an aside, you're doing the same thing you bemoan - making it about you and your worldview and the like - with your list of what you think are the immediate problems and things that need to be fixed and you're topping it off by getting holier than thou about it, to the point where I just realized that four different people with different opinions, including myself, who are often at odds all over this forum all just agreed, so congrats on making history, I guess.

We can put all the guns we want in our schools, but that's still only putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
I'd argue it's more a gas tanker at the bottom.

[Redeemer]

What is happening now that it seems like there are so many school shootings?

I mean we have always had mental illness. We always had weapons. A person in the 1970s could have easily murdered an entire classroom with two pistols. Or used a hunting rifle as a sniper. If it’s because it’s always in the news and encourages copies I ’m not sure if I accept that because TV, radio and news papers have been popular for decades.

So what is going on? Is it really because of access to weapons, mental health and media?

I think they are just copying previous individuals who also carried out these crimes... imo Monkey see Monkey do sort of things. Columbine has been the calling mark and initial event that has given these people cause to commit mass shooting as well imo.

[Sumac]

Papenbrook, actually talks about solutions, instead "stop being mean"? What happened? A Moon eclipse?

How about we address the bullying, discrimination, and outright demonization of people who are different a.k.a. not "normal"? Oh now, that might require some actual effort in our not so moral society?
How not normal we are talking? Like some easily triggered nutcase who attacks people? I don't think anyone can be nice to those people.

Making people well adjusted in society is a responsibility of the parents and teachers. If they don't do their job - than it is mostly lost cause.

You know what's sad about the above? It's somewhat easier to apply those things in our society, but we are too selfish to even consider it.
"We are"? Collective responsibility is always the best answer ever. Who is at fault? EVERYONE! :roll:

As an aside, you're doing the same thing you bemoan - making it about you and your worldview and the like - with your list of what you think are the immediate problems and things that need to be fixed and you're topping it off by getting holier than thou about it, to the point where I just realized that four different people with different opinions, including myself, who are often at odds all over this forum all just agreed, so congrats on making history, I guess.
Precisely.
But when PB makes it about herself, it's all right for she is the holiest and most righteous and have vague answers for every problem in form "take hands and sing kumbaya".
But when someone dare to provide some thought - they are evil bigots who demonize psychos.

[Autbot_Benz]

Papenbrook,
But when someone dare to provide some thought - they are evil bigots who demonize psychos.


THANK YOU

https://i.imgur.com/XStlm3o.gif

[dl316bh]

I think they are just copying previous individuals who also carried out these crimes... imo Monkey see Monkey do sort of things. Columbine has been the calling mark and initial event that has given these people cause to commit mass shooting as well imo.
That's at least part of it and Columbine is probably the flashpoint, but I don't think it's just copycat stuff. Mass shootings, in and out of schools, have exploded in recent years. I suspect that, over time, people just realized it's a hell of a lot easier to wreck havoc with guns, especially given how lax the country is with them, than bother with things like car bombs or the like anymore. That along with the usual societal issues that have simply compounded over time.

[Papenbrook]

The ideological purity your striving for is commendable, but in the end it's just not tenable.

Total War isn't possible. A person is limited the the number of battle fronts they're capable of fighting. And if I can be blunt for a moment, it's not your place to dictate to me what hills I should be defending and for how long.

I know my limits, you don't.
It's ablelist for you to assume, so please refrain from doing so going forward.

We were having a productive conversation, free of personal insults and disparagement prior to your engagement.

No. You were having a prejudiced conversation about people, and you were somewhat assuming of them as well.

Just so you know, anyone can be oppressed and be the oppressor at the same time. No one is safe to it, myself included. Mind you, that doesn't make us terrible people. We just have to be aware of it, and try to reprimand ourselves.

I know what the shooter did was awful and simply inexcusable. I hope he gets properly reprimanded and punished severely for his terrible actions that he willingly committed.

I hope that the victims and their loved ones will be comforted from this tragedy. I hope that people will take the into consideration.

However, every single time a tragedy like this happens, I hear the same whispers of "gun control", when it's more than just that. Truth be told, this forum became an echo chamber. It's really uncomfortable.

As someone who has a brother whose autistic, a mother with depression, and who herself has issues of social anxiety and depression, it all just got to me. People were making too many ableist microaggressions that I couldn't just ignore.

So, I apologize if I hurt your, or anyone else's feelings. I wasn't being considerate. I hate myself for it. I really do.

Autbot_Benz: May I hope you find peace.

[plastroncafe]

No. You were having a prejudiced conversation about people, and you were somewhat assuming of them as well.

Just so you know, anyone can be oppressed and be the oppressor at the same time. No one is safe to it, myself included.

I know what the shooter did was awful and simply inexcusable. I hope he gets properly reprimanded and punished severely for his terrible actions that he willingly committed.

I hope that the victims and their loved ones will be comforted from this tragedy. I hope that people will take the into consideration.

However, every single time a tragedy like this happens, I hear the same whispers of "gun control", when it's more than just that. Truth be told, this forum became an echo chamber. It's really uncomfortable.

As someone who has a brother whose autistic, a mother with depression, and who herself has issues of social anxiety and depression, it all just got to me. People were making too many ableist microaggressions that I couldn't just ignore.

So, I apologize if I hurt your, or anyone else's feelings. I wasn't being considerate. I hate myself for it. I really do.

Autbot_Benz: May I hope you find peace.

No.
Try again.
And try harder next time.

Have a nice evening.

[Papenbrook]

No.
Try again.
And try harder next time.

Have a nice evening.

I don't understand, but if I did, I would attempt to be civil with you.

Thank you.

[Andrew NDB]

It felt screwed up as it was when Columbine happened at the time I was in middle school, going into high school and suddenly my school was all but locked up tight during class hours on top of rule changes.

I just realized... you're not Dan Slott. For some reason I remember you popping up in the Dan Slott thread where Dan Slott himself appeared... and somehow I merged you two in my mind.

Almost a year, I've been thinking you're Dan Slott.

[GoldMutant]

Well, it's been one whole month, eh? At this point, I'm in semi-retirement with the drome. Okay, let's see how to tackle this...

First off, Aaron Feis, the coach, alongside Geography teacher Scott Beige, did a brave thing. Their sacrifices were noble and I wish the school board the best for the future after this.

Secondly, there needs to be greater gun control in the future. I know it's idealistic on "guns are bad!" but in a scenario like this, I will never get why the hell a shooter would attack students. It's situations like this is why students in public or private schools, mine included, where the students need to act seriously. Honestly, I've dealt with classmates who act out of line; they'll feel bad for what transpires, but sometimes never learn. It needs to get added to a curriculum, or at the least, teach basic defense, especially if problems like this continue to grow.

As for Cruz, the discussions on the news all fall together: some "troubled" man goes ballistic, attempts to, or actually, kills people and proceeds to beg while in court. Nearly the same thing over and over. We all talk about gun control as a serious, rather subjective, topic point. I have to ask, for I could use some information, "How is it difficult to address, and solve gun problems?" I hope Cruz rots because even if troubled, it's merely frustration now.

To add my own two cents: just ban certain weapons like this that can be a definite threat. You can keep a weapon as protection, like a pistol or something of that caliber. However, unless licensed in some way, get rid of the rapid-fire weapons unless in the military. People like Cruz who can easily access this only endanger lives, not protecting themselves.

At this point, I'm at a portion of my life where though I follow some news, I'm not overly familiar. Consider this a reason I popped in for the first time in a while.

(And cue the thread going up in smokes too.)

[Papenbrook]

No, scratch that.

In the future, probably a thousand years from now, I hope individuals will start to develop the understanding of complex things going on within society. And not be a bunch of discriminatory bigots who utterly refuse to stop being indifferent, careless, unaware, or pretend that only their view is the "right/ moral" view, as that will comprise their fear of losing their precious echo chamber(s).

Autbot_Benz: At this point, I'm done being nice to you. If society isn't kind, then why should I be to you?

You honestly act like some forgettable troll who goes to a hate group and participates in their rallies.

It's so pathetic, really. Surrounding yourself in hatred. It's disgraceful.

[Andrew NDB]

However, unless licensed in some way, get rid of the rapid-fire weapons unless in the military.

They already are. Have been for a long time now.

[GoldMutant]

They already are. Have been for a long time now.

Thank you for clarifying, Andrew. I definitely need to do some research on topics like this going forward.

[Papenbrook]

I just made myself, and probably others, feel depressed. I hate myself.

I wish I didn't exist. I make everything worse for myself and others.

[TurtleWA]

If outlawing guns is truly the answer to once and for all stop the murder of all students at schools. Well I think all guns need to be outlawed. Because even if you only have a gun that holds say six bullets you have two hands so two guns with twelve bullets total. And in a small setting such at a classroom that is potentially twelve dead. Yeah 17 won’t die like in Florida but if we still allow the other guns are we saying 12 dead is acceptable. All or nothing’s is not always healthy thinking but with guns it should be all or nothing imo.

[dl316bh]

Almost a year, I've been thinking you're Dan Slott.
I like Spider-Man just fine, but not nearly enough to spend eight years writing it twice monthly.

Nah, I'm not anyone special. This did get a laugh out of me, regardless.

I just made myself, and probably others, feel depressed. I hate myself.

I wish I didn't exist. I make everything worse for myself and others.
Well, this hits a little close to home.

All I can say is maybe try and put a little distance from this, or at least this thread. Dwelling is not mentally healthy. If that feels like running away or trying to ignore it to make yourself feel better, it's not. We process these things how we can. What's been going on here, the back and forth, it's not going to make you feel better, or anyone feel better. Frankly, we're all just pissing in the wind here anyway, trying to make sense of yet another shooting and work through it. Because what else can we do?

If outlawing guns is truly the answer to once and for all stop the murder of all students at schools. Well I think all guns need to be outlawed.
I don't think you even really need to go nearly that far. Maybe regulate ammunition, put protections on that and monitor them. Might make murder cases easier for police to boot. I don't know.

[plastroncafe]

I don't think you even really need to go nearly that far. Maybe regulate ammunition, put protections on that and monitor them. Might make murder cases easier for police to boot. I don't know.

If memory serves Chris Rock had a pretty spectacular bit about that.

[Papenbrook]

Well, this hits a little close to home.

All I can say is maybe try and put a little distance from this, or at least this thread. Dwelling is not mentally healthy. If that feels like running away or trying to ignore it to make yourself feel better, it's not. We process these things how we can. What's been going on here, the back and forth, it's not going to make you feel better, or anyone feel better. Frankly, we're all just pissing in the wind here anyway, trying to make sense of yet another shooting and work through it. Because what else can we do?

I'm so sorry. I just ... felt so passionate, yet I acted to ignorantly.

What I was trying to say was, we should condemn the shooter, but we shouldn't use ableist/ discriminatory language to do it. It demonizes people who are actually physically, physiologically, emotionally, mentally, and/or intellectually different.

I guess I should've made it clear from my first post.

Also, I agree with the original poster. If we can't regulation the usage of fire arms, then maybe we shouldn't have them at all.

[dl316bh]

If memory serves Chris Rock had a pretty spectacular bit about that.
Really now? I only know the guy from Osmosis Jones and Madagascar. I don't think I've ever listened to any of his stand-up. This bit online anywhere?

I'm so sorry.
I can't speak for anybody else, but as far as I'm concerned, no harm, no foul.

[plastroncafe]

Really now? I only know the guy from Osmosis Jones and Madagascar. I don't think I've ever listened to any of his stand-up. This bit online anywhere?

Spoiler cut: Language, and content.
OuX-nFmL0II

[dl316bh]

Spoiler cut: Language, and content.
OuX-nFmL0II
Okay, that's some funny s***.

[TurtleWA]

I don't think you even really need to go nearly that far. Maybe regulate ammunition, put protections on that and monitor them. Might make murder cases easier for police to boot. I don't know.

With premeditated acts I don’t think regulation would help. It’s super easy to make ammunition yourself. More simple than making illegal drugs. Maybe if the components for manufacturing ammunition was also regulated that could help. But again maybe not. Some cold medicine is regulated because it’s used to make meth. Meth is still a big time issue impacting a lot of people. I could see 3d printing technology advancing very quickly if guns and ammunition are outlawed. People would home brew weapons with new technology or the current methods.

[plastroncafe]

Okay, that's some funny s***.

I think about this every time someone brings up Gun Control.
And given our current climate, that means I think about this a lot.

I should really just cut to the chase and rewatch all his old stuff.

Some cold medicine is regulated because it’s used to make meth. Meth is still a big time issue impacting a lot of people. I could see 3d printing technology advancing very quickly if guns and ammunition are outlawed. People would home brew weapons with new technology or the current methods.

It's my understanding that most of the meth we have in this country isn't made here anymore, and yet we still have restrictions on Sudafed, because...the legislative process is inherently slower than how the world tends to work.

I mean, we had one guy try to blow up a plane with his shoe years ago, and we're still taking our shoes off at the airport.
Or you can pay the country out of pocket to do a background check, and then you can keep your shoes on.
Which...just sounds like a shake down to me.

[dl316bh]

Maybe if the components for manufacturing ammunition was also regulated that could help.
That sort of thing would definitely be packaged in.

I should really just cut to the chase and rewatch all his old stuff.
Clearly, I need to watch some more of his work.

[TurtleWA]

Maybe better and less stigmatized mental health programs could help? I dunna...

I’m all for better. Now what that looks like is a completely different thread.

[ProphetofGanja]

Papenbrook, even if your phrasing was a little lacking I agree with what you've been saying.

Shoddy reporting!?

I'll have you know, you uninformed liberal woman, that Alex Jones is the only hero brave enough to warn us about how THEY TURNED THE FRIGGIN' FROGS GAY!!!!

I heard a crazy theory that Alex Jones is a cloned and/or brainwashed Bill Hicks. If you want to go down that rabbit hole you can find a whole lot of allegations about the military-entertainment complex online, demonic cults and sex rituals and systematic child abuse and CIA-sponsored drugging and brainwashing. Creepy to even wonder about. Either it's real and there are super ****ed up people out there doing all these things, or its fake and there are super ****ed up people out there believing in or making up these crazy things. Either way, super ****ed up.

If you're talking about the number of school shootings that stat is misleading. I would be careful looking at information given how polarizing this topic is, especially bc people tend to mislead stats to push their agenda. One of the so called "school shootings" was an adult who committed suicide in the parking lot, another was an accidental discharge of an officer's weapon. I will try to find the source to prove my point, but that stat is misleading. But regardless one school shooting is too many. :cry:

Oh word? Thanks, yeah context for statistics is always important. But yeah, still too many

This is not a republican or democratic issue imo. Obama had a super-majority congress in his first two years in office and could have passed a law for stricter gun control or probably could have wrote an executive order on the subject. Trump hopefully will do something, but I doubt it.


