school shooting

[appbio91]

In the absence of disease and human pressure starving is acually better for the health of the heard than hunting. If you just sit down in your stand and a sickly little buck staggers by will you shoot it or wait for his big healthy brother. The latter I am sure. The point is nature has a way of controlling population size that ensures that the fittest genes survive. The goal of the hunt is to get the biggest trophy and hence the fittest genes are unnaturally removed. I don't hunt and don't have a problem with it but don't buy the benevolent argument.

[wataugan03]

There will be a black market for whatever guns or ammunition is outlawed. No doubt. But, will that black market thrive? Drugs are easier because its easy to grow them and they can be brought over the border. There's a lot of value per volume/weight. Guns and ammo would be harder. For the market to get sizeable someone in South America is going to have to start a gun factory and figure out a way to get the guns across the border. Once they are here they'll have to be stashed somewhere and again the size becomes a problem. And of course less people are going to be interested in buying an illegal item that's non-consumable - you've got to hide it for as long as you keep it. The prices would skyrocket (could easily be 10 times higher). Its hard to imagine a huge blackmarket even remotely touching the size of the drug black market. The largest criminal enterprises will get a limited amount of them, sure. But, these crazy mass killers probably wouldn't even know where to look for outlawed guns - and I don't know that they'd be able to afford them even then.

[wataugan03]

I think this article (which is really a cry for help) really puts into perspective how difficult parental responsibility can be in some circumstances. It takes a village, especially when your dealing with a child who has serious problems. I wouldn't have a clue what to do with a child like this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 11009.html

[firemoose]

In the absence of disease and human pressure starving is acually better for the health of the heard than hunting. If you just sit down in your stand and a sickly little buck staggers by will you shoot it or wait for his big healthy brother. The latter I am sure. The point is nature has a way of controlling population size that ensures that the fittest genes survive. The goal of the hunt is to get the biggest trophy and hence the fittest genes are unnaturally removed. I don't hunt and don't have a problem with it but don't buy the benevolent argument.

Although I'm sure for a lot it is true but the bolded point in your post is not correct in my case. Not my goal. I have never taken the trophy buck. Don't even have a head on the wall because I've never wanted one. I let them go. I take the "scrub" buck just because most believe the genes are not as good and I would prefer to let the better animal breed. And just because it doesn't have a big rack it doesn't mean that it's a sickly animal. I may not be the norm but most everyone I hunt with thinks the same way I do. I prefer to think as a sportsmen myself, not only a hunter. Different breed.

[firemoose]

There will be a black market for whatever guns or ammunition is outlawed. No doubt. But, will that black market thrive? Drugs are easier because its easy to grow them and they can be brought over the border. There's a lot of value per volume/weight. Guns and ammo would be harder. For the market to get sizeable someone in South America is going to have to start a gun factory and figure out a way to get the guns across the border. Once they are here they'll have to be stashed somewhere and again the size becomes a problem. And of course less people are going to be interested in buying an illegal item that's non-consumable - you've got to hide it for as long as you keep it. The prices would skyrocket (could easily be 10 times higher). Its hard to imagine a huge blackmarket even remotely touching the size of the drug black market. The largest criminal enterprises will get a limited amount of them, sure. But, these crazy mass killers probably wouldn't even know where to look for outlawed guns - and I don't know that they'd be able to afford them even then.

Never said that the crazy mass killers would be ones getting the guns. I believe it would help slow down that kind of activity, which would be a good thing. I was speaking of the criminals, most of whom have the money through their other activities to afford the guns. And no one in South America would have to start a gun factory since most guns are made overseas already, as I pointed out. And a bale of marijuana is not much less bulky than a box with a few guns. Was not talking about a blackmarket for the average citizen to try and buy a gun. That's pretty much the whole point. The other group we don't want to have the guns would be the ones who would be getting them, the criminals. Most of them want them, have the resources and contacts to obtain them, and aren't going to be deterred by banning them.

