Shooter dead, two injured after shooting at Great Mills High School in Maryland

[firey]

On 3/24/2018 at 6:19 AM, DocM said:

Some sort of "fire team" and security are needed. Not having them costs lives. So does spouting platitudes. 

Don't have them in schools here in Canada, doesn't seem to be an issue here.... so weird.

[PGHammer]

39 minutes ago, firey said:

Don't have them in schools here in Canada, doesn't seem to be an issue here.... so weird.

firey - Canada is MOST like those "other Western nations" that Floating quoted.

 

Unlike the United States, Canada was NOT "born out of rebellion"; it got its freedom by being given it (the British North America Act) - a major difference compared to its southern neighbor.

The nation MOST like the United States (among Western nations) is Mexico - however, Mexico has their share of issues compared to the United States, and it hasn't been all that successful disarming the populace, either (and they have been trying since "Pancho" Villa - which predates World War I).  Mexico also has a military dictator in their history AFTER they threw out the Spanish - Santa Ana - yes - the SAME one that later got himself captured in Juarez in the Mexican-American War; he later got himself captured by Mexican insurgents led by Benito Juarez - and tried for corruption, among other offenses.

 

So, NOT weird, firey - just different.

[kcbworth]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

So, just to be clear, you're accepting of posting armed guards as you would applying a bandage to an open wound to prevent things from getting worse before it can be treated properly. Am I correct?

Personally, I am. Armed guards are normal right around the world. It's a shame that they are needed at schools in America these days, but they clearly are so that is a reasonable short term solution.

 

Better long term solution is that we don't need armed guards because the threat of school shootings is no longer

30 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

So, NOT weird, firey - just different.

It is pretty weird in 2018 that people accept a ###### situation just because of how things were a few hundred years ago e.g. you mentioned the british monarchy as a pillar of their society, if the current monarchy tried to do things that monarchs did from the 1500s-early 1900s, you can be damn sure there'd be no more monarchy in Britain as the MODERN western Brit would not stand for it

Edited March 27, 2018 by kcbworth

[kcbworth]

6 hours ago, DocM said:

 

By calling be me cold. I'm not cold, far from it.

I thought that bit was a fait accompli, i.e. you were deliberately taking a devils advocate position, and because you are SO SURE that you are right, it comes across as very cold.

 

My point wasn't that you are cold, my point was that your attitude (which I assess as cold) upsets me.

 

I read your responses and genuinely get a little upset. It just feels like you are more interested point scoring rather than genuinely wanting America to be a country where kids can go to school without thinking that they might get shot up today (i.e. you seem to have accepted that school shootings aren't going anywhere anytime soon)

 

Not sure why you interpreted that as me "not liking the message therefore attacking the messenger". Sure I was attacking your attitude, but I can't see how (a) you are the messenger or (b) I said anything about the message?

[DocM]

15 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

I thought that bit was a fait accompli, i.e. you were deliberately taking a devils advocate position, and because you are SO SURE that you are right, it comes across as very cold.

 

My point wasn't that you are cold, my point was that your attitude (which I assess as cold) upsets me.

 

Not my problem, yours.

 

Quote

 

I read your responses and genuinely get a little upset. It just feels like you are more interested point scoring rather than genuinely wanting America to be a country where kids can go to school without thinking that they might get shot up today (i.e. you seem to have accepted that school shootings aren't going anywhere anytime soon)

 

Guaranteed safety is an illusion. Some nut could blow up thr school as with Bath MI in 1926, it could burn down, a tornado or derecho could hit, etc. 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-tornado-20-children-51-dead-horrific-damage/story?id=19219367

 

Quote

 

Oklahoma Tornado: 20 Children Among at Least 51 Dead, 'Horrific' Damage

 

May 20, 2013

 

 

Quote

 

Not sure why you interpreted that as me "not liking the message therefore attacking the messenger". Sure I was attacking your attitude, but I can't see how (a) you are the messenger or (b) I said anything about the message?

 

I do care, its just that I prefer solutions which address root causes. Guns aren't the root cause, they're a tactic and tactics can be changed to match availability.  

Edited March 27, 2018 by DocM

[kcbworth]

50 minutes ago, DocM said:

Guaranteed safety is an illusion. Some nut could blow up thr school as with Bath MI in 1926, it could burn down, a tornado or derecho could hit, etc. 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-tornado-20-children-51-dead-horrific-damage/story?id=19219367

 

I do care, its just that I prefer solutions which address root causes. Guns aren't the root cause, they're a tactic and tactics can be changed to match availability.  

As I said in my first post, it's clear that you strongly believe what you believe. You don't have to convince me of that.

 

I do think it's very weird that you think it's not possible for kids to feel safe at school, given that pretty much every other modern western nation does not even remotely have this problem, but hey, I'm not here to try to change your mind as, for whatever reason, you are dogmatically opposed to any suggestion that you might be wrong.

