Colorado school Shooting! (case sealed)

[TECSHARE]

Did anyone notice how quickly this story vanished from the media after it was discovered one of the shooters was and anti-trump trans, and then the students walked out of a vigil because people were trying to politicize it for gun control?

[1715250060]

1715250060

[1715250060]

1715250060

[1715250060]

1715250060

[nutildah]

Hmmm, okay. I posted a screenshot for a reason but anyway Let's try one more time in simple manner.

Murders rate Per million in India = 34.24

India has more than 1.2 Billion population. Let's say 1.2 billion for now, which means 1200 Million.

Now Let's multiply.

1200 * 34.24 = and you have your answer which is pretty close to murder rate.

For fun you can try this with US's population as well.

Hope this is helpful.  

Yes lets get simpler... perhaps you should look up "per capita". You too Nutilduhh.

You got proven wrong using your own statistics. Just own it for once in your life.

[TECSHARE]

You got proven wrong using your own statistics. Just own it for once in your life.

Yep, you are right, it was confusingly worded and organized. The rates per-capita are comparable. The problem is this is still not an accurate representation of actual crime rates as explained in detail here. India has a poor criminal justice system resulting in less officially reported crime. As enforcement goes up, the statistical documented "crime rate" goes up independent of the ACTUAL crime rate. In summary, you are still wrong even when you are right Nutilduhh.

[nutildah]

You got proven wrong using your own statistics. Just own it for once in your life.

Yep, you are right, it was confusingly worded and organized. The rates per-capita are comparable. The problem is this is still not an accurate representation of actual crime rates as explained in detail here. India has a poor criminal justice system resulting in less officially reported crime. As enforcement goes up, the statistical documented "crime rate" goes up independent of the ACTUAL crime rate. In summary, you are still wrong even when you are right Nutilduhh.

OK well I know this is as good as its ever going to get regarding a concession from you, so I'll take it, thanks.

[BADecker]

^^^ But all the teachers need to go armed. And the schools need to have several armed parents walking the halls at all times. And some of the more responsible students should be tested for their responsibility, and trained, and armed in the schools.

Nobody can ever scare all the terrorists away by sporting guns. But the the reduction produced by armed faculty, parents, and students, will reduce terrorism drastically. The few that get through will be dead.

[nutildah]

^^^ But all the teachers need to go armed. And the schools need to have several armed parents walking the halls at all times. And some of the more responsible students should be tested for their responsibility, and trained, and armed in the schools.

I'd like to know: what does this sound like to people who live outside of America? Would you want so many guns in the school of your children at all times? How about armed students?!

I don't know about you but to me that sounds like an incredibly bad idea. A huge number of things could go wrong.

Anyone wanna guess why the U.S. is also #1 in gun-related suicide?

Teachers shouldn't have to become combat-ready in order to do their jobs. Their job is already hard enough.

[BADecker]

^^^ Next time a mosquito bites you, don't swat it or shake it off. Rather, call the cops. But remember. The cops won't get there until after the mosquito has drunk his fill and flown away freely.

If you think it's a bad idea for schools to protect themselves, you are one of the terrorists. Cops will never make it on time.

If you don't like using guns against guns, get the kids and faculty to wear full body armor at all times.



EDIT: Most of the schools in the country are so protected, that they look like penitentiaries. Do you want a strong country? Bring the kids up free, and morally strong. Kids that hide in state pens aren't free and don't have the feeling of freedom.

[TECSHARE]

^^^ But all the teachers need to go armed. And the schools need to have several armed parents walking the halls at all times. And some of the more responsible students should be tested for their responsibility, and trained, and armed in the schools.

I'd like to know: what does this sound like to people who live outside of America? Would you want so many guns in the school of your children at all times? How about armed students?!

I don't know about you but to me that sounds like an incredibly bad idea. A huge number of things could go wrong.

Anyone wanna guess why the U.S. is also #1 in gun-related suicide?

