Another school shooting

  On 4/12/2013 at 11:17 PM, rixxx said:

 

  On 4/12/2013 at 11:11 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I wasn't here for the school shooting in ct discussion, but that destroyed my soul and still does when I think about. I really believe that it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue. I have no solutions to offer other than zero media coverage anymore, so the promise of infamy is no longer a motivator.

 

 

Yeah media really doesn't help- it's going to be a difficult change that has to come 'from the people' rather than government.

 

Maybe it's a symptom of a culture that is so heavily about individualism?

 

Well said, it's definitely more of a healthcare issue than a gun issue. The guns aren't the issue, the issue is these individuals need mental help, they probably couldn't afford or didn't have access to. The infamy they get from the coverage is also a huge motivator. Although it's terrible that it happened, if the media would stop covering these events there wouldn't be so many copycats.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:18 AM, Fred McGriff said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:09 AM, zaphod said:

the media are a bunch of fucking vultures. the names of these shooters shouldn't be mentioned, there should simply be no coverage outside of memorializing whoever the victims are. it's more than any one issue.

 

yes 100%

 

Actually, when there was an interview with a policeman with I think a shooting over her, the detective was very good at not saying the shooters name and kept saying about how the news should not say his name or add to his 'glory' (so to speak) I think it was that raoul moat shooting.

Basically, the law doesnt have a chance when the news readers keep prodding out interviews with people and covering every fucking aspect of the killers life etc. It's a real shame police dont have the power to limit this sort of journalism.

(not that I believe journalism should be *censored* so to speak but, maybe follow protocols which have been outlined by a criminal phycologist?)

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:37 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:29 AM, Fred McGriff said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:21 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

If there were guards at schools like we have at airports, court houses, banks, hospitals, etc. then these shootings would be about as frequent as they are at the other places I've mentioned. I'm meaning less frequent, but I think infrequent would be appropriate

 

If you want to save children's lives you should be supportive of having them guarded. The same way that we are guarded at these other places on a daily basis. Why is it appropriate to guard adults, but less appropriate to guard defenseless children and young adults?

 

I think this is a resource issue right here. Don't have enough police force / guards etc to be guarding all the schools.

 

 

Well, there are tons of ways to fix that and also I feel your comment is indicative of systematic problems.

 

For instance, if drugs were all the legal there would be tons of available resources to apply to this one. It might even help the mental health and empathy issue if people could explore our spirituality and medicate with natural substances like marijuana.

 

Another route would be if the education system was appropriately funded and properly operated. If the "bounty" system was implemented I guarantee you schools would be guarded.

 

EDIT: I also don't think that legalizing drugs would somehow increase violent crime or anything like that either.

 

I think that might help, but I think the number of resources required to guard all of our schools is staggering, and would require us to further dip into employing merely available warm bodies which probably wouldn't be doing much good

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:37 AM, compson said:

the media is the biggest factor I think. fucking rewarding murderers with fame so they can get ratings and encourage the next number winner. it's like fucking 21st gladiator but no god damn arena.

i kinda like your argument but here's the thing: suppose tomorrow all guns are outlawed and suddenly the media cannot "reward murderers with airtime for ratings" well, won't they just find something else to exploit for ratings and suddenly everyone will be doing that instead? and if this is the case, don't you see a bigger problem here?

thats crazy though?! no country can afford that sort of enforcement.. I also dont think that would help, surely we want to limit the amount of violent weapons in the vicinity of these places?

I read that they are thinking of giving teachers guns so that they could defend themselves, but in that culture, a teacher could fly off the handle and be a shooter so I cant see that fixing the real issue in hand.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:44 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:37 AM, compson said:

the media is the biggest factor I think. fucking rewarding murderers with fame so they can get ratings and encourage the next number winner. it's like fucking 21st gladiator but no god damn arena.

 

i kinda like your argument but here's the thing: suppose tomorrow all guns are outlawed and suddenly the media cannot "reward murderers with airtime for ratings" well, won't they just find something else to exploit for ratings and suddenly everyone will be doing that instead? and if this is the case, don't you see a bigger problem here?

 

at least make it harder for them? across the board, deny them their infamy. maybe they will instead seek help or just off themselves instead of mowing down innocents.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:42 AM, rixxx said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:18 AM, Fred McGriff said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:09 AM, zaphod said:

the media are a bunch of fucking vultures. the names of these shooters shouldn't be mentioned, there should simply be no coverage outside of memorializing whoever the victims are. it's more than any one issue.

 

yes 100%

 

 

 

Actually, when there was an interview with a policeman with I think a shooting over her, the detective was very good at not saying the shooters name and kept saying about how the news should not say his name or add to his 'glory' (so to speak) I think it was that raoul moat shooting.