Nothing will change until the carefully laid plans call for change

[sdp]

Sadly I think it has become a part of the culture, that's why the US is the only place where this is an alarming problem and not isolated cases. It's basically almost impossible to stop at this point.

That doesn't mean it can't be controlled a little better and yes more restrictions should pass and likely will pass because eventually even the gun nuts will realize it's out of control even if it still takes a long while longer. This is very much so a political issue since it's what's stopping any legislation to get passed.

It's a scary time to go to school in the US right now since you never know. My school had plenty of crazy anti-social people who didn't care about anything and were just wasted youth but school shooting culture wasn't a thing yet, not in the levels that it is now. I still remember the first few years after colombine many of my classmates would not go to school on the anniversary because there was always fear it could happen again on that day and we would have police in the school that day.

[TurtleWA]

“Latest school shootings psychology study uncovers patterns suggesting solutions.“

Eric Madfis, an Associate*Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Washington, Tacoma, argues that there’s a tendency for the mass media to portray school shootings as pointless, random and motiveless tragedies*when they are not.
Instead, Eric Madfis argues in his investigation entitled, "In Search of Meaning: Are School Rampage Shootings Random and Senseless Violence?"*that clear patterns emerge.

For example, his review of the evidence uncovers that most school rampage shooters formulate plans at least two days before launching their attack.
Eric Madfis’ analysis, recently published in the Journal of Psychology, finds that many school shooters develop and fantasize about their schemes for weeks or even months before executing them. For example, the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, invested more than a year elaborately organizing their attack.

Madfis’ examination of thwarted school rampage attacks also found extensive planning, including "hit lists" and even "do not kill" records, suicide notes, maps of schools with attack tactics drawn on them, plots on social media websites, and inquiries into previous rampage shootings.
Strategies even included details such as who was to be purposely saved and meticulous plans for what order events should evolve on the day itself.
Eric Madfis dismisses the popular depiction of mass shootings as the result of someone out of the blue “snapping” and committing violence on a spur-of-the-moment.

Extensive planning indicates that rampage attacks serve purposes. These also fall into clear repeated patterns, including vengeance, infamy seeking, a need for a sense of macho power, often with a background of long-term internal discord and interpersonal defeats.
The alleged perpetrator of the Florida school shooting, Nikolas Cruz may seem at first glance to violate the idea of patterning of school shootings, as he was 19 years old and had in fact, it is so far reported, left school, and it appears was attending adult education classes, and apparently had a job at a local dollar store.

But a study entitled, "Economic insecurity and the rise in gun violence at US schools", examined school shootings between 1990-2013, finding that the rate of gun violence heightened from 2007 to 2013. *
The research, published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, found periods of increased shooting rates are significantly correlated with increases in unemployment rates.*
For some particularly insecure kids, the disturbance*of replacing*the relative security of*school or college, with*the scarily unknown world of unemployment,*when the economy nose-dives, possibly*becomes too much.*

It's been reported that*Nikolas Cruz was adopted, but*that his adoptive parents had both died, his adoptive mother passing relatively recently. In these circumstances maybe his last school represented a*kind of surrogate family which was particularly unbearable to lose?
Since 2007*more shootings have been occurring at colleges, maybe because*a college education is no longer a guarantee of employment.*
A*breakdown in*the school-to-work transition is also more likely to affect whites whose graduation rates have historically been higher.
The authors of this study, a team of academics from Northwestern University, led by Adam Robert Pah and Luis Amaral conclude that increasing uncertainty in the school-to-work transition contributes to school shootings.

Eric Madfis points out that mass murder is the only form of homicide in the U.S. that is committed by non-Hispanic whites in numbers disproportionately high relative to their share of the population.
Not all school rampages have been committed by whites. Oregon’s Umpqua Community College shooter was biracial, the Red Lake Senior High School killer was Native American, the Virginia Tech shooter was Korean American, and the shooter at the Tasso da Silveira Municipal School was Brazilian. But the majority of rampage killers have been white.
Eric Madfis also points out that school rampages also reveal a clear pattern in terms of the types of communities and schools which suffer from them most frequently.
While the majority of American school gun violence generally occurs in urban areas, rampage school shootings are much more likely to occur at suburban and rural schools in less populated, less diverse communities, located in more socially and politically conservative neighborhoods.
International school rampages also follow this pattern, occurring more often in small towns or villages with tightknit communities.

The humiliating closeness and pressure to conform in small towns might therefore be implicated, particularly as attacks tend to take place where the school staff and student body are intolerant of differences, when issues of bullying and marginalization are not addressed by the school culture.

Another possible emerging pattern is an educational environment of punitive zero tolerance which might discourage students from confiding in trusted adults when they hear crucial information about impending threats of violence.
This last point of school culture opens the door to changes which may represent the best chances of preventing these future tragedies, as those who know most about students are classmates. The most valuable intelligence sources on future perpetrators are not teachers or parents, so how to educate the student body to better screen and inform?
Just as mistakes in preventing*terrorist outrages have been diagnosed as intelligence failures, are school shootings analogous predicaments?
Intelligence agencies like the CIA have encountered difficulty garnering information from foreign communities they have struggled to infiltrate, so the problem of school shootings could partly be framed as a similar issue around intelligence gathering.
Getting a better sense before someone ‘cracks’, of who is most vulnerable, might require a closer relationship between the authorities and the student body.
While we know little as yet of the alleged perpetrator, Nikolas Cruz, it does appear that he was adopted, which could in itself be a difference which might become a target for ostracism or bullying.
He has now been described by former classmates talking to the press as "weird" and a "loner". He had apparently been expelled from the high school for "disciplinary reasons", and was also apparently told he couldn’t bring a backpack on campus.
Students at the school have been talking to various media with reported comments such as; "everyone predicted" the shooting, "Honestly, a lot of people were saying it was gonna be him."
Classmates have also been telling various news stations that kids at the school "joked around" that Nikolas Cruz would be the one to "shoot up the school".
Another student has indicated that the suspect is "troubled", while a further comment from a fellow student seems particularly apposite; "how tired he was of everyone picking on him and the staff doing nothing about it".
That there is something about school culture which needs addressing is further hinted at by a study entitled, "Alone and adrift: The association between mass school shootings, school size, and student support",*investigating*twenty-two mass school shooting incidents*between January 1995 and June 2014.
Schools where mass shootings occurred had significantly higher on average student numbers.

The research, published in The Social Science Journal also found*students who committed mass school shootings were significantly more likely to have previously attended a school with a smaller student body and/or a lower than state average student-teacher ratio.
The authors, psychologists Abigail Baird, Emma Roellke and Debra Zeifman from Vassar College*conclude that transitioning from a smaller, more supportive school to a larger, more anonymous school may exacerbate pre-existing psychological difficulties among potential school shooters.
Eric Madfis argues that the huge media attention school rampage attacks inevitably attract, distorts public perception over the true likelihood of these events. For example, he quotes statistics that compared to their homes and the streets, in the USA, schools remain the safest places for young people.

Eric Madfis points out the risk of homicide for school-age youth is roughly 226 times greater outside of school than at school, while only about 1 in 2 million school-age youth will die from homicide or suicide at school each year, and furthermore, that any given school can expect to experience a student homicide about once every 6,000 years.

Yet media coverage may be inadvertently be delivering a psychological trap, a cycle that makes a school shooting more likely.
Because these rare but devastating events are often used to justify heightened punitive school discipline including more zero tolerance policies, such as automatic suspensions, expulsions, and arrests.
This may be driving a wedge between the authorities and the community of students that are being ever more "policed" and "punished", with adverse consequences in terms of building relationships which would produce the valuable intelligence needed to stop future attacks.
The reality is there has long been a "generation gap" with adult authorities struggling to understand youth culture and sub-cultures with devastating mistakes as a result.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/slightly-blighty/201802/clues-the-mind-florida-school-shooter%3famp

[Sumac]

TL;DR
Parents and teachers should spent more time to look out for their kids and help them.
Geee...Such a novel and previously unknown concept.
Sigh.

What I was trying to say was, we should condemn the shooter, but we shouldn't use ableist/ discriminatory language to do it. It demonizes people who are actually physically, physiologically, emotionally, mentally, and/or intellectually different.
What is this "ableist" language you are talking about and where it was used in this thread?

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

videogames

The discission continues:

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/kentucky-gov-blames-video-games-for-florida-school-shooting-w516826

At least, he didn't call for a ban.

[Jester]

My wife and I were discussing this and maybe "locking down" schools so that anyone going in or leaving has to speak to a guard who has to buzz the door to let them in/out. It's how the local Children's Hospital's ER let's people in. You see the guard, they run you through a detector and even wand you if needed, then you're cleared. It might not be ideal, but if it can stop someone from getting the opportunity to even get in the building.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

My wife and I were discussing this and maybe "locking down" schools so that anyone going in or leaving has to speak to a guard who has to buzz the door to let them in/out. It's how the local Children's Hospital's ER let's people in. You see the guard, they run you through a detector and even wand you if needed, then you're cleared. It might not be ideal, but if it can stop someone from getting the opportunity to even get in the building.

Off the top of my head, an immediate question is: "How quickly can you evacuate through that kind of choke-point in the case of emergency?"

[Jester]

Off the top of my head, an immediate question is: "How quickly can you evacuate through that kind of choke-point in the case of emergency?"

You mean a fire or the like? Give teachers or other staff the ability to open side doors.

[plastroncafe]

Southern Poverty Law Center is sending out Corrections that the shooter was linked to a white supremacist organization. Apparently the dude who claimed he was is kind of an attention hore.

So any and all motivational reasons are back on the table.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You mean a fire or the like? Give teachers or other staff the ability to open side doors.

Cool. I figured there would be easy solutions, but my mind refuses anything except a mental image of like a giant Death Star corridor with Stormtroopers at every checkpoint. :tlol:

[Refractive Reflections]

Shoddy reporting!?

I'll have you know, you uninformed liberal woman, that Alex Jones is the only hero brave enough to warn us about how THEY TURNED THE FRIGGIN' FROGS GAY!!!!

Actually that claim about the frogs is not too far off:


A commonly used pesticide known as atrazine can turn male frogs into females that are successfully able to reproduce, a new study finds.

While previous work has shown atrazine can cause sexual abnormalities in frogs, such as hermaphroditism (having both male and female sex organs), this study is the first to find that atrazine’s effects are long-lasting and can influence reproduction in amphibians.

The results suggest that atrazine, which is a weed killer used primarily on corn crops, could have potentially harmful effects on populations of amphibians, animals that are already experiencing a global decline , said study author Tyrone B. Hayes of the University of California, Berkeley. Atrazine is banned in Europe.

And since atrazine interferes with the production of the sex hormone estrogen, present in people and frogs, the findings could have implications for humans as well. "If you have problems in amphibians, you can anticipate problems in other animals," Hayes said.

https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs-females.html
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.html?programID=11-P13-00001#feature7

[Andrew NDB]

What explains US shootings? This article has theories.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Huh, I guess the mass executions of 100 plus million Russians and Chinese during this period by their own government during peace time aren’t relevant? I mean, it’s not like unarmed citizens of those countries had to fear near genocide because they couldn’t defend themselves from murderous despots who enslaved their countries and ran them with an iron fist of utopian vision of peace and love... no wait, that’s exactly what happened: the disarmed their citizens then slaughtered them in mass... but hey what’s the cost of 100 million people so long as you get to force other people to live the way you want right?

[PApagreg]

What explains US shootings? This article has theories.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Huh, I guess the mass executions of 100 plus million Russians and Chinese during this period by their own government during peace time aren’t relevant? I mean, it’s not like unarmed citizens of those countries had to fear near genocide because they couldn’t defend themselves from murderous despots who enslaved their countries and ran them with an iron fist of utopian vision of peace and love... no wait, that’s exactly what happened: the disarmed their citizens then slaughtered them in mass... but hey what’s the cost of 100 million people so long as you get to force other people to live the way you want right?

Well its a good thing barely anyone in this country wants to ban guns huh Andrew. Great job with the strawman.

[plastroncafe]

I kind of love the notion that the average Joe with a gun could fend off a coordinated military attack.

It's quaint.

[Sumac]

I kind of love the notion that the average Joe with a gun could fend off a coordinated military attack.

It's quaint.
Still more chances than fighting attackers with kitchen knife.

On the other hand, if someone attempted to give every Russian citizen a gun...it would've turned into bloodbath. Mostly for the same reasons why school shootings occur.

[Mayhem]

The only contribution to the argument about gun control coming from me is that the UK hasn't had a mass shooting since banning handguns, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since banning handguns, and in countries such as Switzerland and Finland that have relatively high legal firearm ownership, there generally are not any mass shootings. The USA is the only country where this tends to happen. Part of the solution has to come from understanding why, irrespective of whether you believe there should be tighter controls on guns or not.

It's not as if it's a new phenomenon either, it has been happening in the country for decades. The only defining change is the rate in which it has been happening, at an accelerated level especially in the last ten years. Can that be explained by mental illness? Probably not. Constant sensationalist news coverage (spurred onwards by 24/7 news channels and social media), a desire to be recognised (respect is earned not automatically conferred), copycats, and individualistic ("me me me") culture where people want what others have but cannot get, can certainly be considered as factors.

Most firearm homicides occur with handguns. However eight of the deadliest US mass shootings ever have involved automatic/semi-automatic rifles either in part or in whole (especially the incidents in Orlando and Las Vegas). Does the average citizen really need such a weapon to defend themselves? Jury is out on that one...

[PApagreg]

The only contribution to the argument about gun control coming from me is that the UK hasn't had a mass shooting since banning handguns, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since banning handguns, and in countries such as Switzerland and Finland that have relatively high legal firearm ownership, there generally are not any mass shootings. The USA is the only country where this tends to happen. Part of the solution has to come from understanding why, irrespective of whether you believe there should be tighter controls on guns or not.

It's not as if it's a new phenomenon either, it has been happening in the country for decades. The only defining change is the rate in which it has been happening, at an accelerated level especially in the last ten years. Can that be explained by mental illness? Probably not. Constant sensationalist news coverage (spurred onwards by 24/7 news channels and social media), a desire to be recognised (respect is earned not automatically conferred), copycats, and individualistic ("me me me") culture where people want what others have but cannot get, can certainly be considered as factors.

Most firearm homicides occur with handguns. However eight of the deadliest US mass shootings ever have involved automatic/semi-automatic rifles either in part or in whole (especially the incidents in Orlando and Las Vegas). Does the average citizen really need such a weapon to defend themselves? Jury is out on that one...

In Switzerland virtually all males have to take part in the miltia which means they have to have comprehensive training when it comes to firearms also when Swiss militia members complete their service they are allowed to keep their weapon once they've been approved for an acquisition permit and can prove they have justification for having it. Private ownership of guns, along with ammunition, is also allowed under an acquisition permit with certain restrictions, including against those with criminal records and history of addiction and psychiatric problems. So basically virtually every gun hey Swiss person has is registered by the government.