I was addressing several points at once. Sorry if it was too long to read the whole thing but the whole point was that we need to address every aspect of this situation. Just simply banning guns is not going to instantly solve the problems in this country. And if you read the whole post you will see that I am for making assualt weapons as hard as possible to obtain and also taking other measures to control other types of weapons. I just don't want them all taken away. It's always all or nothing these days. There never seems to be any middle ground for anyone anymore.

[Yosef]

doesn't have a big rack it doesn't mean that it's a sickly animal.

Not to stray too far from the topic but if it doesn't have a big rack, it's definitely a notch lower on my totem pole

[firemoose]

doesn't have a big rack it doesn't mean that it's a sickly animal.

Not to stray too far from the topic but if it doesn't have a big rack, it's definitely a notch lower on my totem pole

I thought about that line after I typed it. Decided to leave it hoping someone might find a bit of humor in what is otherwise a horrible discussion.

[newtoasu]

If we were to ban semi-automatic and assault weapons, I fully get that you're not taking 100% of them out of play. Nobody should be that naive.

BUT... if you put the ban in place, and enforce it, you've limited the pool of potential future owners of these guns to a much smaller potential percentage. Also, you will absolutely weed out a good percentage of people interested in getting these guns. Not the most determined, but even if you've knocked off only 80% of the people that would have otherwise gotten their hands on the guns, that's a huge win.

I heard on a radio program today that after a large mass shooting in Australia in 1996, the Conservative Prime Minister pushed through legislation that not only banned assault weapons, but provided for the buyback of those in possession of citizens. A total of 600,000 were repurchased by the government. It also said that there were 14 mass killings in the 12 years before the ban took place, but none in the 16 years after the ban.

Here is a link that discusses what I just wrote (although I'll be the first to admit that I have not attempted to verify any of the statistics mentions.):

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2012/12/ ... -killings/


In addition, to quote that great southern philosopher(s) Lynyrd Skynyrd:

Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

[appbio91]

In the absence of disease and human pressure starving is acually better for the health of the heard than hunting. If you just sit down in your stand and a sickly little buck staggers by will you shoot it or wait for his big healthy brother. The latter I am sure. The point is nature has a way of controlling population size that ensures that the fittest genes survive. The goal of the hunt is to get the biggest trophy and hence the fittest genes are unnaturally removed. I don't hunt and don't have a problem with it but don't buy the benevolent argument.

Although I'm sure for a lot it is true but the bolded point in your post is not correct in my case. Not my goal. I have never taken the trophy buck. Don't even have a head on the wall because I've never wanted one. I let them go. I take the "scrub" buck just because most believe the genes are not as good and I would prefer to let the better animal breed. And just because it doesn't have a big rack it doesn't mean that it's a sickly animal. I may not be the norm but most everyone I hunt with thinks the same way I do. I prefer to think as a sportsmen myself, not only a hunter. Different breed.

Good for you, I 'll get off of my soap box now. Not that I was preaching I just find that a lot of hunters have never thought about the natural selection angle. Obviously you have so I have no more bullets.

[appdaze]

http://deadspin.com/5968935/take-that-n ... t-football


gotta love twitter.


****not work friendly, foul language.****

[Appsolutely]

If we were to ban semi-automatic and assault weapons, I fully get that you're not taking 100% of them out of play. Nobody should be that naive.

BUT... if you put the ban in place, and enforce it, you've limited the pool of potential future owners of these guns to a much smaller potential percentage. Also, you will absolutely weed out a good percentage of people interested in getting these guns. Not the most determined, but even if you've knocked off only 80% of the people that would have otherwise gotten their hands on the guns, that's a huge win.

I heard on a radio program today that after a large mass shooting in Australia in 1996, the Conservative Prime Minister pushed through legislation that not only banned assault weapons, but provided for the buyback of those in possession of citizens. A total of 600,000 were repurchased by the government. It also said that there were 14 mass killings in the 12 years before the ban took place, but none in the 16 years after the ban.