 

Basically, the law doesnt have a chance when the news readers keep prodding out interviews with people and covering every fucking aspect of the killers life etc. It's a real shame police dont have the power to limit this sort of journalism.

 

(not that I believe journalism should be *censored* so to speak but, maybe follow protocols which have been outlined by a criminal phycologist?)

 

i mean, great, good for him. but that isn't the case with every news piece i've ever seen. the shooting in connecticut was incredibly upsetting and i stopped watching the news about a day into the coverage. there's just something broken about trying to get a shot on a telephoto lens of a family mourning the loss of their six year old. when the press is as manipulative and parasitic as it is in this country, it's time to step back and examine what "freedom" actually means.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:40 AM, ghOsty said:

 

  On 4/12/2013 at 11:17 PM, rixxx said:

 

  On 4/12/2013 at 11:11 PM, Fred McGriff said:

I wasn't here for the school shooting in ct discussion, but that destroyed my soul and still does when I think about. I really believe that it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue. I have no solutions to offer other than zero media coverage anymore, so the promise of infamy is no longer a motivator.

 

 

Yeah media really doesn't help- it's going to be a difficult change that has to come 'from the people' rather than government.

 

Maybe it's a symptom of a culture that is so heavily about individualism?

 

The guns aren't the issue

 

No guns = no shootings. I'd say it's an issue

pipe fucking dream.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:40 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:21 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

If there were guards at schools like we have at airports, court houses, banks, hospitals, etc. then these shootings would be about as frequent as they are at the other places I've mentioned. I'm meaning less frequent, but I think infrequent would be appropriate

 

If you want to save children's lives you should be supportive of having them guarded. The same way that we are guarded at these other places on a daily basis. Why is it appropriate to guard adults, but less appropriate to guard defenseless children and young adults?

 

what you're saying kinda implies that unless people are guarded everywhere, they can't help it but resort to shooting one another. what do you suppose causes us to want to kill so bad? is it just the fact that i can get my hands on a gun?

 

here is another question: did this kid want to kill people or shoot people? if he didn't have a gun, would he just have gone on to be a valuable member of society or would he have found another way of carrying out his crime?

 

No, that isn't true really. You are misinterpreting me sort of. I'm just saying that:

A) Schools are being targeted

B) What is the appropriate response?

C) Guard the places being targeted

I'm not saying that my proposal is going to fix the root of the problem. I think it would be irresponsible to say that because of the possibility of people changing targets that we shouldn't attempt to implement this solution. If were to go through that process we wouldn't' have ever guarded anywhere. Some places just seem to be huge targets for violent maniacs.

As far as the psychology of the situation is concerned my only comments would be personal and anecdotal. I'm not a professional and I'm not well educated in the psychology of a killer.

I think that pharmaceuticals are a problem. I think that our culture is a problem in a number of ways. I think that the US needs more humanity, better education, and needs to come back to reality.

I think most comments as to the psychology of it all are speculative. I support implementing elected solutions quickly and attempting to fix the problem. We should focus on fixing things without further imposing government on the rights of our citizens.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:51 AM, Fred McGriff said:

pipe fucking dream.

this, just let the gun ban thing go. it's over

Guns = freedom. If you take away people's guns, you take away their freedom. It's that simple.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:54 AM, Friendly Foil said:

Guns = freedom. If you take away people's guns, you take away their freedom. It's that simple.

and some of them would start making bombs. the main cause of these acts of violence is just for the media attention and to shame their friends, family, peers for letting them down

freedom of speech is important but this use of it serves no moral purpose and that should be common sense to these media monkeys.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:51 AM, Fred McGriff said:

pipe fucking dream.

Especially with Cody Wilson. The problem has to be solved now because in a few years guns will be utterly uncontrollable.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:49 AM, zaphod said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:42 AM, rixxx said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:18 AM, Fred McGriff said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:09 AM, zaphod said:

the media are a bunch of fucking vultures. the names of these shooters shouldn't be mentioned, there should simply be no coverage outside of memorializing whoever the victims are. it's more than any one issue.

 

yes 100%

 

 

 

Actually, when there was an interview with a policeman with I think a shooting over her, the detective was very good at not saying the shooters name and kept saying about how the news should not say his name or add to his 'glory' (so to speak) I think it was that raoul moat shooting.

 

Basically, the law doesnt have a chance when the news readers keep prodding out interviews with people and covering every fucking aspect of the killers life etc. It's a real shame police dont have the power to limit this sort of journalism.

 

(not that I believe journalism should be *censored* so to speak but, maybe follow protocols which have been outlined by a criminal phycologist?)

