School shooting

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

Outrage as Westboro Baptist plans praise gathering outside Sandy Hook Elementary school to celebrate God 'executing his judgement' in horrific shooting rampage that killed 20 children and 6 adults

The tight-knit community of Newtown, Connecticut is numb in the aftermath of the heart-wrenching massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary school on Friday when a gunman killed 20 young students, all aged six and seven, in addition to six adults.

As families mourn the lives that were cut short in this unspeakable horror, an extremist group has announced they plan to congregate at the scene of the tragedy and offer praise to God for 'executing his judgement' - an unthinkable act amidst the sorrow overwhelming the quiet town.

A member from the Westboro Baptist Church, an unaffiliated religious group that self-identifies as a church, said on Saturday the group will picket the school in a so-called praise service, while the rest of the nation struggles to move forward after the tragedy.

Westboro, which has been widely described as a hate group, has often courted controversy by promoting an anti-homosexual agenda and picketing military funerals and high profile events to gain publicity.

The organization is led by Fred Phelps and is headquartered in Topeka, Kansas but representatives travel around the U.S. picketing events.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, who describes herself as a 'thankful member' of the group, wrote the words to Psalm 104:24 on her Twitter profile: 'O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.'

In a message, hours after the tragedy in Newtown she tweeted, 'Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment.'

On the group's website, GodHatesFags.com, the organization states their mission is to conduct peaceful demonstrations against 'soul-damning, nation-destroying filth.'

WBC is not affiliated with a recognized Baptist denomination and the U.S. evangelical community has denounced the actions of the group.

News that the organization was going to descend on the community in mourning sparked outrage.

'Stay away from those poor children's funerals. You are SICK, sad, & desperate people,' one angry Twitter user wrote in response.

'Disgusting. Unfathomable. Lack of words at my anger,' another wrote, and more adding their disgust.

'The Westboro Baptist "church" makes me sick. I've never seen such pure hatred and evil like that in my life.'

Two area residents decided to take matters into their own hands and started a Facebook effort to mobilize volunteers to block the Westboro representatives from gaining access to community

Taylor Starr and Kelly Shannon have proposed having supporters of the families don angel wings to block the unwelcome protests with the Angel Action - Sandy Hook movement.

The Angel Action movement was started by Romaine Patterson in response to Westboro Baptist protestors who gathered outside the funeral for Matthew Shepard in 1998, to mourn the gay teenager who was brutally tortured and murdered in Laramie, Wyoming.

The group organizes counter-demonstrators to dress in flowing white angel costumes with 10-foot wingspans rising seven feet high that aim to block the hateful messages written by the Westboro members.

'Westboro Baptist Church is planning another attack of hateful words, protesting the funerals of the 20 children and 7 adults who died yesterday at Sandy Hook elementary school. You can not fight hate with hate so continuing in Romaine Patterson's footsteps, if they do come here and try to protest we are going to put forth Angel Action,' the two young women wrote in a posting.

'Let's not let more hate and sadness attack the already devastated family and friends of those who were lost,' they added.

Classy....

I dont understand how they can make a connection between 5 year old kids and gays. I did hear today that at one memorial service at a Catholic church, some nut called in a bomb threat. I mean, what sort of person does it take to do this to grieving people?

Uh oh...looks like the Morgan Freeman thing was a hoax.

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Actor Morgan Freeman said on Sunday that he did not issue a statement blaming the media for sensationalizing the Newtown School shootings that left 20 children and several adults dead.

The award-winning actor added that he never made or posted the statement that became a Facebook and Internet sensation, saying it was a hoax.

I do think, however, that legislation will soon be introduced to further legislate gun control. I dont think thats the only or best answer though I am for gun regulation personally.

I'd like to see our govt take some of the funds we are wasting on whatever and ensure that every school in the US is secure. I think the lives of little children outweigh most things we are spending money on.

I really wanna know exactly what type of gun ban woulda stopped this.

I really wanna know if people are actually stupid enough to want a permanent police presence at schools.