Here is a link that discusses what I just wrote (although I'll be the first to admit that I have not attempted to verify any of the statistics mentions.):

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2012/12/ ... -killings/


In addition, to quote that great southern philosopher(s) Lynyrd Skynyrd:

Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

Thanks, Doc. More information here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ide_a.html

[firemoose]

http://deadspin.com/5968935/take-that-n ... t-football


gotta love twitter.


****not work friendly, foul language.****

That is ridiculous. No matter if you are a supporter of his all the time or not this transcends politics. There will be plenty of things to argue about in the next four years and beyond.....this is not one of them.

[appst89]

If we were to ban semi-automatic and assault weapons, I fully get that you're not taking 100% of them out of play. Nobody should be that naive.

BUT... if you put the ban in place, and enforce it, you've limited the pool of potential future owners of these guns to a much smaller potential percentage. Also, you will absolutely weed out a good percentage of people interested in getting these guns. Not the most determined, but even if you've knocked off only 80% of the people that would have otherwise gotten their hands on the guns, that's a huge win.

I heard on a radio program today that after a large mass shooting in Australia in 1996, the Conservative Prime Minister pushed through legislation that not only banned assault weapons, but provided for the buyback of those in possession of citizens. A total of 600,000 were repurchased by the government. It also said that there were 14 mass killings in the 12 years before the ban took place, but none in the 16 years after the ban.

Here is a link that discusses what I just wrote (although I'll be the first to admit that I have not attempted to verify any of the statistics mentions.):

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2012/12/ ... -killings/


In addition, to quote that great southern philosopher(s) Lynyrd Skynyrd:

Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

But no change in the rate of gun violence.

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[40] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[41] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[42]


A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates

And I am not advocating that nothing be done. I'm just not convinced what needs to be done.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

No one seems to have any thoughts on what I posted before.

Are we not supposed to have equal firepower against the government?
1700's there was equal fire power between government and citizens...
2000's there is equal fire power between government and citizens...

Is this not what the 2nd Amendment is about?
Would we be an oppressed people if we had no way to overthrow the government in firepower?

You have tanks, planes, nuclear warheads? Give up on the dream on having equal fire power. You don't nor should you. You want to make sure the gov't does not enslaves us, then weaken the corporate power structure and make sure the folks the military hires care more about the citizens than the "gov't" It not only takes a gun to fire at citizens but also a person to pull the trigger. One reason I am so proud of Bradley Manning is the fact he was willing to be a person that was not just a "yes" man to the power structure. He is in jail now for that, but if we have enough Mannings we don't need to worry about the gov't. Same thing for police at a more local level.

[fjblair]

89
Do you have children? Imagine seeing your 6 year old child with 4 or 5 rounds from a bushmaster in his or her face or what's left of it.............Now tell me you still think there is a reason for an assault rifle with a 20 or 30 round clip.............There is no longer a defense in this country for support of these weapons. And I didn't vote for Obama, don't care for him. If I can't kill a deer with a bolt action 30.06 or a dove with a 3 shell shotgun then I don't need to be hunting. If we save one child in the future is it not worth it?

This type of argument is all emotion and no reason. Would you feel better if the kid took 4 or 5 rounds to the face from a 9mm or a .22?

The fact is very few people are murdered with .223 semi automatic rifles in this country. He could have done the same evil with a 5 shot revolver and a pocket full of speed loaders.

[asutrnr81]

I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't play call of duty before world war II......

This is a culture that has been created here in American schools that has to be curbed. All the evidence that I have read and seen over the years points to two culprits, the parents and bullies.

You are badly mis-informed. You might want to try listening to the people who actually interview teen killers and school and soft target shootings.

Look up Phil Chalmers and just read what he has to say...just look it up. Then read this:

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter ... is-denial/

While I will not deny that bullying has reached an all time high the retaliation because of access to automatic weapons makes it much more lucrative to the assailant!

I do not try to talk about things I do not understand but I promise you, you have oversimplified and overstated your beliefs.

Go APPS!

[asutrnr81]

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Colombine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

......

Thanks for the work it took to put this together.....

I would add one FACT that most on here will not like or believe.....Just in case The Moody left any out....most of these killers were male.....and nearly all if not all are white.