As for your last question on whether or not a average citizen needs an AR 15 to defend themselves I personally say no. I'm okay with citizens owning guns such as rifles, pistols and shotguns and I'm also okay with conceal or open carry but I'm sorry I don't see why an average person needs an AR-15. Also I think we need to make it harder for people to buy guns.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I kind of love the notion that the average Joe with a gun could fend off a coordinated military attack.

It's quaint.

You underestimate the Redneck Militia and the devastation of a Shiner Boch Molotov Cocktail.

Just wait'll we secede. In 2020 or 2024, depending on when a Democrat gets back into office.

[plastroncafe]

You underestimate the Redneck Militia and the devastation of a Shiner Boch Molotov Cocktail.

Just wait'll we secede. In 2020 or 2024, depending on when a Democrat gets back into office.

Dude, we've BEEN waiting! For like, literal years!
Because when you lot break away, Mass and Vermont can join Canada!

[TurtleWA]

Still more chances than fighting attackers with kitchen knife.

You assume a little maybe that without guns people would pick up a knife to fight. Not everyone wants to fight though. With a gun or knife. Some have instinct to hide or play possum. In Florida one parent told their child to “play dead.” In that situation probably a smart move.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/florida-school-shooting-text-message-scanner-2018-2

[Candy Kappa]

As for your last question on whether or not a average citizen needs an AR 15 to defend themselves I personally say no. I'm okay with citizens owning guns such as rifles, pistols and shotguns and I'm also okay with conceal or open carry but I'm sorry I don't see why an average person needs an AR-15. Also I think we need to make it harder for people to buy guns.

If anyone needs a firearm as AR-15 for home defense they gotta be a really crappy shooter though, and doesn't take the responsibility to be able to aim and fire their weapon accurately with any ounce of respect.

Seems more it's a weapon to have lying around on the off chance when a homeintruder do happen you can finally live out your Rambo Macho Fantasy and use "self-defense" as a excuse to spray your home full of bullets and maybe hit whoever entered your home. Red bandanna and baby oil included.

Someone that actually knows guns, knows how guns work, respect the destruction a firearm can and will do, should be able to defend their home which is most likely a closed and narrow space to begin with, use a handgun.

[plastroncafe]

I know jack-all about guns, again because being someone with a mental illness that's had a history of suicidal ideation means I keep away from them for my own safety, but from what I understand this particular weapon that everyone's fighting over is the firearm equivalent of a cool toy.

[dl316bh]

from what I understand this particular weapon that everyone's fighting over is the firearm equivalent of a cool toy.
The AR-15? As far as I'm aware, it's basically a semi-automatic variation of an M-16. It's a weapon designed to kill people. So it's no surprise it's frequently used in mass shootings.

[Andrew NDB]

6 reasons your right wing buddy is never going to budge on gun control:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/

Seems about right. Not perfect, but close.

[Candy Kappa]

6 reasons your right wing buddy is never going to budge on gun control:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/

Seems about right. Not perfect, but close.

Wow, that person is creepy.

[dl316bh]

It seemed somewhat reasonable as far as these sort of articles go right up until the last two - and at least it admits that they don't come to the table in good faith - but that's a whole thing I don't feel like talking about right now.

I genuinely wish second amendment defenders put as much time and effort into defending the fourth too. Maybe then we could get back to a place where getting on an airplane isn't a gigantic hassle where you show them everything but your privates (and they might even see those with some of the machines they have).

[Andrew NDB]

I know, I know, this is Fox News, but this is a little concerning. Unless we're assuming this shooting survivor is a liar:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/22/fl_school_shooting_survivor_cnn_told_me_i_needed_t o_stick_to_the_script_they_scripted_entire_town_ha ll.html

[The Deadman]

Apparently the school cop went outside and hid the entire time this was happening, and then ended up retiring when he was suspended. I also came across a Twitter thread in which someone did some research into why the cop never engaged the shooter and he apparently uncovered a thing in where students are immune to being arrested.

https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/966854507744374784

[plastroncafe]

Got a pull quote, Andrew?
I'm not really inclined to give that site more ad money with a click.

[Andrew NDB]

Got a pull quote, Andrew?
I'm not really inclined to give that site more ad money with a click.

"COLTON HAAB: So what had happened was four days ago I had gotten contacted by a lady named [State of the Union executive producer] Carrie Stevenson from CNN. She had asked me originally to just write a speech. It was going to be at the town hall at the BB&T Center [in Sunrise, Florida]. So I agreed. I felt like it would be the right thing to do. Be able to go speak my part as well as open eyes to a few things that I thought that can make this situation a little better. From there, three days ago, so the next day after that I had gotten an email back from her and she asked for more of questions rather than a speech. Which I was totally fine with so I wrote a little less of a speech and more of questions that I wanted to ask at the town hall. The day after that it was more of just questions. She asked for just questions that I would like to ask."

"So, I gave her my questions and then yesterday, at about 5:15, I made contact with her. And she had asked if I had just asked her one question. So what they had actually done was wrote out a question for me because in my interview with CNN, I had talked about arming the teachers, if they were willing to arm themselves in the school to carry on campus. And they had -- she had taken that of what I had briefed on and actually wrote that question out for me."

"I mean, honestly, it was very shocking to me because we just went through such a horrific tragedy. For them to take that and now make such a big newscast over what they want to hear, it was very upsetting to me," Haab answered.

[dl316bh]

http://www.businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-survivors-family-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2?r=UK&IR=T

CNN says that Stevenson and Colton agreed on one question that Colton would ask, but that Haab's father, Glenn Haab, intervened, sending a lengthy speech (see below) that he wanted Colton to read, which included three questions for lawmakers.

Stevenson responded that the speech was "way too long" and that Colton "needs to stick" to the question they agreed on. Glenn then responded that he and his son "are not actors" and that Colton would not participate in the town hall if he could not read the full speech.

On Friday afternoon, Fox News and the HuffPost reached out to CNN to verify emails between the Haabs and Stevenson that they received from Colton.

A CNN source provided Colton's version of the emails, as well as their versions of all of the communications between the Haabs and CNN, to Business Insider.

In CNN's version of one email, Stevenson told Glenn that Colton needed to stick to a question that he and Stevenson "discussed on the phone that he submitted." But in the version of the email provided by Colton to Fox and HuffPost, the phrase, "that he submitted" is deleted.

According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.

So, basically, he sent a question, it was agreed on, Dad sent a lengthy speech instead, CNN said "yo, we want to get the questions in quick, it would be best for him to stick to what we agreed", Dad didn't like that, sent edited correspondence e-mails to Fox News and the Word document with them says they were last edited by the Dad.

[The Deadman]

I'm laughing at the fact that theyre blaming video games for this, because we all know once you pick up a controller to any console, that means you're a homicidal maniac.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Only against aliens, terrorists, evil dictatorships, or fantasy monsters.... (Death to all Orcs, ISIS, Covenant, and Imperial Troops!)

[PApagreg]

I'm laughing at the fact that theyre blaming video games for this, because we all know once you pick up a controller to any console, that means you're a homicidal maniac.

Well that does explain why Japan has one of the highest mass shootings.

[The Deadman]

This kid is trying way too hard to get his name out there at this point

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/26/parkland-shooting-survivor-vows-not-return-school-unless-gop-passes-gun-control/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I get he's a survivor and it's still tragic what happened but he's being way too involved in the media and is coming off like a crisis actor

[Candy Kappa]

Ah. So a young person that gets politically after a terrorist attack is a "crisis actor", guess we have a lot of "crisis actors" here in Norway after 22. July, although the kids where already members of Norway's Labor Party Juniors, so i guess that don't count.

Cause "crisis actor" is a term for a young person that gets politically active after being a victim of a massacre, right? And not a ****** derogatory term to undermine a person's actions and wants to enact change so said massacre(s) won't happen again, cause that would be pretty scummy to use.

[dl316bh]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/we-studied-thousands-of-anonymous-posts-about-the-parkland-attack---and-found-a-conspiracy-in-the-making/2018/02/27/04a856be-1b20-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.8d06e0813463

This explains a fair amount of the confusion surrounding the whole thing and just kind of solidifies that certain parts of the internet are a total sewer.

This also happened, which is another reason "arming teachers" is a terrible plan.

https://uproxx.com/news/georgia-teacher-arrested-shots-fired-high-school/

I get he's a survivor and it's still tragic what happened but he's being way too involved in the media and is coming off like a crisis actor
A former student walked in and shot up his school. The government has done next to nothing about mass shootings - it's not even just school shootings - despite the fact that they've been on the rise. He has every right to be pissed and get active. You don't get anything done or help bolster awareness by fading to the background and letting the whole thing die away.

[Andrew NDB]

This also happened, which is another reason "arming teachers" is a terrible plan.

Whether or not there is official "we're arming teachers now" legislature... that particular teacher still would have brought his gun to school regardless because that's what he set out to do that morning. That wouldn't have stopped this incident, not remotely.

And "arming teachers" can be a bad plan, it can even be a "terrible plan"... though so far it appears to be the only plan being bandied about (and I say that loosely, no one is seriously looking into it) in official channels that has even the smallest, most infinitesimal chance of preventing actual, in-progress school shootings. Everything else is, "Ban on all scary, yet imaginary 'assault rifles'! I don't care if they pose the same risk as pistols, we can get to those, too after this when the next school shooting comes around!" "Pre-crime! We can stop... eh, some of these before they happen... maybe! Let's make healthcare more affordable for 17 year-olds to admit themselves!" "Let's make it a little more difficult to get guns! If we can't stop school shootings, maybe we can delay them a little, or make them somewhat more inconvenient for the gunmen!" <---- none of these things address protection for our children during actual shootings. Which will happen again.

And just sitting there going, "You can't arm teachers! That's a stupid plan!!!"... really? It's kind of like, arguing with someone who says, "I disagree with you," (it could be on anything) without offering their own opinion to counter. I mean, what's your better plan to protect students during actual shootings, if you're going to sh** on my plan?

*Note: I'm not saying let's arm teachers. There are better, less... difficult alternatives. But that could work.

[plastroncafe]

Ah. So a young person that gets politically after a terrorist attack is a "crisis actor", guess we have a lot of "crisis actors" here in Norway after 22. July, although the kids where already members of Norway's Labor Party Juniors, so i guess that don't count.

Cause "crisis actor" is a term for a young person that gets politically active after being a victim of a massacre, right? And not a ****** derogatory term to undermine a person's actions and wants to enact change so said massacre(s) won't happen again, cause that would be pretty scummy to use.

Apparently it's not even a new tactic.

After any major attack, you are likely to find in some dark corner of the internet conspiracy theories that the survivors or victims made it all up or were part of a troupe of paid “crisis actors.”

Such theories emerged after the massacres in Las Vegas in October; at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in 2016; and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in 2012. It happened again this month, after 17 people were killed in the school shooting in Parkland, Fla.

Those conspiracy theories have been amplified in the internet age, but they are a part of a long, troubled history of dismissing the voices of those seeking change.

“This theme that anyone agitating for change must be either an outside agitator or must have been paid or put up to it is one that runs throughout American history,” Kevin M. Kruse, a history professor at Princeton University, said in a phone interview.

Conspiracies of this kind quickly circulated about the Florida shooting, with one top-trending YouTube video suggesting, falsely, that one of the survivors was a hired actor. The video’s caption tapped into the idea that student protesters were paid to advocate gun control, and Mr. Kruse pointed his followers on Twitter to a decades-old analog: In 1957, civil rights supporters had to dispel rumors that nine black children seeking to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., were being paid for their activism.

That strategy of dismissing protest as being funded or imported by outsiders was commonly used during the civil rights movement to minimize racial tension or brush aside genuine demands for equality.

After Orlando Shooting, ‘False Flag’ and ‘Crisis Actor’ Conspiracy Theories Surface JUNE 28, 2016

After Florida School Shooting, Russian ‘Bot’ Army Pounced FEB. 19, 2018
“It’s a perennial theme of segregationists that this activism is not sincere, that it’s not Americans advocating for their own rights but rather it’s a scam,” Mr. Kruse said.

‘Crisis Actor’ Isn’t a New Smear. The Idea Goes Back to the Civil War Era. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/us/crisis-actors-florida-shooting.html) (new york times)

[Utrommaniac]

Kind of like how "fake news" is just "yellow journalism" under a new name.

Dick's Sporting Goods, meanwhile, is stopping the sale of "assault style" weapons and will no longer sell guns to anyone under the age of 21.

And now...my list of reasons why arming teachers is a bad idea


Not every school can afford to arm their teachers
Not every teacher can afford to even manage upkeep guns, let alone by them
Not every teacher is physically or mentally equipped to be trusted with gun
Adequate training takes a very long time
EVERYTHING that happens to Jordan Klepper here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCI4bUk4vuM). Training is strenuous, it doesn't guarantee being prepared for an active shooter, the chances of shooting a student on instinct, being mistaken for the shooter by the authorities and getting shot at by them...
Regardless of the rules, there are teachers who will more than likely threaten their "out of control" students with their gun or even actually use them.
Schools shouldn't have to be made into potentially warzones so students can safely learn...and such an environment would be likely to make them anxious. Because it's not like our teenagers have enough anxiety as it is from all their schoolwork.

[Andrew NDB]

Dick's Sporting Goods, meanwhile, is stopping the sale of "assault style" weapons and will no longer sell guns to anyone under the age of 21.

I'm wondering how that last part is supposed to work. If you're 20 years old and perfectly legal to own guns, you walk into Dick's... they tell you "No, sir, I can't sell you any guns"? How is that not discrimination? How is it much different from saying, "We refuse to sell guns to African Americans" or "We refuse to sell guns to men with mullets"?

And just sitting there going, "You can't arm teachers! That's a stupid plan!!!"... really? It's kind of like, arguing with someone who says, "I disagree with you," (it could be on anything) without offering their own opinion to counter. I mean, what's your better plan to protect students during actual shootings, if you're going to sh** on my plan?

And now...my list of reasons why arming teachers is a bad idea


Not every school can afford to arm their teachers
Not every teacher can afford to even manage upkeep guns, let alone by them
Not every teacher is physically or mentally equipped to be trusted with gun
Adequate training takes a very long time
EVERYTHING that happens to Jordan Klepper here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCI4bUk4vuM). Training is strenuous, it doesn't guarantee being prepared for an active shooter, the chances of shooting a student on instinct, being mistaken for the shooter by the authorities and getting shot at by them...
Regardless of the rules, there are teachers who will more than likely threaten their "out of control" students with their gun or even actually use them.
Schools shouldn't have to be made into potentially warzones so students can safely learn...and such an environment would be likely to make them anxious. Because it's not like our teenagers have enough anxiety as it is from all their schoolwork.


OK, you don't like that plan. What's your alternative plan to stopping in-progress school shootings?

