Stop school shootings...

[buck460XVR]

Honestly, all we can do is speculate.

Here is an interesting study of "why?".


http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...824-story.html

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Honestly, all we can do is speculate. Most of these guys don't survive (or intend to survive) the incident. We're left poring through their manifestos, which may or may not be a reliable source of insight.

Even if we do speculate with perfect accuracy about the motive of past murderers, how does that help us anticipate future harms?

Lots of people are genuinely nuts and many more possess a constellation of nutty ideas. Almost none of them ever hurt anyone physically.

[doofus47]

zukiphile

Even if we do speculate with perfect accuracy about the motive of past murderers, how does that help us anticipate future harms?

If any of us could predict the future, we would not be on this thread, we'd be making money in Wall Street commodities futures.
The process is akin to building bridges. Look at the number of bridge failures in england back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Metallurgy was a new process, engineering to accommodate the increasing stress of trains and vibrations was new. Bridges failed. Once you started discovering how Bridge A failed, you could fix that problem, or engineer a solution to accept the new variables. When bridge A1 failed, a cursory exam could rule out failure cause related to failure of Bridge A and you could begin to investigate in search of a new root cause. Progress is always a method of looking over your shoulder while walking forward.

Unfortunately, all of our legislative fixes for past failures continually apply the same action: tightening access of firearms at the source. This doesn't seem to work when people with generally clean records (but evil in their hearts), pass background check after background check.
The next step will be either a further tightening of access from the source as the general populace will decide to give up rights to be safe, or society will be forced to recognize that singular points of control are not as effective as a mobilized citizenry that accepts both the existence of risk AND recognizes the need accept responsibility for themselves and each other.

This problem isn't going to go away soon.

[Road_Clam]

Like so many I got caught with my pants down following sandy hook. I think many of us learned a valuable lesson which is be prepared. Many of us now have a nice "reserve" if there is a next "panic". I think we got a taste of the new prepardness of the current gun enthusist. I for one have since embarked into handloading so I am far more independant of the panics vs. your typical enthusist that needs to purchase factory ammo. Like i've commented before they will never sucesfully take our guns, but they can take our ammo... Same as in the world of volatile investing : "STAY THE COURSE , KEEP YOUR EMOTIONAL FEAR OUT OF BUYING AND SELLING DECISIONS"

[OnTheFly]

Pre-crime. Nuff said.

Fly

[jimbob86]

Create a magic spell to remove all guns from the USA.

That would not "dispell" the murderous evil in the hearts of the people that do these sorts of things...... they'd find some other means to their ends..... and those means could be far deadlier than a handgun.......

All the security measures in the world will not prevent someone intent on mayhem and willing to die in the process ...... Even the intrusive measures that are undertaken in airports are little more than security theater...... this thought occured to me while I waited in a crowd of a couple hundred people, most carrying two bags, all standing in orderly lines, waiting to get screened ...... what a fat, juicy, soft target we were......

...... Likewise, putting one or more Police Officers and metal detectors at the doors of over 100,000 schools would, while being very expensive and inconvenient, not stop anything- it just moves the target from the classrooms to the front doors.......

[OnTheFly]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

...... Likewise, putting one or more Police Officers and metal detectors at the doors of over 100,000 schools would, while being very expensive and inconvenient, not stop anything- it just moves the target from the classrooms to the front doors.......

Well...I doubt that. I truly think these people are 1) Cowards, and 2) Looking for a large group of unarmed victims. Placing an armed officer on campus is going to make that location look a lot less attractive. If these people wanted to go out in a glorious gun battle, why don't they walk into a police station and start shooting? Why do they pick "gun free" zones?

Fly

[jimbob86]

Looking for a large group of unarmed victims.

Putting metal detectors at the front doors would create a very "large group of unarmed victims" every single morning...... and even if we could afford to pay for 100,000 plus more Police Officers (which we can't!), what is to stop Perpy J Darkheart from just walking up with a gun under his coat, drawing and shooting Officer Friendly while he's screening students? Or driving his ratty Ford Taurus over the lot of them?

Nothing. Not a single thing.

IIRC, Millard South had a school shooting a couple years ago..... they had an SRO/Security Officer, and that guy fled......

[Andy Blozinski]

Metal detectors pick up too much non-offending crap to be a practical deterrent unless you slow down traffic flow and have everyone take off their belt buckles, toss keys, phones etc. Not gonna happen at a high school.