 

 

i mean, great, good for him. but that isn't the case with every news piece i've ever seen. the shooting in connecticut was incredibly upsetting and i stopped watching the news about a day into the coverage. there's just something broken about trying to get a shot on a telephoto lens of a family mourning the loss of their six year old. when the press is as manipulative and parasitic as it is in this country, it's time to step back and examine what "freedom" actually means.

 

You're right, we had the same over here, I was reading about the teachers etc and I thought to myself- Why do I need to know all this? What right to I have to know about these people's lives?

I couldn't read anymore I felt a bit sick.. made me feel so upset.

here is something to remember. in the united states, people have always had the right to bear arms, but only since after colombine have school shootings increased in numbers. why?

if this is a gun issue (or mental health issue) why weren't kids shooting one another in large numbers during the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s? do we just have more kids with mental issues, or are we so over-flooded with guns that kids just can't help themselves but fire one at a crowd of other kids?

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:55 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:54 AM, Friendly Foil said:

Guns = freedom. If you take away people's guns, you take away their freedom. It's that simple.

 

and some of them would start building bombs

 

Yea, and bombs are pretty much the single most non-freedom-like thing in existence. Guns don't kill people, but bombs sure as hell do.

I definitely agree that resources are an issue, but I don't think that it is unfathomable. Police forces, at least where I've lived, have gotten gigantic. A lot of it due to budgets being inflated by the criminal activity associated with drug law enforcement. There used to be a cop at my high school 10 years ago. I know that many alternative schools have metal detectors at their entrances and guards. The police also used to run dogs through our school looking for drugs. I think that there are a lot of available resources.

Arming teachers is like the least appropriate way of handling this problem, but it would at least be a solution. I think the possibility of teachers going crazy and shooting people is less of a threat than potential shooters. I don't really like this solution at all though. Teachers are supposed to be focused on teaching. They didn't become teachers to be armed guards.

Even if you made all schools only accessible through one entrance(entering not leaving), put in a metal detector, and 2 armed guards we would see a great improvement. I know that my school had around 6 security guards and one of them actually stopped a kid from attacking students with a katana. Why not train all these guys better and give them some kind of ability to take down shooters?

A revamping of the school system would solve this problem instantly. If children(parents) were able to choose which school they attended and that school allocated some of their resources to have a decent security system which school do you think parents would send their kids too? If that school in turn was rewarded economically for having a high rate of attendees then it would guarantee a high level of education at that institution as well. The market almost always responds appropriately to the needs of the consumers.

dont blame the guns boohoohoo :'''''''''''''''''(((((((((((((((((((((((((

if i had kids there is absolutely no way i would send them to a school with armed teachers. that's insane. if things are that bad, it's time to move to another country.

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:59 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:55 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 12:54 AM, Friendly Foil said:

Guns = freedom. If you take away people's guns, you take away their freedom. It's that simple.

 

and some of them would start building bombs

 

Yea, and bombs are pretty much the single most non-freedom-like thing in existence. Guns don't kill people, but bombs sure as hell do.

 

I am not defending gun rights, but its a pipe dream.

"OBAMA BANS GUNS"

the entire south would re-start the civil war. they even already have the costumes ready for when it happens

I would worry more what daily exposure to armed guards would do to a kid's head than fears of the shooting spree lottery. Also I can't imagine it would improve our situation with the school-to-prison pipeline.

  On 4/13/2013 at 1:11 AM, Adjective said:

I would worry more what daily exposure to armed guards would do to a kid's head than fears of the shooting spree lottery. Also I can't imagine it would improve our situation with the school-to-prison pipeline.

While it is admirable to worry about the psychology of a child, I think that safety is a much bigger concern. I remember more so being in awe and curious about people like police officers, firemen, and other public servants. As a child I felt like they were all heroes, or completely trustworthy authorities. I also think that there are much harder things to get used to than seeing a guard where you go to school. At least more peace of mind might exist. I don't think that it would create less peace of mind, and maybe after a few decades security presence might be able to be diminished. Once we figure out all this other shit.

What do you mean school to prison pipeline?

I would also note there is a security presence, both armed and unarmed, at a lot of schools.

  On 4/13/2013 at 1:05 AM, zaphod said:

if i had kids there is absolutely no way i would send them to a school with armed teachers. that's insane. if things are that bad, it's time to move to another country.

  On 4/13/2013 at 1:03 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Arming teachers is like the least appropriate way of handling this problem, but it would at least be a solution. I think the possibility of teachers going crazy and shooting people is less of a threat than potential shooters. I don't really like this solution at all though. Teachers are supposed to be focused on teaching. They didn't become teachers to be armed guards.

why not just have armed guards be the teachers- and have the teachers teach the armed guards how to teach the kids? or how about