 

50 minutes ago, DocM said:

Not my problem, yours.

Thanks buddy (what was that about not being cold?)

Edited March 28, 2018 by kcbworth

[trag3dy]

7 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Of course I realise how difficult giving up guns is.  But until you do, things will not change.

Things are changing though if you bothered to look and don't listen to extremely biased media.

 

All violent crime in the US, that includes school shootings is down year after year. This trend has been going on since the 1980s.

 

The only reason we hear so much about it now is because of ease of access to news due to the internet.

 

I'm not saying things are perfect (I was actually shocked when I found out things like bump stocks are legal) so don't think I am.

 

There are ways to get a fix on this issue other than throwing away our rights. One immediate one comes that mind is that school bullying needs to stop, especially when it spills onto social media. Kids can't get away from it now. That Emma Gonzalez girl basically admitted in front of the world that Nicholas Cruz was bullied because they saw him as the weird kid and we all know what that can do to people.

Edited March 28, 2018 by trag3dy

[Kelxin]

Too many people focusing on the result instead of the problem...  with this being a supposed geek forum, you'd think there would be more talk about the rampant bullying problem in schools which is the cause of this instead of the outcome afterward.  I don't care of it was a shooting, someone running a car through the school or bombs, the problem was created the same way.  Until the bullying stops the aggression won't.

[PGHammer]

10 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Things are changing though if you bothered to look and don't listen to extremely biased media.

 

All violent crime in the US, that includes school shootings is down year after year. This trend has been going on since the 1980s.

 

The only reason we hear so much about it now is because of ease of access to news due to the internet.

 

I'm not saying things are perfect (I was actually shocked when I found out things like bump stocks are legal) so don't think I am.

 

There are ways to get a fix on this issue other than throwing away our rights. One immediate one comes that mind is that school bullying needs to stop, especially when it spills onto social media. Kids can't get away from it now. That Emma Gonzalez girl basically admitted in front of the world that Nicholas Cruz was bullied because they saw him as the weird kid and we all know what that can do to people.

Bullying of children because they are different is known to happen - and the difference can be anything - no matter how small - ask any child, anywhere (outside of school; don't DARE try to ask them IN school or on school property; all too often, the student body has an anti-snitch policy - with serious to fatal consequences for violating it).  How the heck do you solve that short of putting the entire student body under therapy?

[kcbworth]

4 hours ago, Kelxin said:

Too many people focusing on the result instead of the problem...  with this being a supposed geek forum, you'd think there would be more talk about the rampant bullying problem in schools which is the cause of this instead of the outcome afterward.  I don't care of it was a shooting, someone running a car through the school or bombs, the problem was created the same way.  Until the bullying stops the aggression won't.

There are a few problems:

 

* A culture of violence

* Dropping quality of life in many parts of the country

* People being singled out for being different

* Social media bullying

* Mental health

* Gun culture

* Easy access to guns

* Not enough security and protection given the unfortunate reality of all of the above

 

etc.

 

People talking about gun control are at least talking about some of the problems, clearly.

[DaveSharp]

On 3/24/2018 at 5:01 PM, theyarecomingforyou said:

Yes, but I'm not sitting here defending the right to carry around acid, am I? In fact I would argue that it's extremely dangeorus and action should be taken to reduce the risk of acid attacks. Afterall, people have the right to walk around without acid being thrown in their face. Also, you're talking about a tiny number of non-fatal acid attacks versus the 30,000 deaths a year in the US due to firearms. The issues you highlight are not proportional to the threat posed by gun violence in the US.

Actually, the right to bear arms is uniquely American. Other countries may allow gun ownership but it's not a constitutional right at the foundation of society. As for trust in government, the US government is one of the most corrupt on the planet yet there is no willingness to overthrow it. Claiming people have a right to bear arms to protect against an oppressive government is meaningless if people choose not to exercise that right.

But that is not the salient point is it, never mind the rest of it? The point is, people will find violent ways and means to hurt each other DESPITE laws and restrictions. Criminals still have guns in countries where they are prohibited and are still gleefully killing people, like those in the French nightclub. Does nothing to stop them but prevents others from fighting back. Notwithstanding your fear, many people outside law enforcement, including myself know how to use arms properly and judicially, and safely. Why, we are trained like anything else. BTW, tell those who are still living with the acid injuries just how little you think of their injuries and proportion. Your argument belittles their pain and suffering and reduces the severity of the crime in an attempt to make a political point. YOU don't care, you just pretend to care and those injuries have nothing to do with proportion as EVERYONE has the right to protection and the right to protect themselves. The right to bear arms is not uniquely American nine other countries have done the same with 7 other rescinding the declaration due to "political" matters. Often it's the government that the people need to defend against and the reason for the 2nd amendment in the first place. Chicago makes the argument all on it's own, so does LA. 