[OnTheFly]

I was not commenting so much about the metal detector as I was about having armed officers onsite. I dislike the idea of a metal detector for the reasons you mention. Depending on the mental state of the assailant, the presence of an officer may not deter them and definitely will not stop a determined person. However, my statement about the majority of these shootings stands. Most of them did not choose a location where they knew their victims would (or might) be armed. Allowing CC on campus would have the same effect. I believe these sick individuals have the perception that a LEO is an expert with their firearm. The benefit of allowing CC is that they will not know who the armed individuals are. Either one could discourage a shooter from selecting a location.

Fly

[jimbob86]

How do you propose to pay for these "Officers"? Nebraska's property taxes (which support the schools) are already outrageous ...... maybe we'll just have the Fed print us up a bunch of cash?

The simplest solution (which won't fly with Big Education, as it does not expand their control and/or budget authority) to have existing staff that would be willing to take some training and Carry to do so. I know several of the staff at our local schools that would do so, if allowed by state law. Federal Law already allows for this:

Exceptions to both the possession and discharge bans include:
•Where the firearm is possessed for use in a program approved by a school held in the school zone, or in accordance with a contract entered into between a school and the individual or an employer of the individual;

All the teachers and employees are already under contract with the school district. Add in a provision for an additional duty, and do it in executive seesion (personell matter) so nobody but the board members and the contracted individual know.

It ain't rocket surgery, but folks in our Statehouse can't wrap their head around it....

[OnTheFly]

jimbob86,

I think you are reading into my posts. Nowhere did I suggest that officers on premises is the solution to the problem. I was addressing your statement that armed officers wouldn't change anything. I believe you are wrong because of how these individuals choose the location for their crime. I like the idea of armed teachers, and/or armed students when we are talking about a school for adult education.

Again, my statement stands. These people are likely discouraged by the presence of armed people who can defend themselves. This includes police officers.

Fly

[jimbob86]

So..... if they are discouraged from attacking the HS with the armed officer (not saying they would be-but if they were) ....would that stop them from doing very bad things? What about the daycare down the street? Do we guard them, too.

We can't "guard" everything..... obvious deterrents, even if they worked at that site, that day, won't stop the madness. The only answer is to have a response that the nut can't anticipate. You've noted these guys are cowards..... I think they kill themselves just as soon as their control-freak fantasy gets interrupted...... as soo as they are no longer "all powerful", "invincible", it's game over..... and they will be less likely to unleash that fantasy if they know there is a good possibility that they will not be, in fact, "invincible", even for a few minutes....... uncerainty kills their fantasy.

[9x18_Walther]

I think it should be noted that a good deal of the school shootings (albeit mostly the minor incidents) involve minors in possession of firearms.

What laws could change this?

[jimbob86]

What laws could change this?

None. It's already illlegal for minors to carry handguns. Are we going to make it "illegaler"? If that doesn't do it, how about "Illegalest"?

[9x18_Walther]

None. It's already illlegal for minors to carry handguns. Are we going to make it "illegaler"? If that doesn't do it, how about "Illegalest"?

It was a rhetorical question.

Your answer is correct.

[OnTheFly]

Ok...try to read my words. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying with the exception of ONE (1) item. I am saying if these people know there is a police officer present, they likely will choose another location.

I am not suggesting the money should be spent on a LEO in every school, office building, church, store, mall, etc. I am saying that they will be discouraged from committing their crime at a location where there is an armed officer present.

I am not discussing the financial feasibility of having an officer present in every possible location. I am suggesting that these sick individuals will choose a different location instead of one that is occupied by an armed LEO.

I am not discounting the your argument (both effectiveness and fiscal benefit) for having armed teachers/citizens. I am however, stating that it is unlikely these individuals will continue with a crime in a location that an armed officer is on duty.

So you can continue to talk about how it is not feasible to have an officer everywhere, and I will not dispute that. However, I AM clearly disagreeing with your ONE (1) statement that the presence of an armed officer will not deter one of these mentally corrupt individuals.

So you can continue to go on and on and on about cost and how impractical it would be to have an officer on every corner, or you could defend the ONE (1) statement of yours which I am contesting, or if you can't directly defend that statement, then I guess we are done.

Fly

[44 AMP]

..... I think they kill themselves just as soon as their control-freak fantasy gets interrupted...... as soo as they are no longer "all powerful", "invincible", it's game over.....