If you guys really do wanna overreact and run towards more government control and more police presence, y'all leave me out.

Marconius wrote:I really wanna know exactly what type of gun ban woulda stopped this.

Well, how about re-instating the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004? You're not banning guns that can be used for hunting etc, you're banning semi-automatic weapons have pretty much no other use other than to kill/wound lots of people, and you're banning the high-capacity magazines that can allow them to do it. If you're looking for a gun for hunting, why do you need a semi-auto, what sort of animal are you trying to take down that needs 30, 40 shots? If you're looking for a gun for self-defence, why do you need that much firepower, are you thinking you're going to be home invaded John Woo style? And if you're one of the survivalist types who is stockpiling for when the government finally goes all fascist and comes to take away all your guns/freedom, it isn't going to matter if you have a shotgun or an AR-15, the guys in the Black Helicopters are always going to out-gun you anyway. So, why do you need one?

Having that ban in place wouldn't have prevented the shootings, but it would have meant that he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people before he was stopped.

Alternatively, rather than banning different categories of guns (or as well as banning them), you can make it harder for mentally unstable people to get hold of them, by bringing in stricter gun possession laws like in Israel or even Canada.

As I said last time this debate came up here, this is from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where guns are illegal, so don't bother going all 2nd amendment and "you just don't get it" on me as we already know we're coming from 2 totally different viewpoints here. For the record on that, I don't believe that guns should be banned outright, but I believe that people that should only be allowed have guns once they have proved that they are mentally competent enough to not misuse them.

I really wanna know if people are actually stupid enough to want a permanent police presence at schools.

No, and what is a worse idea is some people are saying that they should arm teachers so there's always a gun on hand in case someone tries this sort of thing again.

If you guys really do wanna overreact and run towards more government control and more police presence, y'all leave me out.

So what would you suggest as the answer then? What should be done to reduce the number of mass shootings in the US?

Miles1 wrote:
As I said last time this debate came up here, this is from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where guns are illegal, so don't bother going all 2nd amendment and "you just don't get it" on me as we already know we're coming from 2 totally different viewpoints here. For the record on that, I don't believe that guns should be banned outright, but I believe that people that should only be allowed have guns once they have proved that they are mentally competent enough to not misuse them.

Agreed!

Banning guns wouldnt stop all violence or have stopped this particular crime. OJ killed with a knife. Tim McVeigh killed massive amount of people without a gun. Killers are going to kill...and to me that is at the heart of the issue. The culture of this country needs to be changed.

Jamie Foxx, one of the Hollywood's biggest stars, said Saturday as he promoted Quentin Tarantino's upcoming ultra-violent spaghetti Western-style film about slavery, "Django Unchained," that actors can't ignore the fact that movie violence can influence people. Tom Cruise's new action movie, "Jack Reacher," in Pittsburgh and the family comedy "Parental Guidance" in Los Angeles were postponed. Also, Fox pulled new episodes of "Family Guy" and "American Dad" that were to air Sunday to avoid potentially sensitive content. The originally scheduled episode of "Family Guy" had Peter telling his own version of the nativity story. The "American Dad" episode told the story of a demon that punished naughty children at Christmas.

If Hollywood can see that film and tv do affect the public after all, then shouldnt they be blamed somewhat? I mean, they are all but admitting their culpability.

I discussed awhile back how I'd love to see good citizenship classes and ethics taught K-12. But we dont do that. It wouldnt solve all our problems but its a start.

Also the killer in this case may have been deterred if the door he busted through didnt have glass windows in it. Also a police presence may have helped. Maybe the NRA would agree to donate to ensure security measures are updated in all schools. (Mine has no security). I heard yesterday on the radio that providing security for every school in the nation would cost something like $140 million. Ok, lets round that off to half a BILLION. To me, its worth it. Maybe sell a few more F22s to Israel to pay for it? Surely its worth it.

Personally I think this guy has a brilliant answer:

Bullet control, not gun control.