[Candy Kappa]

I'm wondering how that last part is supposed to work. If you're 20 years old and perfectly legal to own guns, you walk into Dick's... they tell you "No, sir, I can't sell you any guns"? How is that not discrimination? How is it much different from saying, "We refuse to sell guns to African Americans" or "We refuse to sell guns to men with mullets"?

Isn't the age restriction for buying alcohol in the US 21? If anyone under 21 isn't considered mature enough to buy beer, why would fire arms be any different?

[Utrommaniac]

I'm actually in agreement with your hypothetical suggestions.

Having some more restrictions on gun access (not selling to anyone under 21, selling at specific places that aren't Bass Pro Shops or Dick's Sporting Goods), make it a little more difficult for strangers or expelled students to enter a school without notice (most schools already have a policy that parents need to stay in the front office if they are picking up a student or dropping something off for them), making it easier and cheaper for underage people to admit themselves for medical care or mental health care, have a strikes system with the police and FBI if they are constantly getting reports on someone's sketchy behavior that might cause reason to fear a mass shooting - especially if they're getting constant tips, remove restrictions for on-campus police that caused the Parkland Officer to not do anything when a shooting is happening. All or most of those things.

As for in-progress shootings, I'm of the "Everyone attack the shooter with everything you've got" mentality. Especially if it happens to be in crowded areas. I had administrators who would probably have attempted to take down a shooter with their bare hands - and one who I would bet on being successful.

But teachers aren't going to be ready for a shooter most of the time - especially if it's their classroom that's entered first. Before they can even get to their weapon, the attacker is already firing. So it would be up to a second - or maybe third or fourth - teacher to do the job and by that point, most of a classroom has probably been wiped out.

[plastroncafe]

Isn't the age restriction for buying alcohol in the US 21? If anyone under 21 isn't considered mature enough to buy beer, why would fire arms be any different?

We let folks join the military and have guns at 18 here, but they can't legally drink until 21.

There are some hotel chains that won't rent rooms to folks under 21.
And most rental car places won't rent to someone under 25.

If someone's that buttmad about not being able to get a gun from Dick's Sporting Goods at the age of 20, they can always enlist in the military. Not only will they get a gun, but they'll get paid to carry it.

[Andrew NDB]

Isn't the age restriction for buying alcohol in the US 21? If anyone under 21 isn't considered mature enough to buy beer, why would fire arms be any different?

The restriction for buying alcohol at 21 is dumb. If you're adult enough to be able to be drafted and die in a war (which is 18 ), why in the hell can't you have a drink? And if we're to say, "At 18, you're not responsible enough to have a drink"... why is that? This wasn't always the case. This seems like a societal issue. I mean, we can sit here as a country and go, "OK, we've decided 'adult' is now 21, we're moving it from 18," that's pretty chickensh** but... OK, at least that would make sense.

As for in-progress shootings, I'm of the "Everyone attack the shooter with everything you've got" mentality. Especially if it happens to be in crowded areas. I had administrators who would probably have attempted to take down a shooter with their bare hands - and one who I would bet on being successful.

I can respect that but... yikes. That sounds like the end of "The Last Samurai." And that's not really a "plan" at all.

But teachers aren't going to be ready for a shooter most of the time - especially if it's their classroom that's entered first. Before they can even get to their weapon, the attacker is already firing. So it would be up to a second - or maybe third or fourth - teacher to do the job and by that point, most of a classroom has probably been wiped out.

Maybe... but by that scenario, now that "third or fourth teacher"'s classroom won't be the gunman's next stop. Lives saved, as opposed to "free reign for the gunman."

But this just sounds like another reason why you don't like the "let's arm teachers" thing. What's your plan, then? Yes, during an actual, in-progress shooting. Really, just "everyone, chaaaaaarge the gunman!"?

[Utrommaniac]

Yeah, pretty much, actually.

It's a tactic called ALICE. Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate.

If someone goes into a school with a gun, at least a few people are going to be hurt or die before retaliation can happen. No matter what, a shooter is going to get a taste of what they want. Until they become too distracted by a storm of whatever everyone else can grab.
Attacking a shooter is going to buy time for others to escape, make it harder for him to shoot, and give someone a chance to knock him to the ground by whatever means.

Shooters have to focus while they are firing, so also leaves them wide open for someone to tackle them. Hopefully by a quarterback. Or more liable to not notice someone coming at them with a desk. Or people from the surrounding area shoving him to them ground because they're too distracted by what's in front of them. They go in expecting their victims to run from them, not fight back. There's no sport in potential victims who attacks you.

Most of all, remembering my high school experiences on attack drills, we were told to hide, and I thought that was dumb. Even then, I preferred the notion of fighting back rather than being a sitting duck. A few of my classmates would most certainly have charged a shooter, I think (and I would bet money that one of the administrators could take down a shooter with her bare hands). I felt safer with a teacher who said "if the door barricade fails, throw everything you've got" over hiding behind a foam wall in a gym -- it didn't help much that the gym was pretty isolated from the rest of the school.


Plus, the tactic of "everyone cram into a corner in a dark room" isn't the best either.

The only way I can think of arming teachers as working is if the shooter comes into a classroom first thing and doesn't attack the teacher first - which considering that they're the first line of defense, would be the case. And, while they're too distracted by the students throwing **** at them instead of hiding under their desks, shoot his elbow off. But that's provided that the teacher can actually aim a handgun. Which doesn't fire as fast as an AR-15.

[mrmaczaps]

Which doesn't fire as fast as an AR-15.

Wrong. An AR15 fires at the same rate as a handgun. One pull of the trigger is one single shot. Fact.

[dl316bh]

What's your better plan to protect students during actual shootings, if you're going to sh** on my plan?

*Note: I'm not saying let's arm teachers. There are better, less... difficult alternatives. But that could work.
You got a lot out of one sentence and I'm surprised that you took it to mean I was targeting you in particular when this has been a thing the current administration actually tried to bat around a bit. I can assure you I'm not.

You probably already know what my plans are from how I post, so I don't know why you're asking. You're a gun guy, so most anything I'd say would already be a non starter. I don't go in depth or really go after anyone on the whole thing aside from obvious things, because, frankly, the "discussions" never go anywhere, no one convinces the other and at this point it's just more productive to do other things, because lets be real, even if anyone ever won an online disagreement, it doesn't exactly fix or solve anything.

But, because I haven't talked about the why and that may have led you to think my pithiness is just being snarky or a dick, I might as well talk about why arming teachers is not a solution in a bit more depth.

- Where's the money come from? School budgets are slashed as it is and the current administration wanted to discuss slashing funds that would go to trauma counselors when this went down. Are we suddenly going to make teachers go buy guns out of their salaries, pay for training and so forth, like some schools make them do for some basic supplies? We don't pay these people enough as it is and act like they're ungrateful when they ask for the means for a better living.
- Some teachers are frequently treated like crap and put in high stress situations. Videos have floated around of teachers threatening students, or others using racial slurs against them. Putting a gun within reach, or at least easily accessible, is just asking for trouble. Sure, the vast majority won't do anything, but there are people who will and all it takes is for one to flip out with a gun nearby to create a huge incident that leaves us not just back where we started, but with all new problems.
- Teachers want nothing to do with it. We're asking them to be educators, protectors and then trained to kill. They now have to look at their students differently, because they have to be able to shoot them if necessary, which changes the relationship and puts both a wall and distance between them. It has to change the relationship, because you're talking about shooting a kid, one you may have taught, who you now have to be able to coldly shoot.
- Teachers are not even trained to deal with an active shooter situation to begin with. Even if they are, that tends to go out the window the first time under fire anyway. There's a difference between training for something and actively dealing with a stressful situation. In this hypothetical scenario, you don't get an action movie hero, you get a scared, nervous teacher who probably locks up even with a gun, can't aim right due to fear, tension and stress, is likely to get themselves killed and might even hurt someone else.
- Students then have to deal with the knowledge teachers have guns on premises. That changes the relationship there too. There's fear involved - especially if crappy teachers with issues are a reality - and it makes things even more contentious. Most kids/teens don't like their teachers as it is, or want to even be in school. I remember after Columbine when my school was practically locked down after that happened. I won't be so dramatic as to say it felt like prison, but it did change the feel and that's the LEAST you can do. Plus, kids have a way of getting into things in schools, which is a problem if guns are on hand.
- A lot of cops don't like the idea either, because it muddles things. They go into an active shooter situation, who is the good guy here? Who is the bad guy? If the suspect is down and they go in, they see someone with a gun, they shoot that guy? It makes their job harder and they're trained to do it. And yeah, there were cops on scene who didn't go in, but that's the reason one resigned and the PD is on blast; because it was their jobs to go in, they didn't, so there are consequences.
- This probably just changes the shooters targets a bit. Now they know to prioritize the teachers. They also know other guns are on campus, if they go to the school maybe even where. Most of these people are disgruntled former students, potentially with axes to grind or people they hate in the school, so they're not really going to go anywhere else just because guns are there. Hell, most mass shootings end of the shooters volition, usually suicide. They go in there knowing they're going to die already. Guns won't deter them.
- This does absolutely nothing to change the larger problem. This one was a school shooting, but those aren't even the majority. Nightclubs, restaurants, churches, concerts and so on have been shot up a lot in the past few years. So it's a stopgap procedure that just throws more guns on top of guns and does little for the overall issue.

So, in practice, it's an idea that creates a slew of new problems that are long term and affect day to day in a school for the off chance that a school is raided and that teachers can even conceivably do something. The slightly less crap option is something like security guards, but that's only slightly better because that opens a slew of other problems such as the same issue of where the money comes from, who is being hired (let's be real, probably private security who don't give a damn) and others. There's also that anxiety again for students; guards hired to stop school shootings won't give a crap about the students and will probably treat them all like potential shooters, because that's the mindset they'd likely need to be able to shoot them. But then... someone with a gun was on the premises and it still did jack, because they did not go in. Three others were nearby and they did nothing. It's likely a fear response.

I'm not sure what the answer is or what else you can do in occasions when it happens. Maybe, after locking classrooms down, using fire escape windows to get kids outside and try and get out from there while he's f***ing around in the halls? I'm not sure. But that doesn't mean arming teachers is a good idea, which you even seem to think it isn't judging by the tail end there. In fact, it's unlikely to make anything better and likely to make everything else about school life far worse.

Whether or not there is official "we're arming teachers now" legislature... that particular teacher still would have brought his gun to school regardless because that's what he set out to do that morning. That wouldn't have stopped this incident, not remotely.
It was more an illustration of why giving teachers, people in high stress environments who deal with a lot of garbage kids, access to guns on campus will eventually backfire massively, not directly related to this particular school shooting. It didn't warrant its own thread and, frankly, each successive shooting thread kind of becomes the catch-all for these discussions in my head, until the next one pops up.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, pretty much, actually.

It's a tactic called ALICE. Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate.

If someone goes into a school with a gun, at least a few people are going to be hurt or die before retaliation can happen. No matter what, a shooter is going to get a taste of what they want. Until they become too distracted by a storm of whatever everyone else can grab.
Attacking a shooter is going to buy time for others to escape, make it harder for him to shoot, and give someone a chance to knock him to the ground by whatever means.

Shooters have to focus while they are firing, so also leaves them wide open for someone to tackle them. Hopefully by a quarterback. Or more liable to not notice someone coming at them with a desk. Or people from the surrounding area shoving him to them ground because they're too distracted by what's in front of them. They go in expecting their victims to run from them, not fight back. There's no sport in potential victims who attacks you.

I admit, that's a viable plan. However "let's train students to sacrifice themselves so that other students can live" might be an even tougher sell than armed teachers.

I still say if you're going to arm teachers... lockbox in classrooms where in classrooms that have a trained teacher in them. Biometric lock.

The only way I can think of arming teachers as working is if the shooter comes into a classroom first thing and doesn't attack the teacher first - which considering that they're the first line of defense, would be the case.

There would be other teachers.

[plastroncafe]

Wrong. An AR15 fires at the same rate as a handgun. One pull of the trigger is one single shot. Fact.

Do we know if a slide-fire was in play?
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute (http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_ fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html) (slate)

[dl316bh]

Do we know if a slide-fire was in play?
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute (http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_ fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html) (slate)
I assume not, since I think it would have come up if one was used. Sort of like how bump stocks were brought up a lot in the wake of the Vegas shooting.

[Papenbrook]

I apologize if I come across as selfish, but I'm worried about my little brother.

My brother is a(n) high school student who happens to be both black and autistic. Even though he's legally an adult, he still has to attend high school for career lessons/ job prospects.

This makes me fear for his safety. I don't want my brother to be targeted by other students, teachers, or even the police force. He is already stressed enough.

[Jester]

Do we know if a slide-fire was in play?
This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute (http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_ fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html) (slate)
"You generally bump fire from your hip, and you can’t really aim the rifle, which makes the technique kind of frivolous. If your fingers don’t work and you can’t squeeze a trigger, bump firing is a godsend. Otherwise, bump firing is only useful if you want to waste a lot of ammo fast."
I apologize if I come across as selfish, but I'm worried about my little brother.

My brother is a(n) high school student who happens to be both black and autistic. Even though he's legally an adult, he still has to attend high school for career lessons/ job prospects.

This makes me fear for his safety. I don't want my brother to be targeted by other students, teachers, or even the police force. He is already stressed enough.
Maybe this will help:
"The chances of any particular K-12 school in the United States experiencing a shooting incident in any given year is approximately 1 in 53,925."

[Andrew NDB]

You probably already know what my plans are from how I post, so I don't know why you're asking.

No plan, in other words.

*for the record, I wasn't thinking you were referring to me, no. Nor was I referring to you.

But, because I haven't talked about the why and that may have led you to think my pithiness is just being snarky or a dick, I might as well talk about why arming teachers is not a solution in a bit more depth.

As almost every anti-gun person is wont to do these days. "WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM??" "Here is why arming teachers WON'T work!!! We can't afford it, where is the money coming from?" "WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?? Not that I'm going to bother to look into where it could come from... but WHERE???" "blah blah blah..." I'm assuming something among those lines? That's all I see from the liberals on Facebook.

- Where's the money come from?

Ah-hah!

So what's your actual plan?

I'd be a much bigger fan of, as mentioned before, diverting bullsh** police ticket patrols to have a bigger presence in schools, or retired vets, or what-have-you, than teachers... but arming teachers (the exact details or # is a separate matter), or at least entertaining the idea, would constructively offer SOME kind of defense during a shooting in progress as opposed to spending lots of calories explaining why we shouldn't do this or couldn't do that, or bothering to come up with any kind of actual alternative.

Don't we all actively want to figure out a way to save lives DURING shootings? Or are those lives just written off until all the guns are gone and the agenda is sated?

I'm not sure what the answer is or what else you can do in occasions when it happens.