Teachers shouldn't have to become combat-ready in order to do their jobs. Their job is already hard enough.

Who gives a fuck what people outside America think of our domestic laws, what business of theirs is it?

What if they were cops walking around the schools armed, would that be ok? That happens constantly. What is different between a cop an a well trained teacher? No one is advocating requiring teachers to arm themselves, but plenty are former police and military who would prefer to have the ability to be armed. The problem is not the gun because even if the guns were removed the underlying cultural and psychological issues would remain, resulting in people evolving to use a different tool. Gun control is just an easy way for weak minded people to focus all of their fear an apprehension upon an inanimate object so they don't have to look too hard at the harsh realities of our society.

[TECSHARE]

Who gives a fuck what people outside America think of our domestic laws, what business of theirs is it?

Me. I give a fuck, that's why I asked. If you don't give a fuck, then butt out.

No one is advocating requiring teachers to arm themselves, but plenty are former police and military who would prefer to have the ability to be armed.

Half the country has laws allowing teachers to carry guns with them if they want. I don't see a problem with it being expanded to the other half. Its a better solution than arming the students.

The problem is not the gun because even if the guns were removed the underlying cultural and psychological issues would remain, resulting in people evolving to use a different tool.

The problem is the gun. Its makes it incredibly easy to kill people, and they're everywhere. Its the "tool" of choice for mass murderers everywhere.

Gun control is just an easy way for weak minded people to focus all of their fear an apprehension upon an inanimate object so they don't have to look too hard at the harsh realities of our society.

"Harsh realities of our society"... like the chance that you may be shot in class because your country is too chickenshit to enact any sort of meaningful gun law reformation.

Just answer this: why do you think Americans have so many gun-related deaths each year as compared to most other countries?

So unless I agree with you I should butt out? So in your mind a foreigner has more to say about this than a US citizen? LOL. k.

You will notice a few things in common with a high percentage of these school shootings. One of them is that 90%+ of them are in "gun free zones". Essentially this is just an advertisement that there will be no armed resistance on the premises. In short, the schools with armed teachers aren't the problem.

There we are, once again back to blaming an object for the actions of humans. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns disappear, the intent to harm still exists. This means they will simply change the tool used, and there are plenty of available tools for mass murder at a rate equal to or surpassing firearms. Do you suggest they should start controlling gasoline like firearms? What about large vehicles? What about common products that can be turned into explosives? The problem is the fact that these people have intent to harm, not the tool they use to do harm with. I can beat your skull in with a hammer or I can build a house with it. No matter which I do it does not transmute a moral standing to the hammer.

As I said previously the focus on the firearms is just a convenient way for weak minded people to avoid looking at the issues that might cause these individuals to have such intent to begin with, which is of course a much more complicated issue. It is a far easier task to simply point at guns, throw your hands up, and declare the inanimate objects responsible. You play the roll of the savior when you are really the ostrich hiding from the problem looking for a convenient way to absolve yourself from any responsibility in the matter logically or otherwise. This is the harsh reality you hide from.

Just answer this... why is it owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident? Clearly cars cause auto deaths, therefore they should be banned without any examination of the benefits of car ownership right? RIGHT!

 

[nutildah]

So unless I agree with you I should butt out? So in your mind a foreigner has more to say about this than a US citizen? LOL. k.

This has nothing to do with any of that. I just want some perspective from other cultures, which I realize you are deadset on avoiding at all costs. I frankly don't give a shit about your opinion as I already know what you are going to say about any hot button political issue before you say it.

You will notice a few things in common with a high percentage of these school shootings. One of them is that 90%+ of them are in "gun free zones". Essentially this is just an advertisement that there will be no armed resistance on the premises. In short, the schools with armed teachers aren't the problem.

Individuals licensed to carry are allowed to carry inside gun free zones.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_A

There we are, once again back to blaming an object for the actions of humans.