Dennis324 wrote:
Banning guns wouldnt stop all violence or have stopped this particular crime. OJ killed with a knife. Tim McVeigh killed massive amount of people without a gun. Killers are going to kill...and to me that is at the heart of the issue. The culture of this country needs to be changed.

Well, a couple of weeks ago there was another attack on a school by a mentally deranged man, in China. He didn't have any access to guns, so he used a knife. 22 kids and one old women were hurt, but no-one was killed. So, not having access to guns does make a difference.

Personally I think this guy has a brilliant answer:

Bullet control, not gun control.

Was thinking of posting this myself..... :p

Found this a while ago:

Barbarians at the Gates of Sandy Hook

Gonna shock you here, but I agree with a lot of this. Not about who is to blame, but about the victim culture, the moral relativism and the need to restore standards of right and wrong (not necessarily the "biblicial" standards that this guy is talking about, but moral standards nonetheless) and personal responsibility.

That last bit also applies to the guns debate as well. Too many people on both sides of the gun debate are talking about "rights" and not enough people are talking about "responsibilities". If you own a device that has the potential to kill someone at the pull of a trigger, you have a responsibility to make sure that no-one uses it as such, and the more powerful the gun (like semi-autos) and the more potential for mayhem, the greater the responsibility.

Miles1 wrote:
Well, how about re-instating the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004?

Respect Miles, you knew that was a loaded question, yet you still attempted to answer. Fact is, assault weapons are already banned in Conneticut. The ban obviously didn't help.

Miles1 wrote:
You're not banning guns that can be used for hunting etc, you're banning semi-automatic weapons have pretty much no other use other than to kill/wound lots of people

Actually you would be banning some of the world's best, most accurate hunting rifles. Assault rifles as they are so called, are made in many different calibers. Most are not like the 5.56 NATO. They great hunting rounds. In fact the 5.56 NATO isn't even legal to hunt medium size game or larger (deer and larger) in 99.9% of the country......it isn't powerful enough to kill game cleanly. That is the biggest misconception that those people who are ignorant(excuse the term, but it fits) about firearms. Military rounds are not considered "high power". They are not even "standard power". you need a heavier bullet for that. There is nothing "high power" about what in the hunting world is considered a "varmit round"(the 5.56 is known in the civilian world as the .223.....a high speed .22 is all it is). Most AR-15's in the 5.56 caliber are used to kill ground squirrels and coyotes. The others are used for competition shooting. I would challenge you to provide me with one firearm, besides a rimfire, that was not intended to kill something. That is what they do.

Miles1 wrote:and you're banning the high-capacity magazines that can allow them to do it. If you're looking for a gun for hunting, why do you need a semi-auto, what sort of animal are you trying to take down that needs 30, 40 shots?

Okay, you got me on this one. Of course magazines of greater than 5 rounds are already illegal for hunting. We can carry no more than a 5 round box. That gives us a max of 6 rounds(counting the one in the chamber). My lever action, cowboy style rifle holds 8 rounds of .44 magnum(a much, much deadlier round than the 5.56......it is a hog stopper!!!). As far as the boxes on assualt rifles, I can only agree to 10 round mags. These are used by thousands of law abiding citizens in competition shooting events such as 3 gun. I would hate to take something away from these people 'cause an idiot did something horrible.

Miles1 wrote:
If you're looking for a gun for self-defence, why do you need that much firepower, are you thinking you're going to be home invaded John Woo style? And if you're one of the survivalist types who is stockpiling for when the government finally goes all fascist and comes to take away all your guns/freedom, it isn't going to matter if you have a shotgun or an AR-15, the guys in the Black Helicopters are always going to out-gun you anyway. So, why do you need one?

Got me again Miles. Anyone, who knows anything, would have a 12 guage pump action shotgun for home defense. Rifles over penetrate barriers such as walls. It is insane to protect ones house with a rifle of any kind. To do so would put innocents at risk. Also nothing scares the living shit outta a criminal like the sound of the action on a pump shotgun. Many encounters have ended bloodless just from the sound of the pump being operated.

Miles1 wrote:
Having that ban in place wouldn't have prevented the shootings, but it would have meant that he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people before he was stopped.