Oh, that's abundantly clear. At least you're being honest about it, unlike a lot of folks here.

Maybe, after locking classrooms down, using fire escape windows to get kids outside and try and get out from there while he's f***ing around in the halls?

You know, you almost inadvertently stumbled upon a viable solution... right there.

Call me crazy but... some kind of bulletproof panic room(s)? Maybe? In the schools?

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?

[TurtleWA]

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?

Do they still have age restrictions on buying video games with “M” rating? Isn’t that weird too. I mean a 16 year old can get a drivers license and drive an actual car down the road. But can’t purchase a video game that might have a virtual car if it also has mature content and corresponding rating.

However 16 is a minor so I can somehow understand the restriction being tolerated. But 18 is technically an adult. An adult old enough to vote and pay taxes. Strange a store can refuse to sell to an adult if it’s not a state or federal law such as liquor.

[dl316bh]

*for the record, I wasn't thinking you were referring to me, no. Nor was I referring to you.
Maybe not, but you're practically bleeding sarcasm and passive aggressiveness in this post for no real reason, and that's definitely directed at me.

Ah-hah!

So what's your actual plan?
A gotcha? Really? You're latching onto one point to dismiss the rest of them. You basically frame your post as waiting for the big liberal reason of "the money", then move on to the part with that and use it as an excuse to skip everything else, then try to frame the whole thing as, because no one's offering any alternatives, this must be a good idea, even if there are a dozen reasons it's not.

I'd be a much bigger fan of, as mentioned before, diverting bullsh** police ticket patrols to have a bigger presence in schools, or retired vets, or what-have-you, than teachers... but arming teachers (the exact details or # is a separate matter) it would constructively offer SOME kind of defense during a shooting in progress as opposed to spending lots of calories explaining why we shouldn't do this or couldn't do that, or bothering to come up with any kind of actual alternative.

Don't we all actively want to figure out a way to save lives DURING shootings? Or are those lives just written off until all the guns are gone and the agenda is sated?
Cops and veterans, people with combat experience or at least training, say this is a bad idea that would likely cause more problems than it solves. I don't know what else to tell you. Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean do any idea, especially one that will create a load of new problems and probably just make things worse during actual active shooter incidents.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/nypd-commissioner-arming-teachers-isnt-a-good-idea/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/police-experts-urge-intensive-training-if-teachers-are-armed
http://nhpr.org/post/local-swat-commander-arming-teachers-bad-idea#stream/0
https://www.buzzfeed.com/verabergengruen/combat-veterans-think-arming-teachers-is-a-really-really?utm_term=.rdxoRg7wKQ#.twPXW4E92G
https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/opinion/parkland-shooting-army-training.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/20/were-combat-veterans-we-support-the-students-demanding-gun-reform/?utm_term=.628303713018

I'm not the biggest fan of the police, but if these sort of situations aren't what they're for, why bother having them anymore? So okay, if you need a viable alternative to be able to call this a bad idea, posting cops seems like the least worst. At least that's their job, which they signed on for. A teacher shouldn't have to carry that burden if you absolutely think guns are going to solve a shooting in progress.

Call me crazy but... some kind of bulletproof panic room(s)? Maybe? In the schools?
That's far from the worst idea and far better than arming teachers. How would they work it though? One big one? Small ones for each classroom? Schools would practically have to be rebuilt for the second, but it provides the best chance of minimizing deaths.

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?
The same way it was legal to restrict the same age group as far as alcohol goes, I guess. They're not discriminating over sex, gender, or so on, which is the major difference. It's an age thing, which already has a basis in a lot of other restrictions, like the aforementioned alcohol or waiting for sixteen to get permits and attempt for drivers licenses. Few really argue that kids shouldn't have certain things, what people debate are the cut-offs.

Whether they can, if sued, is a matter for courts to figure out, but matters like what to sell or rules implemented are typically left to businesses to decide, probably for reasons like fear of setting precedents that could cause trouble in other areas, and we know businesses basically own America.

[Coola Yagami]

Sidenote: I'm sure many of you have been reading about the stores announcing they will cease carrying "assault-style" rifles. That's one thing, that's fine... they can carry whatever they want or don't want to. But... they've also announced they will stop selling guns -- any guns -- to adults between 18-20.

Can someone fill me in how this is legal and not discriminatory? Seems like they'd get sued pretty quick. How is this much different than that baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple, who got sued?

Because it's age related, and not because the customer is of a certain race or sexual orientation? WTF is someone that age gonna need a damn 'assault-style' rifle for anyway?

[Andrew NDB]

Because it's age related, and not because the customer is of a certain race or sexual orientation?

How is that relevant if the person is an adult, and the law says that person is 100% legally able to buy it?

WTF is someone that age gonna need a damn 'assault-style' rifle for anyway?

The same thing as a 30 year-old would, or a 70 year-old, probably.

[PApagreg]

How is that relevant if the person is an adult, and the law says that person is 100% legally able to buy it?



The same thing as a 30 year-old would, or a 70 year-old, probably.

Hence why people are trying to change the laws so the average American or a 18-25 year old can't by an AR-15.

[Andrew NDB]

Maybe not, but you're practically bleeding sarcasm and passive aggressiveness in this post for no real reason, and that's definitely directed at me.

Maybe so. And you don't deserve that, by the way... you're generally a pretty straight-up guy in all of the exchanges we've had.

A gotcha? Really? You're latching onto one point to dismiss the rest of them. You basically frame your post as waiting for the big liberal reason of "the money", then move on to the part with that and use it as an excuse to skip everything else, then try to frame the whole thing as, because no one's offering any alternatives, this must be a good idea, even if there are a dozen reasons it's not.

Well, it was "off-topic" to me. I posed what is a solution -- any solution -- to an in progress shooting, and you're sitting there rattling off ways one particular one won't work. Which I've seen everywhere... ad nauseum.

Cops and veterans, people with combat experience or at least training, say this is a bad idea that would likely cause more problems than it solves. I don't know what else to tell you. Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean do any idea, especially one that will create a load of new problems and probably just make things worse during actual active shooter incidents.

No, but I would hope it would mean we should immediately divert all energies to constructive talks about actually viable options rather than diverting 100% of all energies to talking about why certain ones won't work and just beating that drum over and over again in any outlet. Which is what is happening.

I'm not the biggest fan of the police, but if these sort of situations aren't what they're for, why bother having them anymore? So okay, if you need a viable alternative to be able to call this a bad idea, posting cops seems like the least worst.

We need a viable anything to give kids in schools even a slim fighting chance during a shooting. Even 5% is better than 0%. It's not about me.

I'm a dad. I have a horse in this race.

At least that's their job, which they signed on for. A teacher shouldn't have to carry that burden if you absolutely think guns are going to solve a shooting in progress.

You're not wrong. And while I'm more than willing to concede the point on armed teachers in schools in favor of any better ideas that come along... I really don't see a problem with teachers who are OK with packing, are trained, have a concealed license, being allowed to do so in classrooms. For every hypothetical "w-w-w-well, what if a student takes their gun?" "w-w-w-what if the teacher goes crazy and kills students?" "w-w-w-what if the teacher overreacts and kills students?"... which are crazy scenarios, by the way... there, again, is the 100% certainty that a gunman running roughshod in a school has 100% free reign to shoot whoever they want, however much they want for about 20+ minutes. Without anything new in place, that is.

That's far from the worst idea and far better than arming teachers. How would they work it though? One big one? Small ones for each classroom? Schools would practically have to be rebuilt for the second, but it provides the best chance of minimizing deaths.

Every school is different architecturally. Just off the top of my head... some kind of thin space between walls behind reinforced whatever? To where everyone in the classroom can cram in there like sardines, completely uncomfortably (and probably unsurvivably for anything longer than 20-30 minutes... but that's really all the time they need to buy) but still completely safe?

The same way it was legal to restrict the same age group as far as alcohol goes, I guess. They're not discriminating over sex, gender, or so on, which is the major difference. It's an age thing, which already has a basis in a lot of other restrictions, like the aforementioned alcohol or waiting for sixteen to get permits and attempt for drivers licenses. Few really argue that kids shouldn't have certain things, what people debate are the cut-offs.

Whether they can, if sued, is a matter for courts to figure out, but matters like what to sell or rules implemented are typically left to businesses to decide, probably for reasons like fear of setting precedents that could cause trouble in other areas, and we know businesses basically own America.

On a more careful look at this I tend to think these stores are only looking at their bottom line. They have to run IDs when someone buys. They know who is buying what. Are 18-20 year-olds REALLY buying that many guns at Dick's, across the board, vs. other age groups? No? So it won't hurt our bottom line much? AND we get to ride the current political/media current? Awesome. Let's do it.

I've seen at least 3 posts on FB today about people saying, "I wasn't shopping at Dick's before, but now I will! Way to go, Dick's!" or some variation of this. Maybe this is actually pretty savvy. And guess what? The little guy gun stores who have been muscled out by the bigger fish like this for a while now? Compare it to the mom and pop convenience stores selling household sundries before Wal-Mart comes in. Win-win. Win for Dick's, win for actual gun stores.

[Mayhem]

I'm glad the proposal about arming teachers in schools is voluntary, because it won't force anyone who doesn't want to do it, from having to do it. However I can still see some further problems along the line...

1) Shooters going to schools will thus target teachers first, to both eliminate the counter threat, and to obtain more weapons/ammo.

2) While the teachers should know most of the other teachers in the school, the cops are not, and thus if they see someone with a gun, they may well shoot first, ask questions later (and there are enough news reports of that!).

3) Assume you are the actual shooter, and the police point a gun at you, what's to stop you from claiming you are a teacher and looking for the shooter, allow the police to claim your weapon and then escorted out the school? And then... well, to freedom... until the police realise down the line that was the shooter and then begins the person hunt (I use person as a non gender reference here, but it's almost always "man").

4) Given the way police has been in the last few years, are you really going to want to be a black teacher holding a firearm?!


I'm wondering how that last part is supposed to work. If you're 20 years old and perfectly legal to own guns, you walk into Dick's... they tell you "No, sir, I can't sell you any guns"? How is that not discrimination? How is it much different from saying, "We refuse to sell guns to African Americans" or "We refuse to sell guns to men with mullets"?
Not much different from two 18 old kids from Alabama going to Mississippi and not being allowed to get married (the minimum age there is 21!).

Or really, being allowed to swear in public, but then getting it censored if you post the same content on a privately owned forum or chat board... their house, their rules.

[plastroncafe]

All of those are good reasons for why we should be attempting a multi-faceted approach to this problem.
Yes, responsible gun owners actually being responsible for both their weapons and their Community is one facet, but we still have to address the latent entitlement held by the people perpetrating the violence in the first place.

But unfortunately something like that takes a lot more work and effort on everyone's part, and so that's probably the main reason why the sort of violence will continue.

[joe-eyeball]

I'm glad the proposal about arming teachers in schools is voluntary, because it won't force anyone who doesn't want to do it, from having to do it. However I can still see some further problems along the line...

1) Shooters going to schools will thus target teachers first, to both eliminate the counter threat, and to obtain more weapons/ammo.

I’m going to say this is probably an unlikely scenario because by doing this could severely limit the perpetrators desire to do maximum damage in that wasting time searching for armed teachers could limit how many people they target. Plus do criminals go to local police stations to kill the cops that could prevent them from committing their crimes?

2) While the teachers should know most of the other teachers in the school, the cops are not, and thus if they see someone with a gun, they may well shoot first, ask questions later (and there are enough news reports of that!).

Again this one may be unlikely as many of these programs of arming teachers requires extensive training and working with the police so it’s also unlikely that this scenario would occur. I’ll admit collateral damage is always a possibility but statistics don’t support that it’s a high likelihood. There are districts in Ohio that are arming teachers and the teacher that volunteer are vetted and go through extensive background checks as well as monthly training with current and former police personnel.

3) Assume you are the actual shooter, and the police point a gun at you, what's to stop you from claiming you are a teacher and looking for the shooter, allow the police to claim your weapon and then escorted out the school? And then... well, to freedom... until the police realise down the line that was the shooter and then begins the person hunt (I use person as a non gender reference here, but it's almost always "man").

Again probably not likely as the school would be on lockdown and their would be plenty of witnesses to point the finger in the right direction. Also, the overwhelming majority of these spree killers go out in a blaze of glory and aren’t likely to think that quickly on their feet to get out of there in that manner. Anyway this scenario you describe would stop the shooter from killing any further at that point in time. In nearly all of these “mass shootings” the killer is either shot by others or kills themselves when met with equal force!

4) Given the way police has been in the last few years, are you really going to want to be a black teacher holding a firearm?!

You may have a point here!!!

[Andrew NDB]

Not much different from two 18 old kids from Alabama going to Mississippi and not being allowed to get married (the minimum age there is 21!).

That is batshit insane.

[dl316bh]

Maybe so. And you don't deserve that, by the way... you're generally a pretty straight-up guy in all of the exchanges we've had.
Thanks. I try to keep things cool and straightforward these days. I've been in the big online arguments before. They just waste everyones time and emotional energy. Make people pissy at each other too. After a while, I wondered what the point was. I get caught up in one from time to time, but eh, I'm human. Even then I usually start thinking it's a waste of time after a couple posts and wonder what I'm doing blowing so much time on it.

You've been pretty straight up yourself in the past too, even when we disagreed, which is why the tone of the last post surprised me. I wondered for a minute of there was beef there, when it had been acquired and what I'd said.

Well, it was "off-topic" to me. I posed what is a solution -- any solution -- to an in progress shooting, and you're sitting there rattling off ways one particular one won't work. Which I've seen everywhere... ad nauseum.
It was more an attempt to explain myself, because I realized I just kind of came in here after not posting in it for a bit, dropped an article with what might have been construed as snark and didn't even bother to actually give my thoughts on the whole thing, which I thought might have been part of what annoyed you, like I was just being dismissive of the whole thing out of hand.

No, but I would hope it would mean we should immediately divert all energies to constructive talks about actually viable options rather than diverting 100% of all energies to talking about why certain ones won't work and just beating that drum over and over again in any outlet. Which is what is happening.
That's fair, but it's difficult to really come up with viable solutions. I think keeping at least a cop on hand isn't necessarily a bad one. Or assigning a car to a route that keeps it within three or so minutes of a school for immediate response. Maybe both. That and the panic room idea. Everything else is long term stuff to reduce mass shootings over time or things that would create all new problems. School shootings are one of those things that doesn't have an easy solution.

Maybe another thing regards tips? Sometimes these guys seem to be on the radar, but they haven't really done anything yet, so it seems police can't really go after them. The police really seem to have a blind spot to the internet and internet threats - see the responses to death threats online and how they don't take any of it seriously unless something happens - and it's long overdue to be solved. They, and lawmakers, have been slow to catch up or do anything about the modern day. But then I think, even if they do take them seriously, what could they do? The person hasn't done anything yet and even if they show a present danger, confiscating guns so they can't do something like this would cause an uproar, I think, even if there's clear evidence they were going to shoot someplace up. So what could they do, other than keep a detail on serious risks?