An object designed specifically as a lethal weapon. We're not talking about cars or toasters. We're talking about something manufactured with the express purpose of acting as a weapon. Of course the humans pull the trigger. Nobody is debating that except for those intent on beating up a straw man.

Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns disappear, the intent to harm still exists. This means they will simply change the tool used, and there are plenty of available tools for mass murder at a rate equal to or surpassing firearms.

OK like what? Grenades? Dynamite? What did you have in mind that is easier to get than a gun?

Do you suggest they should start controlling gasoline like firearms? What about large vehicles? What about common products that can be turned into explosives? The problem is the fact that these people have intent to harm, not the tool they use to do harm with. I can beat your skull in with a hammer or I can build a house with it. No matter which I do it does not transmute a moral standing to the hammer.

Nobody uses a gun to build a house; thats the difference. Just like nobody uses a gun to drive to work. Nobody uses explosives as a cleaning agent. You are just being facetious.

As I said previously the focus on the firearms is just a convenient way for weak minded people to avoid looking at the issues that might cause these individuals to have such intent to begin with, which is of course a much more complicated issue. It is a far easier task to simply point at guns, throw your hands up, and declare the inanimate objects responsible. You play the roll of the savior when you are really the ostrich hiding from the problem looking for a convenient way to absolve yourself from any responsibility in the matter logically or otherwise. This is the harsh reality you hide from.

Ok other than "more guns," what is your solution? There's already more than 1 gun for every person in America, so don't say "more guns."

Just answer this... why is it owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident? Clearly cars cause auto deaths, therefore they should be banned without any examination of the benefits of car ownership right? RIGHT!

Again, more facetious foolishness. Cars aren't manufactured to be weapons. That's the difference.

You evaded my question. Answer it.

Just answer this: why do you think Americans have so many gun-related deaths each year as compared to most other countries?

[SaltySpitoon]

Guns are already banned from schools, and this is precisely the reason why there are so many mass shootings in schools.

Teachers and school administrators should be allowed to carry guns on school property, and this would probably stop ~all school shootings. Not every teacher needs to have a gun in their classroom, but the threat that they might have one is going to be enough to prevent someone from wanting to carry out a school shooting.

I dont really think that is the case. How many shootings end up with the shooter killed by the police or themselves at the end of it? I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine a lot of people that plan attacks, don't intend on escaping alive. You don't see the same patterns as with armed burglary where the attacker gets in, does what they came to do, and quickly leaves before police arrive. People go in and stay until they are surrounded by police.

I also don't believe that attacks are more frequently perpetrated on gun free zones because attackers are concerned for their own safety. Its just a guaranteed way to get on the news. If you are a suicidal psychopath, being on national news for a final hurrah might be appealing. The cycle will continue until we stop giving these people the attention they crave. Of course that won't happen though.

On both sides, I think its sick that we are propping these types of events up with political motives before anything else. People don't honestly care about the victims anymore, its just a way to support a political argument.

Ok other than "more guns," what is your solution? There's already more than 1 gun for every person in America, so don't say "more guns."

Destigmatizing mental health problems making treatment more accessible for people that are starting to go down a bad path. Changing the way we label people forever due to a bad week they might be having. Making available other options rather than just putting someone on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. Allowing them an outlet to talk to someone so they never feel so isolated that they can start to rationalize splitting from human norms.

Good people only commit gun violence by accident, we can train safety measures to prevent that. Good people that succumb to mental illness because the cost or other factors listed above become more likely to commit intentional gun violence. People who want to be criminals are going to be criminals, no amount of laws or anything else is going to stop them. Mass gun violence isn't committed by criminals, as there isn't anything to gain from it. Crime is like gambling, you weigh the odds of punishment versus what you gain out of it. If you can make millions of dollars and you have a 50/50 chance of getting away with it, maybe you roll the dice. Thats not how shootings go down.

[Juggy777]

^^^ But all the teachers need to go armed. And the schools need to have several armed parents walking the halls at all times. And some of the more responsible students should be tested for their responsibility, and trained, and armed in the schools.