Both Columbine and Virginia Tech proves that to be false. In Japan a man killed about a dozen kids......with a knife. There have also been machetes used to kill kids in school. An armed assailant is more than a match for an unarmed defender. It doesn't matter what weapon is used.

Miles1 wrote:
Alternatively, rather than banning different categories of guns (or as well as banning them), you can make it harder for mentally unstable people to get hold of them, by bringing in stricter gun possession laws like in Israel or even Canada.

Saw an article yesterday. I looked for it briefly just now, but since my time on this computer is limited, I gave up. It lists all of the mass shootings that have happened in the last 20 years. Prescription meds for depression and ADHD played a role in all. If I can find it tomorrow, when I get back to land, I will link it.

Miles1 wrote:
As I said last time this debate came up here, this is from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where guns are illegal, so don't bother going all 2nd amendment and "you just don't get it" on me as we already know we're coming from 2 totally different viewpoints here. For the record on that, I don't believe that guns should be banned outright, but I believe that people that should only be allowed have guns once they have proved that they are mentally competent enough to not misuse them.

I understand where you are coming from and somewhat agree, but who then would set the standard of competency???

Miles1 wrote:
No, and what is a worse idea is some people are saying that they should arm teachers so there's always a gun on hand in case someone tries this sort of thing again.

Eh, they are using Israel as an example(yes, some schools in Israel have heavily armed teachers). I have yet to come around to that way of thinking, although there have been instances where armed teachers, here in the states, have stopped shootings in school(once again the link will be provided tomorrow). Of course we do have that example of a teacher in England killing his own kids with a gun(didn't Boomtown Rats make a song about that).

Miles1 wrote:
So what would you suggest as the answer then? What should be done to reduce the number of mass shootings in the US?

Mass shootings are actually at a low(link later, yada yada yada).
You know I am a libertarian. You know that I never bow to the loss of freedom for all because of the crap others pull. Many times freedom isn't really that safe. It is a risk I am willing to take. I mean, how would you feel if Ireland outlawed beer because a few stupid asses beat their wives silly every time they got drunk. I know I'm going overboard with the hypothetical here, but amuse me.

Bottom line:
This crime coulda been done with a Ruger 10/22. That is the most common rifle in tUSA and it is a .22 rimfire. That is most definately not a "high power" round. That is a kid's rifle.

Assault Weapons are just seen as "the bad guy". In reality it is nothing more than the inevitable evolution of the firearm. It is the gun world's equivalent of this:

Eh, I don't blame movies, music or anything else of that nature. Millions of people watch and listen to those movies, shows and songs. Millions of people don't go postal.

I blame parenting.

Marconius wrote:I would challenge you to provide me with one firearm, besides a rimfire, that was not intended to kill something. That is what they do.

Ok, I should have put a bit more emphasis on the sentence there, I should have emphasized the "lots of" in "no use other than to kill lots of people". As you said, the 5.56 NATO round isn't much good for hunting, so what other purpose is there for a gun that can spit out lots of "varmint rounds" per second so, other than killing lots of people? If you want to keep the AR-15 for its accuracy for match/competition shooting, what do you need anything above a semi-auto for?

Both Columbine and Virginia Tech proves that to be false. In Japan a man killed about a dozen kids......with a knife. There have also been machetes used to kill kids in school. An armed assailant is more than a match for an unarmed defender. It doesn't matter what weapon is used.

Well, my point there was that without the bushmaster, if the guy only had a knife or even a pistol, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people before the first responders arrived. There still would probably have been fatalities, but not as many.

I understand where you are coming from and somewhat agree, but who then would set the standard of competency???

Well, you could do something like the Canadian plan I sent the link to: you have to pass a day-long firearms safety course with a certified firearms instructor. At the least that'd weed out the obvious crazies who'd never even apply. Then you need character references from 3 other people(and I'd add in a requirement that at least two have to be a non-relative). That would at least be a start. If you go to get a gun, you'd also have to provide a medical history - so any sign of mental illness etc would get red-flagged straight away.