I'm rambling now, I admit. Which show's it's complicated.

I'm a dad. I have a horse in this race.
Yeah, the fact that kids are involved is definitely what makes this one emotionally charged for everyone. Parents especially. Regular folks too. No one likes to see someone's walked into a school and gunned down kids. I think everyone would like solutions, long term and for in the midst of shootings. No one is really coming at the problem with bad faith, except maybe some legislators.

You're not wrong. And while I'm more than willing to concede the point on armed teachers in schools in favor of any better ideas that come along... I really don't see a problem with teachers who are OK with packing, are trained, have a concealed license, being allowed to do so in classrooms. For every hypothetical "w-w-w-well, what if a student takes their gun?" "w-w-w-what if the teacher goes crazy and kills students?" "w-w-w-what if the teacher overreacts and kills students?"... which are crazy scenarios, by the way... there, again, is the 100% certainty that a gunman running roughshod in a school has 100% free reign to shoot whoever they want, however much they want for about 20+ minutes. Without anything new in place, that is.
I'd agree that, in some cases, it might be crazy (though I do think fear with some teachers are legitimate, because there are some bad ones, but it's the least likely to happen regularly). I think the issues end up just being sheer negligence. There have been several teachers in the few states that allow teachers to carry concealed weapons in the classroom who have either shot themselves or had it accidentally discharge; no injured kids, thankfully. One accidentally left theirs in a bathroom, loaded, where grade schoolers found it.

But my chief problems are how it really alters the environment of the school itself in a bad way, which is why I'd support police being around more - and made to know that yeah, you gotta go in, you knew exactly what you were signing on for - as a better solution. Even that's far from perfect, but admittedly that's sort of my hang-ups with the way police are these days talking. I feel this is why they're trained, this is why they exist, it's their jobs and they should do it better or be put in better positions to respond.

Every school is different architecturally. Just off the top of my head... some kind of thin space between walls behind reinforced whatever? To where everyone in the classroom can cram in there like sardines, completely uncomfortably (and probably unsurvivably for anything longer than 20-30 minutes... but that's really all the time they need to buy) but still completely safe?
I'd think that's the best bet. It would probably require some serious renovating, given classroom sizes and the like. But that's more for architects to figure out.

On a more careful look at this I tend to think these stores are only looking at their bottom line. They have to run IDs when someone buys. They know who is buying what. Are 18-20 year-olds REALLY buying that many guns at Dick's, across the board, vs. other age groups? No? So it won't hurt our bottom line much? AND we get to ride the current political/media current? Awesome. Let's do it.

I've seen at least 3 posts on FB today about people saying, "I wasn't shopping at Dick's before, but now I will! Way to go, Dick's!" or some variation of this. Maybe this is actually pretty savvy. And guess what? The little guy gun stores who have been muscled out by the bigger fish like this for a while now? Compare it to the mom and pop convenience stores selling household sundries before Wal-Mart comes in. Win-win. Win for Dick's, win for actual gun stores.
You might be right on that. I think it's probably a combination of factors. Maybe they really do feel bad about what happened - human beings and all, no one likes seeing kids get killed - but they also realize it's a good PR opportunity. They get to salve their conscience and drum up some good will like you said.

Not much different from two 18 old kids from Alabama going to Mississippi and not being allowed to get married (the minimum age there is 21!).
Wait, seriously? Why?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Because- drunken spurious weddings, maybe? It happens more often than some people might think.

[plastroncafe]

Submitted to the conversation, because I found it interesting:

Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - The Gun Show (http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show/)

The shooting in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018, reignited an increasingly familiar debate about guns in this country. Today, we’re re-releasing a More Perfect episode that aired just after the Las Vegas shooting last year that attempts to make sense of our country’s fraught relationship with the Second Amendment.

For nearly 200 years of our nation’s history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn’t happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case.

[dl316bh]

Because- drunken spurious weddings, maybe? It happens more often than some people might think.
I didn't really think of that, but wouldn't that be more of a problem for places known to be able to marry you inside of an hour, like Vegas? Is that a legitimate issue in those states?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Not neccessarily. People in just about any state can get drunk or whatever and suddenly decide to elope- kids who are besotted with their latest bf/gf are more susceptible to the "lets run off and get married" syndrome. They just don't realize how huge of a decision it really is until much later.

[Andrew NDB]

Because- drunken spurious weddings, maybe? It happens more often than some people might think.

First of all, how can they legally be worried about drunken weddings between adults ages 18-20 if they legally can't buy alcohol during those years (yes, I realize they can still probably get it)? Second, why wouldn't the state love that? It costs about $200 to get a marriage license... around $400 minimum to get divorced. That's a lot of free money paid into the courts that would go into the state's coffers.

[Refractive Reflections]

https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/dereliction-nrd-600.jpg

[plastroncafe]

Well that's a shame. They zoomed in too close on that image. There should be some other folks in the frame. Wasted opportunity. Alas.

[Mayhem]

I’m going to say this is probably an unlikely scenario because by doing this could severely limit the perpetrators desire to do maximum damage in that wasting time searching for armed teachers could limit how many people they target.
Enter classroom, definitely shoot teacher first, then go about the rest of the pupils. Although that only sorts one possible counter threat admittedly. Which leads onto...

Again probably not likely as the school would be on lockdown and their would be plenty of witnesses to point the finger in the right direction. Also, the overwhelming majority of these spree killers go out in a blaze of glory and aren’t likely to think that quickly on their feet to get out of there in that manner. Anyway this scenario you describe would stop the shooter from killing any further at that point in time. In nearly all of these “mass shootings” the killer is either shot by others or kills themselves when met with equal force!
Depends how long it takes to go into lockdown. And the thing with the Florida shooting, and one reason why I mentioned this, is that the pupils were evacuated and the shooter actually hid amongst them. He was arrested over two miles away after already visited Walmart and a McD. Imagine if you plan ahead with a complete change of clothes and a disguise. But you do have a point, this was an exception rather than the usual.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

First of all, how can they legally be worried about drunken weddings between adults ages 18-20 if they legally can't buy alcohol during those years (yes, I realize they can still probably get it)? Second, why wouldn't the state love that? It costs about $200 to get a marriage license... around $400 minimum to get divorced. That's a lot of free money paid into the courts that would go into the state's coffers.

200$??!! Where??!! Last I checked, it was 35$ in my state, might be a bit higher now, but nowhere NEAR that much. As far as "drunken weddings", teens and young adults (basically anyone under 25) are the most likely to have "quickie" weddings since they are still inexperienced and impulsive. One doesn't have to be DRUNK for that, just impulsive and short-sighted. BTW, since when has not being legal to drink ever stopped anyone? States like Louisiana have legal DRINKING at 18- and 21 to BUY. Or legal for minors under supervision of a legal guardian in their own home. (Texas has this.) So that muddies the waters already. And you don't have to spend 400$ for a divorce, either. There are do-it-yourself divorce kits for about 50$. Not kidding, we had a friend who did that.

[PApagreg]

https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/dereliction-nrd-600.jpg

When you don't have any good arguments so you just use a political cartoon to come off as intelligent. Noice

[Redeemer]

When you don't have any good arguments so you just use a political cartoon to come off as intelligent. Noice

I thought it was actually pretty funny :lol:
and the cartoon has a point. There were laws in place and multiple warnings given. There was even a armed deputy there.

There are a large amount of the populous who want to enact stricter gun laws, but whats the point if we can't enforce the gun laws we have now? We had a law that should have prohibited this individual from buying guns, but was not enforced.

There is another large populous that wants to arm teachers, but if a trained professional can't adequately respond then how likely is a teacher able to respond?(May the two teachers who died shielding students rip :cry: )

I think we need to look at how to better enforce our current gun laws and then pass common sense gun laws such as a universal background check.

[Andrew NDB]

200$??!! Where??!! Last I checked, it was 35$ in my state, might be a bit higher now, but nowhere NEAR that much.

I've been married a couple of times now, I kind of know my ****. Between the license fee and the copies and even a court marriage where you grab a commissioner it's $200.

There are do-it-yourself divorce kits for about 50$. Not kidding, we had a friend who did that.

Not in WA. To even file your divorce papers here is $350. Without any lawyer or anything.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Sheesh. Makes me glad I don't live there. The county where we were married was 35$ flat fee. And a JOP did our ceremony- for free. (Friend of the family.) Granted, this was 18 years ago, but it is now up to around 60$, AFAIK. Still nowhere near what you paid. Might be a per-state basis. As I said, we had a friend who did a d-i-y divorce kit for 50$ from Hastings (before all of the ones here closed down.) All paperwork included, just needs notary. And signed by both, of course. There are online ones, too, so I've heard, and they cost about the same. He has been married three times now, and never paid that much for any of them.

[PApagreg]

I thought it was actually pretty funny :lol:
and the cartoon has a point. There were laws in place and multiple warnings given. There was even a armed deputy there.

There are a large amount of the populous who want to enact stricter gun laws, but whats the point if we can't enforce the gun laws we have now? We had a law that should have prohibited this individual from buying guns, but was not enforced.

There is another large populous that wants to arm teachers, but if a trained professional can't adequately respond then how likely is a teacher able to respond?(May the two teachers who died shielding students rip :cry: )

I think we need to look at how to better enforce our current gun laws and then pass common sense gun laws such as a universal background check.

Hence why we need to enforce stricter gun laws so we can better enforce the gun laws we have now. Also again like everyone said the attacker will probably attack the teacher first and not who is to say the teacher won't adequately respond.

[Andrew NDB]

Hence why we need to enforce stricter gun laws so we can better enforce the gun laws we have now. Also again like everyone said the attacker will probably attack the teacher first and not who is to say the teacher won't adequately respond.

Throwing more legislation to better enforce existing legislature is a horrible idea.

[PApagreg]

Throwing more legislation to better enforce existing legislature is a horrible idea.

How, please explain

[Andrew NDB]

How, please explain

Because where does it end? When the new legislation that enforces existing legislature fails, make even more legislation to enforce the enforcing legislature, too?

This is insanity.

[PApagreg]

Because where does it end? When the new legislation that enforces existing legislature fails, make even more legislation to enforce the enforcing legislature, too?

This is insanity.

So you're just making the slippery slope fallacy

[plastroncafe]

There are a large amount of the populous who want to enact stricter gun laws, but whats the point if we can't enforce the gun laws we have now? We had a law that should have prohibited this individual from buying guns, but was not enforced.

This is where Gun Fandom/Community actually giving a damn and policing their own would have come in handy.

I knew a guy in college. Not a mentally healthy guy. Did a stint in a mental hospital. Decided he wanted a shot gun, and filled out the form honestly.

Owner of the store told him he couldn't sell to him, because he'd checked the box that said he'd been institutionalized.
The guy asked for a new form, the gun store owner gave him one, he didn't check that box...and walked out with his shot gun.

Over the weekend he blew off the back of his own head.
My ex, who was his roommate, found him several days later.



There is another large populous that wants to arm teachers, but if a trained professional can't adequately respond then how likely is a teacher able to respond?(May the two teachers who died shielding students rip :cry: )

I'd rather the teachers all be given solid door locks and door stops, than handguns. Because I'll be honest, I don't exactly trust the average police officer with a weapon. Especially those who haven't had combat training. It's all well and good to say how you think you'd react in a situation, but without ever having been in that situation....no one really knows.

And even people with the best training can still freeze.

I really REALLY like this two-part series from This American Life, regarding the police and gun violence.

Cops See It Differently - Part One (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/547/cops-see-it-differently-part-one)
Cops See It Differently - Part Two (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/548/cops-see-it-differently-part-two)

I think we need to look at how to better enforce our current gun laws and then pass common sense gun laws such as a universal background check.

I'd agree with this.
I'd agree more if there were an actual movement towards making schools safer. Say with funding to pay for social workers and counselors. People who could act on the whole: Ugh, this kid is creeping us all out, and we don't trust him with a backpack on campus. Maybe someone should talk to him? thing.

[Andrew NDB]

I'd rather the teachers all be given solid door locks and door stops, than handguns.

Maybe we could look at that as a solution for in progress shootings. Solid door locks with doors that can't be kicked in, some kind of drop-down kevlar curtains above all shootable-into windows?

It wouldn't be cheap but it would really only be a one-time investment.

[TurtleWA]

Trying to protect a school seems like trying to patch a boat with ten thousand holes. What’s stopping a shooter from going to a crowded sporting event with hundreds of people in the gymnasium seats. Or waiting after school in the parking lot when countless numbers of students go to their cars and busses. Or even getting on the school bus with all the students trapped like sitting ducks.

[Andrew NDB]

Trying to protect a school seems like trying to patch a boat with ten thousand holes. What’s stopping a shooter from going to a crowded sporting event with hundreds of people in the gymnasium seats. Or waiting after school in the parking lot when countless numbers of students go to their cars and busses. Or even getting on the school bus with all the students trapped like sitting ducks.

Hypothetical situations vs. an abundance of actual situations. Actual situations, seen on the regular: gunman goes inside school, shoots whoever they want uncontested for about 20+ minutes. Let's focus on that.

[plastroncafe]

Trying to protect a school seems like trying to patch a boat with ten thousand holes. What’s stopping a shooter from going to a crowded sporting event with hundreds of people in the gymnasium seats. Or waiting after school in the parking lot when countless numbers of students go to their cars and busses. Or even getting on the school bus with all the students trapped like sitting ducks.

There's nothing stopping any of this.

The whole ship is sinking, protecting schools is trying to make sure at least this lifeboat gets away safely.

It all really comes down to risk assessment.
Having a gun does not magically make one's risk of harm turn to zero, it just changes the number a bit. And that bit really depends on which side of the barrel you happen to be on.

Which is why I think it's prudent for "Good Responsible Gun Owners" to have malpractice insurance. Because, it's only a matter of time before they get sued for shooting someone. And..."I didn't mean to hit you, I'm sorry," doesn't pay medical bills.

I'll be curious to see if the parents of the children who dies in Florida sue the school, or the city, for the inactions of the armed security guards.

[TurtleWA]

Florida only lasted 6 minuets the average school shooting lasts 12.5 minuets. Mass casualties before you even know what happened. Sad but true.

[plastroncafe]

Florida only lasted 6 minuets the average school shooting lasts 12.5 minuets. Mass casualties before you even know what happened. Sad but true.

And for a very vocal portion of the Gun Fandom/Community, these are acceptable losses.

[Andrew NDB]

Which is why I think it's prudent for "Good Responsible Gun Owners" to have malpractice insurance.