Go APPS!

[appdaze]

I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't play call of duty before world war II......

This is a culture that has been created here in American schools that has to be curbed. All the evidence that I have read and seen over the years points to two culprits, the parents and bullies.

You are badly mis-informed. You might want to try listening to the people who actually interview teen killers and school and soft target shootings.

Look up Phil Chalmers and just read what he has to say...just look it up. Then read this:

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter ... is-denial/

While I will not deny that bullying has reached an all time high the retaliation because of access to automatic weapons makes it much more lucrative to the assailant!

I do not try to talk about things I do not understand but I promise you, you have oversimplified and overstated your beliefs.

Go APPS!

I already have read a decent amount of his work. He's got a whole slew of stuff on youtube. I'm taking his views in to consideration. No sir I am not misinformed because he isn't the only person who has ever interviews shooters. He is a guy who is using info to sell his image. His prices can be pretty hefty as well. So yes as I said I have listened to what he has to say.

http://philchalmers.com/index.php?route ... tion_id=11

This sounds more like an infomercial than someone trying to protect our kids.

Some of what Chalmers says is common sense but there are plenty of things he talks about that I disagree with. too many of these guys spit out all kinds of ideas about this and that yet at the end of the day they aren't the ones picking up the bills for the school systems.

In that link you provide he keeps comparing school violence to school fires......that article is actually quite funny with his comparison to two things that are impossible to truly compare. There is a huge difference between a fire starting up and someone coming in a shooting live rounds at you. There is an incredible difference between hearing the instinctive pop pop pop of a metal object hurling piece of lead to riddle your body with holes versus part of the building catching on fire. He tries to compare how well schools are prepared for fires as compared to how well they know how to handle a school shooter. There is one major factor that he doesn't seem to take in to mind. A fire doesn't have a human brain. Preventing fires from killing students is much easier than preventing students from coming to school with a gun hidden somewhere, or just walking in and shooting up the place. This goes back to ideas that have been thrown around on here. Which is more likely to kill a kid in a school, a guy with a knife or a guy with a gun? Guns tend to be a bit more precise in killing than fires.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/ ... s/v8i1.pdf
With all that fire protection we still have on average 14,7000 fires per year. Zero fatalities and around 100 injuries. Why? because fires aren't walking, thinking killers with precise guns to kill people. Please refer to my previous stats about the number of school shootings per year. Schools don't place a lot of money in that category because on average a school will have a shooting once every 12,000+ years. Dealing with fires is part of the building code. Building fires are something you can test thousands of times over. Humans are unpredictable and you can interview 50,000 school shooters but that doesn't mean you can do squat about predicting when and where the next attack will be. Police have been studying psycho killers, murderers, and criminals of all kinds since the early 1900s here in the US yet every year hundreds of thousands of crimes happen all over the country.

"g. Armed citizens can help. Think United 93. Whatever your personal take on gun control, it is all but certain that a killer set on killing is more likely to attack a target where the citizens are unarmed, rather than one where they are likely to encounter an armed citizen response."

I love this line from him. Yes lets arm more citizens....wait....armed citizens are the people shooting up the schools....but thats ok lets arm more people. As of 2007 reports it is estimated that there are 88 guns per 100 people here in the United States. Yes, we need more guns. We only almost double the gun per capita of the second place country....


"Today we must not only prepare for juvenile mass murder, something that had never happened in human history until only recently, but we also must prepare for the external threat. Islamist fanatics have slaughtered children in their own religion — they have killed wantonly, mercilessly, and without regard for repercussion or regret of any kind. What do you think they’d think of killing our kids?"

First off he clearly failed history class if he thinks juvenile mass murder is something that hasn't happened in history until now. Second of all he is fear mongering. What if the communists take over our schools? all the children will be fed to the Soviet bears.