I mean, how would you feel if Ireland outlawed beer because a few stupid asses beat their wives silly every time they got drunk. I know I'm going overboard with the hypothetical here, but amuse me.

Heh, I'd like to see them try - any politician that even joked about it would never get elected again.....

HEY, I WANT TO FLY AN F-14

Why An Ordinary Citizen Shouldn't Be Allowed to Fly A Fighter Jet For Fun...Or Own a Semi-Automatic Rifle For That Matter

By George Takei

It’d be great fun to fly a big, expensive machine that could reign terror down from the skies. At least, that’s how it plays out in my head. Now, I know that this is not going to happen for a number of reasons, even though I am credited with being the best helmsman in the galaxy.

So what does this have to do with gun control? It’s simple, really. Remember when Richard Reid, the so-called “Shoe Bomber,” attempted unsuccessfully to blow up a plane using explosives hidden in his shoes? No one was terribly surprised when the TSA began requesting all of us to remove our shoes as part of the security inspection process. Millions today are willing to be inconvenienced in order to make it that much harder for dangerous people to terrorize our air travel.

In a similar vein, in the wake of the Newton, CT shootings, it’s unsurprising that we might want to reassess the way in which guns are sold and acquired. There’s a problem, and sometimes it takes something truly traumatizing to galvanize us into some sort of action.

One conversation that we should not be having, however, is whether the government has the right in the first instance to “control” guns, or as I prefer to think of it, to regulate them. We have a long standing tradition of permitting the use of potentially dangerous items or practices, so long as there are rules, or even licenses, required. Think about it. We require salon aestheticians to get a license in most cases simply to give a manicure. This license may be relatively easy to get, but we require it. That’s because there are health and safety issues involved, and, after all, we don’t want just anyone doing your nails. We also require everyone who drives a car to carry a license, to have their vision checked (curses for that), and to pass a driving test. That’s also because we recognize that a car is not only a convenience, it is potentially a dangerous thing when operated unsafely. It could kill or injure other people.

In fact, the more dangerous the thing, the harder generally it is to get a license for it, and the more rules there are around it. Pilots need to train extensively before they can fly, and for good reason. Doctors require more difficult licenses than manicurists. And so on.

So it isn’t any great stretch for we as a society to say, “You want to use a gun? You need to hold a license and abide by the following rules.” In fact, it’s common sense. Guns certainly shouldn’t be treated as any less dangerous, or less in need of regulation, than vehicles, medications, or anything else we know has both uses and perils.

Nor is it any surprise that, when it comes to very dangerous things, we simply don’t permit people generally to own or operate them. Ordinary citizens can’t buy Stinger missiles, even if they want to use them solely to hunt and destroy whole herds of deer. There is always a limit to our freedom. Even our most conservative Supreme Court in decades has acknowledged this: while the Second Amendment does guarantee the right of a private citizen to keep a firearm for, say, home safety, it is consistent with the Second Amendment to regulate such usage and to place reasonable limits upon it.

The choice is a societal one, always. Do we want citizens to be able to obtain semi-automatic rifles, which in the wrong hands have proved very, very deadly, simply in the name of more awesome firepower for gun enthusiasts? Or can and should we ban their use, just as we have with many, many other things whose social utility is outweighed by the danger they present?

Critics will say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Yes, people with guns, so the humor goes. But there is deep truth to this. A fighter jet sitting on a military base tarmac presents no danger to us, but a 75-year old actor with the keys to it very well would. Here’s an idea: maybe we shouldn’t allow him anywhere near it.

George Takei

P.S. If you’d like to start a petition permitting me as a private citizen to fly an F-14, I’m not opposed.

This happened yesterday. My wife teaches at this school and was on campus when this happened. Fortunately they apprehended the student before anything bad could happen.

Central High student found with gun after campus-attack rumors surface
By Eddie Jimenez - The Fresno Bee

A Central High School student carried a gun onto the west campus midday Thursday, about 24 hours after rumors spread on Facebook that someone planned to "shoot the place up," said Central Unified Superintendent Mike Berg.