Absolutely not, and absolutely never going to happen. That is shifting guns into the "Well, why can't we treat guns like cars?" territory which invariably shifts the argument to, "Guns are a right, cars are not," which just descends into the other group of people dusting off their mantras about "Guns aren't a right, you're reading the Second Amendment wrong!" And that doesn't go anywhere productive.

Because, it's only a matter of time before they get sued for shooting someone. And..."I didn't mean to hit you, I'm sorry," doesn't pay medical bills.

Again, better even a slim a possibility of defense and stopping a gunman's rampage than a 100% certainty they get a 20+ minute trip to their version of Disneyland in a school.

But no, obviously it wouldn't be on the student who got hit by the teacher's bullet to cough up the medical costs and nor would it be on the teacher. There might even be a case for suing the gunman or his estate. I mean, in a multi-car pileup, the insurance of the guy at the end of it all is the one that really gets hammered.

And for a very vocal portion of the Gun Fandom/Community, these are acceptable losses.

So, too, are about 90% of the liberals crying gun control, offering ZERO tangible solutions as to what to do in in progress school shootings. They only seem to enjoy spending a ton of time talking in great depth about what we can't, or shouldn't be doing to stop in progress shootings.

[TurtleWA]

TkifEasldUw

I like the idea that off duty emergency professionals get alerts. But not sure yet what I think about the overall concept.

http://schoolguard.guard911.com

[joe-eyeball]

And for a very vocal portion of the Gun Fandom/Community, these are acceptable losses.

Ive read repeatedly where you’ve essentially said the gun community is responsible for fixing this problem! That’s like saying I didn’t vote so Trump isn’t my problem he’s everyone else’s! It’s more fair to say we all need to fix this problem. Fixing it though would require a massive effort from everyone. I’ll give you that there are a lot of loud, obnoxious gun loving idiots that make it seem like they don’t care but of course they’ll always be given the most attention by the overbearing, agenda driven media! Contrary to what people believe the overwhelming majority of gun owners don’t want the violence to continue but the solutions being proposed won’t make much of a difference at all. We really need to fix people not guns!

It’s fair to say that a majority of these spree killers have mental illnesses that drive them to what they do right? So why don’t we say that it’s all up to the people with mental illness to fix this problem? That makes perfect sense! Oh wait of course it doesn’t because we are all in this together and finger pointing in one specific direction isn’t going to get anything done.

[plastroncafe]

Ive read repeatedly where you’ve essentially said the gun community is responsible for fixing this problem! That’s like saying I didn’t vote so Trump isn’t my problem he’s everyone else’s! It’s more fair to say we all need to fix this problem. Fixing it though would require a massive effort from everyone. I’ll give you that there are a lot of loud, obnoxious gun loving idiots that make it seem like they don’t care but of course they’ll always be given the most attention by the overbearing, agenda driven media! Contrary to what people believe the overwhelming majority of gun owners don’t want the violence to continue but the solutions being proposed won’t make much of a difference at all. We really need to fix people not guns!

I would like the majority of gun owners, the responsible ones that I keep quietly hearing about, to be louder. I'd like them to stop telling me that they aren't the problem, and start going after the people in their own community that are the problem.

And I don't think that's too much to ask.

I also don't think people who don't have an understanding of a thing should be allowed to legislate that thing. So I'd like these responsible gun owners to take the wheel when it comes to how we should be handling firearms.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the right to bear arms does not come without restriction.

No one is stopping the Gun Fandom/Community from helping to fix people.
But as far as I can tell..."Fix people, not guns" is the new Thoughts and Prayers.
It's the thing that's said, but not acted on.

Pray for wind, Gun Community, but paddle for shore.

It’s fair to say that a majority of these spree killers have mental illnesses that drive them to what they do right? So why don’t we say that it’s all up to the people with mental illness to fix this problem? That makes perfect sense! Oh wait of course it doesn’t because we are all in this together and finger pointing in one specific direction isn’t going to get anything done.

I don't think that's fair at all, unless you have access to information in support of that claim. Do you have a citation that at least 51% of the mass shooters have a diagnosed mental illness?
Because if you do, I'd love to see it.

[joe-eyeball]

I would like the majority of gun owners, the responsible ones that I keep quietly hearing about, to be louder. I'd like them to stop telling me that they aren't the problem, and start going after the people in their own community that are the problem.

And I don't think that's too much to ask.

I also don't think people who don't have an understanding of a thing should be allowed to legislate that thing. So I'd like these responsible gun owners to take the wheel when it comes to how we should be handling firearms.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the right to bear arms does not come without restriction.

No one is stopping the Gun Fandom/Community from helping to fix people.
But as far as I can tell..."Fix people, not guns" is the new Thoughts and Prayers.
It's the thing that's said, but not acted on.

Pray for wind, Gun Community, but paddle for shore.



I don't think that's fair at all, unless you have access to information in support of that claim. Do you have a citation that at least 51% of the mass shooters have a diagnosed mental illness?
Because if you do, I'd love to see it.

There a plenty of people in the gun community that want the violence to end but most of them don’t believe at all that things like: universal background checks, banning certain guns, gun confiscation, or just passing more legislation will make a damn bit of difference! You also made comment about people shouldn’t be able to legislate a thing that they don’t understand! Well that works both ways because I haven’t seen or heard of very many anti gun people that know a damn thing about guns but they sure do want to legislate them to hell and back!

I never said diagnosed mental illness but I apply common sense to these situations that these people aren’t happy, normal, well adjusted at or around the time they are committing these horrific acts! Do you believe people of absolute sound mind are doing the majority of these shootings? I for one do not! I also understand that people who were once happy and well adjusted have breaking points and are capable of such things but it’s probably fair to say some sort of mental crisis has occurred for someone to cause such carnage! It’s also probably fair to say that their “mental break”didn’t occur overnight!

[plastroncafe]

There a plenty of people in the gun community that want the violence to end but most of them don’t believe at all that things like: universal background checks, banning certain guns, gun confiscation, or just passing more legislation will make a damn bit of difference! You also made comment about people shouldn’t be able to legislate a thing that they don’t understand! Well that works both ways because I haven’t seen or heard of very many anti gun people that know a damn thing about guns but they sure do want to legislate them to hell and back!

That...is my point exactly.
That if people who don't like guns actually took their nods from people who like, and know about guns, we might be able to find common ground and draft effective legislation that's amenable to both parties.

That maybe these people who don't like the violence, but still like guns, could come up with ideas, and maybe use their time and money to lobby...or better still run for office.

Rather than sit there in a defeatist slump and not do anything.
Because...while they may not like the violence, their not doing anything about it allows people in their own community to make their community look like a bunch of d-bags.

I would say that makes them complicit, but that's me.

I never said diagnosed mental illness but I apply common sense to these situations that these people aren’t happy, normal, well adjusted at or around the time they are committing these horrific acts! Do you believe people of absolute sound mind are doing the majority of these shootings? I for one do not! I also understand that people who were once happy and well adjusted have breaking points and are capable of such things but it’s probably fair to say some sort of mental crisis has occurred for someone to cause such carnage! It’s also probably fair to say that their “mental break”didn’t occur overnight!

Being unhappy is not the same thing as having a mental illness.
Just like being depressed is not the same thing as having depression.

It's unwise to equate the two.

And yeah...I do think neuro-typical people are capable of doing these sorts of, because if they weren't...then what does that say about our Military or our Police Forces?
Are they entirely composed of mentally ill, or non-neurotypical people?

That's an interesting hill to defend.

[TurtleWA]

And yeah...I do think neuro-typical people are capable of doing these sorts of, because if they weren't...then what does that say about our Military or our Police Forces?

Can you say more about this? I don’t understand.

[joe-eyeball]

That...is my point exactly.
That if people who don't like guns actually took their nods from people who like, and know about guns, we might be able to find common ground and draft effective legislation that's amenable to both parties.

That maybe these people who don't like the violence, but still like guns, could come up with ideas, and maybe use their time and money to lobby...or better still run for office.

Rather than sit there in a defeatist slump and not do anything.
Because...while they may not like the violence, their not doing anything about it allows people in their own community to make their community look like a bunch of d-bags.

I would say that makes them complicit, but that's me.



Being unhappy is not the same thing as having a mental illness.
Just like being depressed is not the same thing as having depression.

It's unwise to equate the two.

And yeah...I do think neuro-typical people are capable of doing these sorts of, because if they weren't...then what does that say about our Military or our Police Forces?
Are they entirely composed of mentally ill, or non-neurotypical people?

That's an interesting hill to defend.

I am actually curious as to what you believe that “common ground”would include?

Also “mental illness” is a bit of wide sweeping term. It’s certainly not limited to people that are just diagnosed with a mental illness! Your comment regarding military and police is kind of ridiculous! Again the majority of them are simply doing the job they were trained, instructed/ordered to do and for the most part the methods they employ are accepted by the community at large. I get that you’re trying to say a soldier may be committing horrible acts over in some other country but in his mind he or she is doing it for their country or following orders. Of course there are always exceptions and I’m fine with saying any soldier or member of law enforcement that flies off the handle and goes to far can and should be held accountable and if they are referred to as having a mental break or mental illness then so be it.

Just for the record I understand and believe that that most people with mental conditions never harm themselves or anyone else and that by using the term mentally ill in regards to these killers could cause harm to mentally ill people that pose absolutely no threat at all.

[Andrew NDB]

That...is my point exactly.
That if people who don't like guns actually took their nods from people who like, and know about guns, we might be able to find common ground and draft effective legislation that's amenable to both parties.

We can do that, but I'd rather spend that energy -- for now, until we have a solution, or even a half measure -- on protecting kids' lives in the schools right now. Not later on. Right now. That should be the priority and I kind of have to question the true agendas of folks of whom have a different priority than that.

Kids Lives > Gun Removal Agenda/Let's Talk New Gun Legislature/Etc.

Why is this even a question?

When the kids are safe (or safer, at least) we can go to the table about "fixing" gun control. Preferably when people are acting less out of emotion and -- in a lot of cases (I'm not saying yours) -- largely uneducated irrationality.

[joe-eyeball]

We can do that, but I'd rather spend that this energy -- for now, until we have a solution, or even a half measure -- on protecting kids' lives in the schools right now. Not later on. Right now. That should be the priority and I kind of have to question the true agendas of folks of whom have a different priority than that.

Kids Lives > Gun Removal Agenda/Let's Talk New Gun Legislature/Etc.

Why is this even a question?

When the kids are safe (or safer, at least) we can go to the table about "fixing" gun control. Preferably when people are acting less out of emotion and -- in a lot of cases (I'm not saying yours) -- largely uneducated irrationality.

I agree with everything you are saying here.

[plastroncafe]

Can you say more about this? I don’t understand.

Sure.
I've heard people say, "This guy must be crazy. Only a crazy person would go into a place and shoot a bunch of people."

But we literally pay people to do that, and we don't consider them crazy. Heck, often times we don't even consider them murderers.
They were just doing their jobs.

They were defending themselves. Or they were fighting for what they believed to be a just cause.


I am actually curious as to what you believe that “common ground”would include?


I have no idea what that would entail, because I've yet to hear someone with any actual power or authority to make changes make a proposal.
There's only a circling of wagons.

Also “mental illness” is a bit of wide sweeping term. It’s certainly not limited to people that are just diagnosed with a mental illness! Your comment regarding military and police is kind of ridiculous! Again the majority of them are simply doing the job they were trained, instructed/ordered to do and for the most part the methods they employ are accepted by the community at large. I get that you’re trying to say a soldier may be committing horrible acts over in some other country but in his mind he or she is doing it for their country or following orders. Of course there are always exceptions and I’m fine with saying any soldier or member of law enforcement that flies off the handle and goes to far can and should be held accountable and if they are referred to as having a mental break or mental illness then so be it.

Mental illness isn't, nor should it be, a broad sweeping term.
It has a specific meaning that should be respected.

It's like saying every time someone sneezes they have the influenza.
Sure, flu-like symptoms are a common symptom...but every time someone has flu-like symptoms we don't treat them the same way we'd treat someone with the flu.

Misuse of language is unhelpful.

Just for the record I understand and believe that that most people with mental conditions never harm themselves or anyone else and that by using the term mentally ill in regards to these killers could cause harm to mentally ill people that pose absolutely no threat at all.

Then why do you persist in using it?

School Shootings, a play in one act.

"Hey we've got a fire over here. Someone want to do something about that?"
Let's add more fire.
"Maybe that's not the best idea? Let's try water. Maybe reduce the amount of fire instead?"
No more fire is better. It's great. You just can't see that it's great because you're irrational and have emotions. When you've calmed down, we can talk about maybe putting out the fire, but...in the meantime, as the only clear-headed person here...more fire it is.

And scene.

[joe-eyeball]

Sure.
I've heard people say, "This guy must be crazy. Only a crazy person would go into a place and shoot a bunch of people."

But we literally pay people to do that, and we don't consider them crazy. Heck, we don't even consider them murderers.

Crazy, mentally ill, these are words that have mean

[QUOTE]



I have no idea what that would entail, because I've yet to hear someone with any actual power or authority to make changes make a proposal.
There's only a circling of wagons.



Mental illness isn't, nor should it be, a broad sweeping term.
It has a specific meaning that should be respected.

It's like saying every time someone sneezes they have the influenza.
Sure, flu-like symptoms are a common symptom...but every time someone has flu-like symptoms we don't treat them the same way we'd treat someone with the flu.

Misuse of language is unhelpful.



Then why do you persist in using it?

It’s not even remotely the same as your sneezing/ flu analogy and I use the terms because I 100% believe these shooters are mentally ill when they are committing these horrible acts! Besides doesn’t the mental health community prescribe to the notion that 1 in 5 people experience a “mental illness at some point? I think it would be a mistake to think that the people that do these things aren’t mentally ill in that it would detract from focusing on what is part of our violence problem in this country! I do believe it’s fair to say that there is a mental health component Attached to this. just because someone is experiencing mental illness doesn’t mean they should be ashamed of it or afraid to seek out help but I do understand that it’s not that simple. I don’t feel as though I’m judging all people with a mental illness but I can understand how someone might think that I am. I mean if someone that has paranoid delusions and is hearing voices in their head saying to go out and shoot up a movie theater, wouldn’t it be fair to say a mental illness played a role in the shooting taking place? Again , I understand the difference between mentally ill with support and treatment versus mentally ill that acts out with violence towards others.

Sorry but your example of putting out the fire is outrageous to the point of being laughable! There is also a difference between thinking about something that could be conveyed as mentally ill versus actually doing it. I’m pretty sure I have made it clear that I understand the difference!

[plastroncafe]

It’s not even remotely the same as your sneezing/ flu analogy and I use the terms because I 100% believe these shooters are mentally ill when they are committing these horrible acts!

Okay.
So do you consider members of the military or police mentally ill when the do their jobs?
And if not, then what to you is the difference?


Besides doesn’t the mental health community prescribe to the notion that 1 in 5 people experience a “mental illness at some point?