"A future feature will focus solely on the issue of the terror threats against American schools, but for the time being consider this: There are almost a half a million school busses in America — it would require every enlisted person and every officer in the entire Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps combined to put just one armed guard on every school bus in the country.
As a country and as a culture, the level of protection Americans afford our kids against violence is nothing near what we do to protect them from fire. Grossman is correct: Denial is the enemy. We must prepare for violence like the firefighter prepares for fire. And we must do that today."


So he goes from talking about Islamic terrorists back to talking about school fires. I'm sorry but I pay my taxes to the government who in turn is using it to fund things like the CIA, FBI, ARMY, NAVY, AIRFORCE, HOMELAND SECURITY, and many others with whom we are supposed to place our trust in protecting us from terrorists.


I'm sorry but but I disagree with much of what this guy says. No this is not a personal attack on you by any means, I just disagree with these guys and no sir I am not misinformed. The parents are the first line of defense. Often they are the source of the guns. They are the ones who can see the first signs of problems to come. It seems like almost all these shooters had issues with kids or someone at the school. Another thing that makes it seem like these things are happening more often is the simple fact that as our population continues to grow the number of incidences will increase. The total percentage may remain the same but the instances will increase. This means more news coverage which gives the illusion that this happen a lot. Elementary age kids get shot down in the streets every single day. I guess it just needs to happen in the schools for the big news media and the US to start caring.

[Rekdiver]

89
Do you have children? Imagine seeing your 6 year old child with 4 or 5 rounds from a bushmaster in his or her face or what's left of it.............Now tell me you still think there is a reason for an assault rifle with a 20 or 30 round clip.............There is no longer a defense in this country for support of these weapons. And I didn't vote for Obama, don't care for him. If I can't kill a deer with a bolt action 30.06 or a dove with a 3 shell shotgun then I don't need to be hunting. If we save one child in the future is it not worth it?

This type of argument is all emotion and no reason. Would you feel better if the kid took 4 or 5 rounds to the face from a 9mm or a .22?

The fact is very few people are murdered with .223 semi automatic rifles in this country. He could have done the same evil with a 5 shot revolver and a pocket full of speed loaders.

you are damn right it's an emotional comment. We don't need Assault rifles or high capacity magazines. And he could not have done what he did with a 5 shot revolver. I own one and ive used speed loaders. These kids are dead because of reasoning like yours. Think about that for a while. Move to Idaho.

[bcoach]

I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't play call of duty before world war II.

There are people who kill people. I'm really tired of people trying to blame video games or music or whatever for these issues.


"An overwhelming number of American children between the ages of 2 and 17 are playing video games, a new study released today by the NPD Group has found.

According to the research firm, 91 percent of kids between 2 and 17, or about 64 million people, are playing video games, up 9 percentage points compared to 2009."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20118 ... arch-says/

That is just the numbers for the kids. There are millions of adults who play as well.


"They excluded gang-related shootings and, in the end, found that there was no good "profile" of the type of person who becomes a school shooter. Attackers ranged in age from 11 to 21, and were as likely to be rich as poor; they were from all ethnic and racial backgrounds (though about three-fourths were white). They had intact and broken families, good and bad report cards. A few felt isolated, but just as many had a lot of friends. Most were suicidal, but only a few had actually been diagnosed with mental disorders."

"They also found that a few factors that might seem significant — poor attitudes toward school, poor grades, bad parent-child relationships, a tendency toward being a loner and even watching a lot of violent TV — had almost no effect."

"Cornell estimates that even with an average of 9.3 shootings per school year, each of the nation's 119,000 K-12 schools can expect a shooting only once every 12,800 years."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/edu ... ters_N.htm

I hate when these types of things happen and I feel strongly for the victims involved, but the media has Americans thinking that this is some massively occurring event when they aren't. They hardly ever happen but when they do they are front page news.


In my opinion, as others have already expressed, this is the major problem..."Many school shooters were bullied or threatened beforehand and more than half had revenge as their motive. Several had suffered "bullying and harassment that was longstanding and severe," the Secret Service said."

This is a culture that has been created here in American schools that has to be curbed. All the evidence that I have read and seen over the years points to two culprits, the parents and bullies.

These numbers don't have much meaning as they include all games not the games noted.