The 14-year-old male student was removed from the school and no one was injured, officials said. There was no evidence that the attack rumored on Facebook was a real threat or that it was linked to the student, Berg said.

The ninth-grader reportedly was playing with ammunition on campus, the Fresno County Sheriff's Office said. Deputies found a .25-caliber semi-automatic handgun and more than 50 rounds of ammunition in his pockets.

Law enforcement officials approached the student shortly after noon in a classroom, where he was arrested on charges including possessing a firearm while on campus, carrying a firearm in a public place and being a minor in possession of a concealed weapon, the Sheriff's Office said.

It was the second incident involving threats on a Valley campus this week.

A threatening text message sent to a few Reedley High School students has spurred extra police officers at that campus.

The text message suggested that an incident might happen at a campus rally today, said John Campbell, assistant superintendent for Kings Canyon Unified School District.

Days before last week's school shooting in Connecticut, Reedley students had received a text message that referred to unknown people meeting at a city park with guns, officials said.

Campus security and police presence were increased after the text messages, and the rally will go on as planned, Campbell said. Reedley police could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Security at Central Unified campuses also increased after rumors of pending violence surfaced on Facebook, Berg said. Central's high schools have a deputy on campus through a contract with the Sheriff's Office.

Berg and Campbell said their districts take every possible threat seriously.

Today is the last day of classes before a three-week vacation break for both districts.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/12/20/3108843/central-high-student-found-with.html#storylink=cpy

And the NRA's "carefully thought out" answer to the issue of school shootings is to have more guns in schools? Yup, because the Fort Hood shooter was deterred by there being so many other ppl with guns around..... And there's been research done that shows that having guns around doesn't really make you any safer.

I still think its our culture. Its a violent one. And yeah...parents ought to take more responsibility. But clearly many dont. So the question then is...should my kid die because someone didnt teach their kid to respect others? Or because someone didnt monitor their kids activities or the sort of tv or video games they watched...or how long they sat in front of them, or at least made the kid go out and play outside for awhile???

The answer of course is...no. So what is the solution? Some say ban guns. I dont think thaat works. So somehow...our culture needs to change. I support teaching good citizenship and ethics in schools k-12. Wont solve ALL violence, but it might help. Parent wont teach their kids to be a good person, then schools should.

I heard some of the NRA's response the other day. I have to admit that I thought some of the guys points made sense. I do favor security at all schools. It is do-able. Reinforce steel doors rather than doors with glass in them. You could set it up to where no one could enter the school without going through the front door, while STILL having fire exits. I used to work in a facility that did this. Build it where the windows are eithe rup high or have some form of barrier beneath each one that wil prevent fools from trying to sneak through one.

Dennis324 wrote:I still think its our culture. Its a violent one. And yeah...parents ought to take more responsibility. But clearly many dont. So the question then is...should my kid die because someone didnt teach their kid to respect others? Or because someone didnt monitor their kids activities or the sort of tv or video games they watched...or how long they sat in front of them, or at least made the kid go out and play outside for awhile???

The answer of course is...no. So what is the solution? Some say ban guns. I dont think thaat works. So somehow...our culture needs to change. I support teaching good citizenship and ethics in schools k-12. Wont solve ALL violence, but it might help. Parent wont teach their kids to be a good person, then schools should.

I heard some of the NRA's response the other day. I have to admit that I thought some of the guys points made sense. I do favor security at all schools. It is do-able. Reinforce steel doors rather than doors with glass in them. You could set it up to where no one could enter the school without going through the front door, while STILL having fire exits. I used to work in a facility that did this. Build it where the windows are eithe rup high or have some form of barrier beneath each one that wil prevent fools from trying to sneak through one.

You mean like this?



Reminder, Columbine had a cop on campus. Short of having cops all over the place, a shooter will still be able to do ample damage before the cop shows up (or they could simply kill the cop first). I agree this is the result of a cultural problem. Our society equates guns with masculinity, which is a very dangerous thing. It reminds me of that scene from Friday, where the dad explains to his son how its more honorable to get your ass kicked fighting with your hands than it is to pull a gun.