That's not a statistic I'm aware of.
Do you have a source for it?

I think it would be a mistake to think that the people that do these things aren’t mentally ill in that it would detract from focusing on what is part of our violence problem in this country!

Where as I think the opposite. By assuming that people who commit violent acts are mentally ill, we're dismissing out of hand a whole host of other reasons for their behavior. And it gives all of us an out for what ever part we may have played in the shooting.

If this boy was crazy there was nothing we could have done to prevent this.
It was inevitable, and can't possibly be prevented in the future.

I do believe it’s fair to say that there is a mental health component Attached to this. just because someone is experiencing mental illness doesn’t mean they should be ashamed of it or afraid to seek out help but I do understand that it’s not that simple. I don’t feel as though I’m judging all people with a mental illness but I can understand how someone might think that I am. I mean if someone that has paranoid delusions and is hearing voices in their head saying to go out and shoot up a movie theater, wouldn’t it be fair to say a mental illness played a role in the shooting taking place? Again , I understand the difference between mentally ill with support and treatment versus mentally ill that acts out with violence towards others.

I don't think we help either the mentally ill, or quell the seemingly rising tide of violent behavior, by simply saying:
Only a crazy person would do this.

I just think it's the wrong tactic to take.

[TurtleWA]

I've heard people say, "This guy must be crazy. Only a crazy person would go into a place and shoot a bunch of people."

But we literally pay people to do that, and we don't consider them crazy. Heck, often times we don't even consider them murderers.
They were just doing their jobs.

They were defending themselves. Or they were fighting for what they believed to be a just cause.

I agree that the terms “crazy” and “mentally ill” should not just get tossed around. I personally don’t even like the term “crazy.” It seems like it’s not helpful but hurtful. I’m still not seeing how military/police are anything comparable to the Florida shooter.

If your acting outside what society has determined to be appropriate you might be displaying symptoms of a mental illness. “Disregard for society's laws” is a criteria for anti-social personality disorder. If military/police are showing the same disregard for the law as a mass shooter than they may indeed have a diagnosable mental illness too.

Also I’m guessing that military/police may have some remorse even after following the law. Such as killing someone in self defense. I’m not thinking a lot of mass murders have regret. Lack of remorse/regret is another criteria for anti-social personality disorder.

[joe-eyeball]

Okay.
So do you consider members of the military or police mentally ill when the do their jobs?
And if not, then what to you is the difference?

The difference is that society doesn’t see it that way. For the most part our military and law enforcement and the tough job they have to do and the ugly and even violent aspects are justified in the eyes f the public. Again there are always exceptions but it’s not viewed as the norm. And if you’re saying that that viewpoint towards police and military needs to change then so be it but to use a phrase you utilized earlier “that’s a steep hill to climb”! And good luck with that!





That's not a statistic I'm aware of.
Do you have a source for it?

I’ve read this in few different places but try this one

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness





Where as I think the opposite. By assuming that people who commit violent acts are mentally ill, we're dismissing out of hand a whole host of other reasons for their behavior. And it gives all of us an out for what ever part we may have played in the shooting.

If this boy was crazy there was nothing we could have done to prevent this.
It was inevitable, and can't possibly be prevented in the future.

I haven’t used the term crazy nor did I say that there is nothing that could be done to prevent this! Please don’t put words in my mouth!



I don't think we help either the mentally ill, or quell the seemingly rising tide of violent behavior, by simply saying:
Only a crazy person would do this.

I just think it's the wrong tactic to take.

There you are again throwing out terms I haven’t used. Never mind I’m clearly wasting my time here.

[PApagreg]

We can do that, but I'd rather spend that energy -- for now, until we have a solution, or even a half measure -- on protecting kids' lives in the schools right now. Not later on. Right now. That should be the priority and I kind of have to question the true agendas of folks of whom have a different priority than that.

Kids Lives > Gun Removal Agenda/Let's Talk New Gun Legislature/Etc.

Why is this even a question?

When the kids are safe (or safer, at least) we can go to the table about "fixing" gun control. Preferably when people are acting less out of emotion and -- in a lot of cases (I'm not saying yours) -- largely uneducated irrationality.

The reason why people are trying to "fix gun control" is to make kids safer, you can disagree with people who think fixing gun control is going to be good idea but saying we should make kids safe first(even then thats a vague issue) before talking about the gun issue does not make sense

[Andrew NDB]

The reason why people are trying to "fix gun control" is to make kids safer, you can disagree with people who think fixing gun control is going to be good idea but saying we should make kids safe first(even then thats a vague issue) before talking about the gun issue does not make sense

"Fixing" gun control won't stop shootings anytime in the foreseeable future. The guns are already out there. They're always going to be out there.

[joe-eyeball]

"Fixing" gun control won't stop shootings anytime in the foreseeable future. The guns are already out there. They're always going to be out there.

Exactly right! The guns are out there and words on paper (more legislation) isn’t going to stop mass shootings! We tried to slow up alcohol consumption with prohibition and it made things worse and created a black market! Drugs are illegal and look how that is going for America! The number of people that die from illegal drug use is significantly higher than the number of people that die from firearms but hey who cares about drugs, that doesn’t sell enough papers or spark as much outrage! We definitely need to do something to help stop the violence but no matter what we will never make it go away completely and trampling on constitutional rights isn’t a common sense solution!

[TurtleWA]

"Fixing" gun control won't stop shootings anytime in the foreseeable future. The guns are already out there. They're always going to be out there.

Agreed!

Also age restrictions and/or outright banning assault styled guns will do little if these quotes are accurate.

The overwhelming number of U.S. mass shooting over the last 50 years were committed by adults older than 21

In nearly all the mass shootings by shooters younger than age of 21, the guns were stolen from relatives or illegally purchased or the shooters were armed with guns not considered assault weapons.

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/trump-gun-age-plan-affected-shootings-53319153

It's almost like two separate issues. 1. How to protect schools from threats. 2. How to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

[plastroncafe]

Okay, let's look at this particular attack as a case study.
The kid wasn't trusted to have a backpack.
He'd been reported to the FBI.
He still legally bought a gun.

The school followed all active shooter protocols, and had three armed security agents.

And...if contemporary wisdom is to be accepted, mentally ill.

Then nothing what so ever could have been done to stop this.

Grand.

[PApagreg]

"Fixing" gun control won't stop shootings anytime in the foreseeable future. The guns are already out there. They're always going to be out there.

Except a good chunk of these mass shooting(at least the most dangerous ones) come from people who recently brought guns I.E the mentioned shooting, the Texas church shooting, Pulse nightclub shooting, and the fact that the shooter from the Vegas Shooting was allowed to carry over 20 guns to his room which I remind you was high enough to overlook the country hotel

[plastroncafe]

To backtrack a bit on a derail:

I didn't really think of that, but wouldn't that be more of a problem for places known to be able to marry you inside of an hour, like Vegas? Is that a legitimate issue in those states?

Some food for thought on the age restrictions on marriage come from this article about people fighting to allow 13 year olds to marry with parental consent.

Kentucky's 'child bride' bill stalls as groups fight to let 13-year-olds wed (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/03/03/kentuckys-child-bride-bill-stalls-groups-fight-let-13-year-olds-wed/391697002/)

A bill to make 18 the legal age for marriage in Kentucky has stalled in a Senate committee amid concerns about the rights of parents to allow children to wed at a younger age, according to several lawmakers.

Known as the "child bride" bill, Senate Bill 48 was pulled off the agenda just hours before a scheduled vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee for the second time in two weeks.

...

The bill's supporters have said underage marriages most often involve a teenage girl marrying an older man and may have involved sexual exploitation of the girl.

Adams, in an interview, declined to say who was lobbying against the bill other than to say it involved people concerned about parents' rights. But she said she hopes the bill can be revised to meet concerns of opponents and still have an impact on underage marriage in Kentucky.

[Refractive Reflections]

Okay, let's look at this particular attack as a case study.
The kid wasn't trusted to have a backpack.
He'd been reported to the FBI.
He still legally bought a gun.

https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/shooting_cartoon_ben_garrison-1024x739.jpg

[plastroncafe]

It's more like they would have had absolutely no way to know that he had legally bought a gun, because in order for them to have had that information the gun seller himself would have had to report it.

The Low-Tech Way Guns Get Traced (https://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-guns-get-traced)

They don't have that searchable, central database because the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby have successfully blocked that through Congress. They argue that a database of gun transactions would be a dangerous step toward a national gun registry.

So tracers comb through page after page of records as they stand amid boxes stacked head-high. ATF gets more than 1 million of these out-of-business records every month. And when they open those boxes of paperwork, who knows what they might find.

Houser points to a table filled with battered, burned and waterlogged gun sale records.

In certain states are bartender who over serves a patron can be held liable for that Patron after the fact. Maybe we should extend that to people who sell firearms.

[TurtleWA]

Do they still have age restrictions on buying video games with “M” rating? Isn’t that weird too. I mean a 16 year old can get a drivers license and drive an actual car down the road. But can’t purchase a video game that might have a virtual car if it also has mature content and corresponding rating.

However 16 is a minor so I can somehow understand the restriction being tolerated. But 18 is technically an adult. An adult old enough to vote and pay taxes. Strange a store can refuse to sell to an adult if it’s not a state or federal law such as liquor.

I found the answer to my question I asked back a few pages. Yes “M” is still a rating for video games.

And I came across this about a Rhode Island Lawmaker wanting to tax video games and give the funds to assist with mental health services and student counseling in schools.

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/rep-robert-nardolillo-iii-discusses-video-game-sin-tax-w517042

[Andrew NDB]

Well, it happened. A 20 year-old is suing Dick's over them refusing to sell him a gun.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/03/06/walmart-dicks-sporting-goods-sued-over-new-gun-policies/398288002/

[TurtleWA]

Well, it happened. A 20 year-old is suing Dick's over them refusing to sell him a gun.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/03/06/walmart-dicks-sporting-goods-sued-over-new-gun-policies/398288002/

The article won’t open for me. But last week I read New Jersey is one of the states with age discrimination laws. So I’m guessing the lawsuit is in that state?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Well, it happened. A 20 year-old is suing Dick's over them refusing to sell him a gun.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/03/06/walmart-dicks-sporting-goods-sued-over-new-gun-policies/398288002/

That'll help the national situation. Good thinking, kid.

[plastroncafe]

I kind of love how he's suing Dick's, but not like...any liquor store for not allowing him to buy booze. Or a rental car place for not letting him rent a car.

What a dickrinse.

Not only would I love to see what kind of palpable "harm" he's going to attempt portray to the court, but also who's funding his legal team.

[Jester]

I'm sure it will be argued that drinking and driving (seperatly that is) aren't constitutionally protected rights like bearing arms.

[plastroncafe]

I'm sure it will be argued that drinking and driving (seperatly that is) aren't constitutionally protected rights like bearing arms.

That seems like an awfully specious argument, unless Dick's Sporting Goods and/or Walmart are the only arms dealers in Oregon, which...I'm doubting they are, and if they're not then it's going to be hard to prove that this internal rule presents a hardship that this kid as suffered damages from.

But I'm no lawyer, so who knows.
Maybe this snowflake really is triggered that he has to wait a whole year before he can shop at the big boxes responsible for killing his local mom-and-pop weapons mongers.

Be extra curious if both big box stores use "deeply held philosophical beliefs" to bolster their claim.

[Andrew NDB]

That seems like an awfully specious argument, unless Dick's Sporting Goods and/or Walmart are the only arms dealers in Oregon, which...I'm doubting they are

But how, again, is this much different than the cake thing? I'm sure there were other bakers the gay couple could have gone to, but they successfully sued that guy despite his "beliefs."

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

But how, again, is this much different than the cake thing? I'm sure there were other bakers the gay couple could have gone to, but they successfully sued that guy despite his "beliefs."

It's not. Somebody looking to make bank and get their TV interview of fame. All with the backdrop of real issues.

[plastroncafe]

It is different.
The couple filed a complaint against the cake place.
The cake place then doxxed the couple of facebook.

That's when things went legal.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa Didn’t Just Deny a Lesbian Couple Service, They Also Doxxed Them and Their Kids (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-didnt-just-deny-a-lesbian-couple-service-they-also-doxxed-them-and-their-kids.html)

In different news out of Oregon...
Oregon Closes the “Boyfriend Loophole,” Banning All Perpetrators of Partner Violence From Buying Guns (https://www.themarysue.com/boyfriend-loophole-gun-control-oregon/)

[Candy Kappa]

Some jackwagons trying to sue a store chain is cute and all, but why is NRA alllowed to make threat videos? That's scary as ****.

[plastroncafe]

Some jackwagons trying to sue a store chain is cute and all, but why is NRA alllowed to make threat videos? That's scary as ****.

Scared people buy more guns. It's better for their bottom line for people to be scared.

[Mayhem]

I'm sure it will be argued that drinking and driving (seperatly that is) aren't constitutionally protected rights like bearing arms.
Except, technically, that isn't either... I refer you (like I have so many people over the years) to the judge notes from the ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that ratified that it mean an individual had the right to bear arms...

The precise meaning of the Second Amendment — "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" — has long been a subject for debate. In a decision nearly 70 years ago, the justices suggested it was a collective right, not an individual right to bear arms. This is the first time the court has defined the amendment so definitively.

The two sides in this case viewed the Founding Fathers' intentions very differently. The majority of the justices said the amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. The dissenting justices said the amendment protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91911807

Yes, the right to bear arms is not infringed, but the overlying view from the judges who ruled on was that doesn't mean you can own any firearm you like.

[TurtleWA]

Kind of a surprise that this is happening. But then I remember Manson.

VyMC0Qsi2kY

3rRA8iC_zxo

[plastroncafe]

Yeah, that doesn't really surprise me in the slightest. Klybold and Harris had their admirers, as did the Boston Marathon bomber.

And it's not like our popular culture doesn't prime people to empathize with misanthropic malcontents.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Yeah, that doesn't really surprise me in the slightest. Klybold and Harris had their admirers, as did the Boston Marathon bomber.

And it's not like our popular culture doesn't prime people to empathize with misanthropic malcontents.

Point and point.

People who are f'ed up in the head attract more people who are f'ed up in the head.

[Andrew NDB]

People who are f'ed up in the head attract more people who are f'ed up in the head.

And some people just do f***ed up stuff (https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-overwhelmed-apos-mother-allegedly-155011611.html) because they get the notion to.

[MikeandRaph87]

A couple of developments:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-reg-florida-school-shooting-indigency-hearing-20180410-story,amp.html
Probably a move to get life in prison.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/parkland-florida-high-school-teacher-sean-simpson-arrested-gun-restroom/
After what happened how could someone be this dumb?

[plastroncafe]

I'm torn by that first article.
On the one hand: GOOD.
On the other: I really do firmly believe that every person deserves a fair day in court. Even unrepentant scum-bags like this chucklef#ck.