[kcbworth]

2 hours ago, DaveSharp said:

Criminals still have guns in countries where they are prohibited and are still gleefully killing people, like those in the French nightclub. 

That is a terrible example. The united states homicide by firearm rate is MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than these countries. Just because it's not zero in France doesn't mean it's not SIGNIFICANTLY better and a SIGNIFICANTLY safer place to be.

[Emn1ty]

8 hours ago, kcbworth said:

There are a few problems:

 

* A culture of violence

* Dropping quality of life in many parts of the country

* People being singled out for being different

* Social media bullying

* Mental health

* Gun culture

* Easy access to guns

* Not enough security and protection given the unfortunate reality of all of the above

 

etc.

 

People talking about gun control are at least talking about some of the problems, clearly.

1. There are less gun deaths than car deaths in the United States. Less gun deaths than alcohol related deaths. The vast majority of them suicide related (gun control won't stop those) with another significant portion being crime related (gun control won't stop those either).

2. Yes, and states cutting education doesn't help.

 

3. 4. These are the same thing really.

 

5. Indeed.

 

6. Gun culture is easy to say, but I don't think people actually know what they're saying when they say it.

 

7. Maybe to long-arms, but overally guns aren't that cheap nor always that easy to obtain. Maybe easy relative to other countries, but it's not like you can just walk in and buy a gun no questions asked anywhere.

 

8. Agreed.

All I'm gonna say is "gun culture" isn't really something we should be talking about because what that means isn't really quantifiable or addressable. Are you talking about hobbyists? Collectors? Hunters? Home defence owners? Concealed carriers? What is "gun culture" and how many people does that actually apply to?

[kcbworth]

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

1. There are less gun deaths than car deaths in the United States. Less gun deaths than alcohol related deaths. The vast majority of them suicide related (gun control won't stop those) with another significant portion being crime related (gun control won't stop those either).

2. Yes, and states cutting education doesn't help.

 

3. 4. These are the same thing really.

 

5. Indeed.

 

6. Gun culture is easy to say, but I don't think people actually know what they're saying when they say it.

 

7. Maybe to long-arms, but overally guns aren't that cheap nor always that easy to obtain. Maybe easy relative to other countries, but it's not like you can just walk in and buy a gun no questions asked anywhere.

 

8. Agreed.

All I'm gonna say is "gun culture" isn't really something we should be talking about because what that means isn't really quantifiable or addressable. Are you talking about hobbyists? Collectors? Hunters? Home defence owners? Concealed carriers? What is "gun culture" and how many people does that actually apply to?

A culture of guns being common amongst society

 

I bet there's countries where it's easy to get guns, where people just don't get them, because they don't have a gun culture.

 

For whatever reason, in america we feel like guns should be part of our lives.

 

That's a gun culture

 

I find it incredible that you can just dismiss, off hand, that the amount of guns in circulation is part of the problem contributing to gun deaths.

[Emn1ty]

4 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

 

For whatever reason, in America we feel like guns should be part of our lives.

First of all, that is not a unanimous conclusion. Second of all, that's a constitutional right. This would be no different than saying the US has a free speech culture. Well if us having that "culture" is simply about it being in our constitution or not then I guess that makes sense? Does the UK have an anti-free speech culture because of their hate speech laws and how loosely they are applied?

This is why I say people don't know what they mean, such a broad definition isn't a definition.

[kcbworth]

10 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

First of all, that is not a unanimous conclusion. Second of all, that's a constitutional right. This would be no different than saying the US has a free speech culture. Well if us having that "culture" is simply about it being in our constitution or not then I guess that makes sense? Does the UK have an anti-free speech culture because of their hate speech laws and how loosely they are applied?

This is why I say people don't know what they mean, such a broad definition isn't a definition.

Have you traveled much? (outside of the USA)?

[Emn1ty]

51 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

Have you traveled much? (outside of the USA)?

I don't see the point of this question beyond a fallacious argument. Your definition of gun culture isn't the same as anyone elses. Some people see gun culture as people who own guns for the sake of owning guns, whereas you are very broad and simply the idea of it being a constitutional right makes it a culture of its own. This all assumes that wide access to guns is a negative thing; which we haven't truly established because the statistics demonstrate the contrary in the US.

Sure we have more mass shootings than other countries, however there are far bigger fish to fry in terms of deaths than gun violence. And when you break down the statistics of what makes up that violence < 1% of all gun violence makes up these mass shootings. People are proposing we attack the ownership of guns and "gun culture" when a fraction of a percent of those who own guns are the problem. It would be akin to banning "combat" knives because of mass stabbings.