Absolutely. No school is fool proof of course. And as soon as someone confronts a shooter, there's probably gonna be gunfire. I wonder did Coumbine have built-in metal detectors?

You could remodel a building so that one has to come through a front door, then be buzzed in through a 2nd stronger door by security. And yeah, this would cost money. But perhaps its the price we must pay for people to be able to have their guns. But I think children's safety is worth it.

Here's the thing though...this is all gonna probably die down in the coming days and weeks and little will be done. Some feeble attempt may be made at gun control. You know thats the 1st thing politicians go for. And they'd rather do that than come up with the money to spend on a real problem facing our country...like securing our schools and changing our culture to a less violent one. Gun control is ok, but its not gonna solve the problems. And when it doesnt pass people will forget and move on.

Miles1 wrote:

Ok, I should have put a bit more emphasis on the sentence there, I should have emphasized the "lots of" in "no use other than to kill lots of people". As you said, the 5.56 NATO round isn't much good for hunting, so what other purpose is there for a gun that can spit out lots of "varmint rounds" per second so, other than killing lots of people? If you want to keep the AR-15 for its accuracy for match/competition shooting, what do you need anything above a semi-auto for?

Miles, you are mistaken on this. AR-15's are semi-auto and not "full auto". With modern designs, it is almost impossible to convert these semi-auto's to full autos. You would have to C&C new gas blocks, buffer springs, and bolt carrier assemblies as well as a new firing mechanism. Unless a citizen has a C&C machine in his garage, it ain't happening.

Well, my point there was that without the bushmaster, if the guy only had a knife or even a pistol, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people before the first responders arrived. There still would probably have been fatalities, but not as many.

Well, considering we now know an "assault weapon" wasn't used, then this statement is still false(my earlier statements about Columbine and Virginia Tech made that statement false to begin with and the new knowledge continues to confirm).

Well, you could do something like the Canadian plan I sent the link to: you have to pass a day-long firearms safety course with a certified firearms instructor. At the least that'd weed out the obvious crazies who'd never even apply. Then you need character references from 3 other people(and I'd add in a requirement that at least two have to be a non-relative). That would at least be a start. If you go to get a gun, you'd also have to provide a medical history - so any sign of mental illness etc would get red-flagged straight away.

Well you start crossing a line with references and medical history. That begins to get into proving one's innocence instead of proving one's guilt. We know that this is a nation of law and under law, we are innocent until proven guilty......not ever the other way around.

Heh, I'd like to see them try - any politician that even joked about it would never get elected again.....

Well, say they do and you do attempt to vote them out. What happens if your crazy as a loon leader says "fuck it, I like these guys. Election results are void." You ballot box has then been taken away. Along with your soapbox, what other way of affecting a change do you have???

Bryant wrote:

Reminder, Columbine had a cop on campus. Short of having cops all over the place, a shooter will still be able to do ample damage before the cop shows up (or they could simply kill the cop first).

While I do not agree with more cops on campus, this statement is misleading there Bryant. You need to do more research on just what the cop's role at Columbine was and how this role has changed since then.

When the students at Sandy Hook Elementary School arrive at their new building Thursday, a familiar face will be there to greet them — their "new old principal."

Donna Page (pronounced Pa-jhay), the school's former principal, is leading the new school as interim principal, telling parents it was her "calling" to return after the tragedy. Parents have dubbed her the "new old principal" because Page was the school's leader for 14 years before retiring in 2010.

Link

You know, I'm generally fiscally conservative on many issues, but much like 9-11, the slaughter of these little 1st graders changed everything as far as I'm concerned. Once I might have said that we should let the States handle the affairs of our schools, but I'm afraid not every state can handle the securoty of the schools in its domain. I would be in favor of tax money from the Feds to go toward remodeling and installing security for every school in America. We train air marshals at tax payer expense...arent little 6 and 7 year old kids just as important? Maybe moreso?