So far, this has been the pattern most of the time. There have been exceptions. One of the killers left notes saying how "if the cops killed you, you lost your points".

Another one of them, when challenged (but not shot at) by a CCW holder ducked into cover, then shot himself.

Several of the mass shootings have been as close to a copycat as the killer could make it.

Westbecker didn't shoot up a school, but other than that he copied Purdy as close as he could, even to the point of sending back the AK he got because it wasn't the exact same model used at Stockton. When police checked his home, they found the Time magazine article on the Stockton shooting open on the table next to his easy chair.

Lanza reportedly studied the previous mass shootings as well.

I don't think we should be calling these people mentally ill. Certainly they are not in a "right mind", but mentally ill carries a lot of preconceived impressions, most of which don't fit these spree killers.

They demonstrate they are capable of detailed planning and carrying out complex tasks. its just the tasks they CHOOSE to carry out are EVIL.

the pattern is so eerily similar, it almost leads one to accept demonic possession as a possibility. Perhaps these people don't need mental health help, perhaps they need an exorcism!??

Can't recall if I saw that plot on "Supernatural" or not, but I would expect it there...if you were doing scifi, it would be an alien entity taking them over, feeding on the carnage....

What is it that causes it, here on earth? I don't know. What I can say is that in many species of mammals, certain individuals "run amok". It is an observed fact, and so far as I know, one still without a completely satisfactory explanation.

[Blackbook]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

So my question to you all, what the heck can we really do to stop these things?

*Institute a national Broken Windows Theory campaign.
*Pass fiscal policy in support of intact families.
*Abolish existing fiscal policy in support of broken homes.
*Restigmatise pregnancy out of wedlock.
*Shore up preventative mental heathcare.
*Issue training and Tasers to all public school faculty, and abolish the Gun Free School Zone Act.

[Pond, James Pond]

I don't think we should be calling these people mentally ill. Certainly they are not in a "right mind", but mentally ill carries a lot of preconceived impressions, most of which don't fit these spree killers.

I think it is the preconceived ideas that should be dropped. The public should be educated as to what mental illness can entail. Being mentally ill covers a whole swathe of psychology, psychiatry and neurology.

The ability to make detailed plans and reason out complex problems are not indicative of mental-illness or not. I think a key feature is that these people don't see the world in quite the same way that a socially balanced person does. They might reach conclusions that are are very logical, but lack the human aspect that would make them unsavoury or repulsive to other "normal" people.

I do believe these people to be mentally-ill and/or having some deficit in their emotional development.

*Abolish existing fiscal policy in support of broken homes.

I don't know about the US, but for me there is a significant difference between supporting broken homes and offering support to those from a broken home.

*Restigmatise pregnancy out of wedlock.

How on Earth is that going to help?!

[Tom Servo]

What laws could change this?

I'll be honest. I don't know. I'm not an expert on social policy.

What's more, it's not our job to come up with solutions. That's what politicians are elected and paid to do. We've been maneuvered into thinking that, if we don't want Proposal A, we must be the ones to counter with Proposal B.

Nope. Proposal A is valid or deficient on its own merits. The fact that we oppose it doesn't mean we don't want the problem solved. It just means we know one approach won't work.

[Mainah]

I think that every gun manufacturer should ban the representation of their products in film, tv, and video games. Let the media invent weapons that glamorize and promote violence. The same media that often cries for gun control makes a ton of money through promoting violence, and that must have some influence on these cowards.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by mainah

I think that every gun manufacturer should ban the representation of their products in film, tv, and video games.

Why not just have the gun makers ban the use of their guns in murders? Wouldn't that be more effective?

The gun makers have just as much authority to do that as they do to ban the use of their guns in film, tv, and video games.

Or are you proposing to change the laws so the manufacturer of an item can control its' use after purchase?

In other words, Ford can ban the use of their cars in speeding and drunk driving and Hewlett Packard can ban the use of their computers to view pornography?

Yep, that outta work out just fine!

[jimbob86]

*Restigmatise pregnancy out of wedlock.

How on Earth is that going to help?!

When it (and a whole lot of other self-destructive behaviors) was socially unacceptable, there was a whiole lot less of it.

The way we run welfare in this country, it PAYS to engage in behaviors that are self destructive.

[Mainah]

Gun manufacturers have the right to ask the media not to portray their products in a way that encourages irresponsible use. Kids today grow up marinating in a culture that celebrates senseless violence. I think that addressing that culture would be a step in the right direction.