At the end of the day why is such a broad brush the only solution to such a small problem? Why can't we address each cross-section of gun violence for what it is. Crime, Suicide, Accidents and lastly and the least common Mass Shootings (usually a result of bullying, mental health or societal excommunication).

[kcbworth]

5 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I don't see the point of this question

Only because you get a pretty decent sense of different cultures attitudes to certain things, like guns, very quickly. You also get a sense for how dangerous it is for many in America, and how liberating it is not to feel like you need a gun to protect yourself from the high-ish likelihood that people around you may have guns (good guys or bad guys). But anyway...

 

5 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

People are proposing we attack the ownership of guns and "gun culture" 

No. People are proposed we stop kids being attacked by guns. That is literally the only thing that people are proposing - stopping attacks. No one (well, not the vast vast majority at any rate) is ATTACKING gun ownership or gun culture, they are trying to PREVENT kids and others being attacked.

[Emn1ty]

2 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

Only because you get a pretty decent sense of different cultures attitudes to certain things, like guns, very quickly. You also get a sense for how dangerous it is for many in America, and how liberating it is not to feel like you need a gun to protect yourself from the high-ish likelihood that people around you may have guns (good guys or bad guys). But anyway...

Just because someone has a gun doesn't make me feel like I need one myself. Perhaps that's just because I'm more accustomed to them being around, but just because a gun is present doesn't mean you're in danger. Perhaps the perception of a threat that isn't a threat is the problem for different cultures.

Just as when you see someone pull out their pocket knife you shouldn't be compelled to carry a knife around of your own because they might try and stab you with it.

2 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

No. People are proposed we stop kids being attacked by guns. That is literally the only thing that people are proposing - stopping attacks. No one (well, not the vast vast majority at any rate) is ATTACKING gun ownership or gun culture, they are trying to PREVENT kids and others being attacked.

Okay, sounds great. Lets stop kids getting killed with guns (a clear distinction as your statement makes it sounds like the guns did the attacking on their own). However saying what we should do and actually accomplishing it are two different things. And I think an upheaval of society for this a bit heavy handed. I think what needs to happen, personally:

• Increase background check requirements for all firearms to equivalent of pistols.
• Actually enforce gun regulations and institute heavy penalties for those who don't go through all the steps.

Those things have nothing to do with your supposed "gun culture" which is honestly fuzzy word. Just as fuzzy as "assault rifles", of which there is no true definition.

[kcbworth]

7 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

think what needs to happen, personally:

• Increase background check requirements for all firearms to equivalent of pistols.
• Actually enforce gun regulations and institute heavy penalties for those who don't go through all the steps.

Fantastic.

 

Better bunker down though, it won't be long before you are accused of attacking our god given rights

[Emn1ty]

17 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

Fantastic.

 

Better bunker down though, it won't be long before you are accused of attacking our god given rights

That won't happen, because only one of those requires any new legislation and the other I feel is the real problem (enforcing the laws already in place). Most gun rights advocates can't really argue against what's already there.

[DocM]

2 hours ago, kcbworth said:

That is a terrible example. The united states homicide by firearm rate is MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than these countries. Just because it's not zero in France doesn't mean it's not SIGNIFICANTLY better and a SIGNIFICANTLY safer place to be.

 

[kcbworth]

45 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Just because someone has a gun doesn't make me feel like I need one myself. Perhaps that's just because I'm more accustomed to them being around, but just because a gun is present doesn't mean you're in danger. Perhaps the perception of a threat that isn't a threat is the problem for different cultures.

Just as when you see someone pull out their pocket knife you shouldn't be compelled to carry a knife around of your own because they might try and stab you with it.

I was literally just using the pro-gun talking point (arm teachers, only thing that protects you is a good guy with a gun, taking away your ability to defend yourself, etc)

 

I'm quietly glad you disagree so strongly with this one, hopefully you pan the NRA every time they say the exact same thing

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

20 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

He wasn't talking about mass shootings?

 

There is no denying US has the highest number of murders and manslaughter by firearm in the developed world. 10x higher than any of those countries in your list. There's already more than 3000 deaths reported this year in the US as the result of firearms alone.

 

I haven't read through all of the topic, but if this is going down gun control discussion, remember we have a dedicated topic for it.

[Emn1ty]

10 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

I was literally just using the pro-gun talking point (arm teachers, only thing that protects you is a good guy with a gun, taking away your ability to defend yourself, etc)

I think what matters more than everyone carrying a gun is having a responder close enough to an incident to minimize the time one can exploit a weapon. For example, having an on-sight armed officer per-building at schools would drastically improve the response time to such events. Seconds for a first responder, likely a minute to two minutes for others on campus to provide assistance.

10 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

I'm quietly glad you disagree so strongly with this one, hopefully you pan the NRA every time they say the exact same thing

I think the idea that teachers should be armed is stupid, however I don't go out of my way to "pan" anyone.