I'm still heart-sick over this tragedy and I'm afraid that our govt will ignore this issue and things will go back to being the same, with no improvements.

The perception of schools as sanctuaries from violence has been "blown up" by recent events and some believe it's time for educators to literally take the situation into their own hands and carry guns.

"We've had this unwritten code, even among criminals, that schools are off limits. Those are our kids. You don't mess with that," Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC) Chairman Clark Aposhian told ABCNews.com today.

"That perception has been blown away now," he said. "It's been shattered and if there's one thing that parents across the country are united on, it's that they are committed to and serious about protecting their kids."

Aposhian spoke shortly before opening a weapons training class for teachers and school employees that drew more than 200 Utah educators organized by the USSC, a leading gun lobby group that believes that teachers should be able to fight back when faced with an armed intruder.

"One firearm in the hands of one teacher could have made the difference at Sandy Hook or Columbine, but they weren't allowed to carry in those schools," Aposhian said.

Its come to this now. Teachers now feel compelled to arm themselves, because they dont think the schools are safe anymore. They are probably right too! This is an issue our govt ought to easily address and find a way to make schools safer without Teachers feeling that they need to also be security guards as well as educators.

Dennis324 wrote:
Its come to this now. Teachers now feel compelled to arm themselves, because they dont think the schools are safe anymore. They are probably right too! This is an issue our govt ought to easily address and find a way to make schools safer without Teachers feeling that they need to also be security guards as well as educators.

This is a horrible idea. All this would accomplish would be to muddle any police response to an active shooter incident and make it more difficult to keep armed intruders off campus (currently if you see someone on campus with a gun and without a badge you know to call the cops, no need to wait for the shooting to start). Moreover, in the confusion of the moment what do you think the odds are of a teacher shooting a student instead of the perpetrator? Even with basic training they wouldn't be prepared to respond to this kind of situation the way police are.

Bryant wrote:

This is a horrible idea. All this would accomplish would be to muddle any police response to an active shooter incident and make it more difficult to keep armed intruders off campus (currently if you see someone on campus with a gun and without a badge you know to call the cops, no need to wait for the shooting to start). Moreover, in the confusion of the moment what do you think the odds are of a teacher shooting a student instead of the perpetrator? Even with basic training they wouldn't be prepared to respond to this kind of situation the way police are.

You do realize that several states, such as Utah, already have armed teachers in school. They lifted the ban for teachers carrying concealed weapons in school. In fact several attempted shootings have already been stopped by teachers who were packing.

You fail to grasp the mindset of one of these shooters. They are not hardened criminals. They are social outcasts who want to show the world how badass they are. As soon as they meet armed resistance, they quit and either shoot themselves(like the shooter in the Oregon mall a few weeks back) or just give up and wait for the authorities.

Bryant wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:
Its come to this now. Teachers now feel compelled to arm themselves, because they dont think the schools are safe anymore. They are probably right too! This is an issue our govt ought to easily address and find a way to make schools safer without Teachers feeling that they need to also be security guards as well as educators.

This is a horrible idea. All this would accomplish would be to muddle any police response to an active shooter incident and make it more difficult to keep armed intruders off campus (currently if you see someone on campus with a gun and without a badge you know to call the cops, no need to wait for the shooting to start). Moreover, in the confusion of the moment what do you think the odds are of a teacher shooting a student instead of the perpetrator? Even with basic training they wouldn't be prepared to respond to this kind of situation the way police are.

I agree. This is a horrible idea. But I suspect they are doing this because they feel helpless. They probably dont feel safe at work anymore.

This is why (imo) the solution will cost lots of money and force folks to take more responsibility than they are now. Something many people (both liberal AND conservative) are not yet willing to do I'm afraid. We have to change our culture. We need to adopt (some) of the morals we had a long time ago. We need to get back to a time when kids would never have told a teacher to F-off. When kids respected authority figures. When people cared about their reputation.


I firmly believe this would go a long way toward solving some of the problems we are facing now.

This thread is beginning to make me chuckle