Nobody can ever scare all the terrorists away by sporting guns. But the the reduction produced by armed faculty, parents, and students, will reduce terrorism drastically. The few that get through will be dead.

The shooting was a sad incident but once again it has raised the controversial question whether guns should be banned or not, or should teachers be allowed to posses arms for the safety of their students. I think the decision should be taken by American citizens only, cause at the end of the day they’re the ones who’re going to live there. @BADecker it’s not a viable option to have armed students and parents walking in the premises, instead why not install strict security check so no one except guards are allowed to take guns inside the premises. This will ensure that terrorists are not able to get fire arms inside, and will deter them from trying such attacks.

[BADecker]

^^^ In general, guns should not be banned. Guns were the best thing that happened to us. Why? Because the meekest, weakest of us has protection from the meanest bully, via the gun. Without the gun, there is no protection except possibly in numbers. And in numbers there is a lessening of personal freedom.

Besides, guns can't be banned except by destroying the whole country. Guns are property. They are private property. Private property is what the country is built on. Private property is the foundation of freedom. Banning guns is the same as taking freedom away.

As for school protection from terrorists, schools are enough of a prison for kids as it is. Strip searching them all as they enter for the day isn't the way to take care of this problem. And if you don't strip search them, they'll be able to get guns in one way or another.

Better to train and arm them all until there is no further need.

[nutildah]

Ok other than "more guns," what is your solution? There's already more than 1 gun for every person in America, so don't say "more guns."

Destigmatizing mental health problems making treatment more accessible for people that are starting to go down a bad path. Changing the way we label people forever due to a bad week they might be having. Making available other options rather than just putting someone on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. Allowing them an outlet to talk to someone so they never feel so isolated that they can start to rationalize splitting from human norms.

Good people only commit gun violence by accident, we can train safety measures to prevent that. Good people that succumb to mental illness because the cost or other factors listed above become more likely to commit intentional gun violence. People who want to be criminals are going to be criminals, no amount of laws or anything else is going to stop them. Mass gun violence isn't committed by criminals, as there isn't anything to gain from it. Crime is like gambling, you weigh the odds of punishment versus what you gain out of it. If you can make millions of dollars and you have a 50/50 chance of getting away with it, maybe you roll the dice. Thats not how shootings go down.

This is a well-reasoned approach and I agree with it. BTW I'm not a "ban all guns" kind of person. I think there's a middle ground that needs to be found, and increasing mental health funding and support should be a part of it. However, murder is still a crime, regardless of the reasons that made somebody snap.

Better to train and arm them all until there is no further need.

This is an awful approach.

[TECSHARE]

So unless I agree with you I should butt out? So in your mind a foreigner has more to say about this than a US citizen? LOL. k.

This has nothing to do with any of that. I just want some perspective from other cultures, which I realize you are deadset on avoiding at all costs. I frankly don't give a shit about your opinion as I already know what you are going to say about any hot button political issue before you say it.

You will notice a few things in common with a high percentage of these school shootings. One of them is that 90%+ of them are in "gun free zones". Essentially this is just an advertisement that there will be no armed resistance on the premises. In short, the schools with armed teachers aren't the problem.

Individuals licensed to carry are allowed to carry inside gun free zones.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_A

There we are, once again back to blaming an object for the actions of humans.

An object designed specifically as a lethal weapon. We're not talking about cars or toasters. We're talking about something manufactured with the express purpose of acting as a weapon. Of course the humans pull the trigger. Nobody is debating that except for those intent on beating up a straw man.

Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns disappear, the intent to harm still exists. This means they will simply change the tool used, and there are plenty of available tools for mass murder at a rate equal to or surpassing firearms.

OK like what? Grenades? Dynamite? What did you have in mind that is easier to get than a gun?

Do you suggest they should start controlling gasoline like firearms? What about large vehicles? What about common products that can be turned into explosives? The problem is the fact that these people have intent to harm, not the tool they use to do harm with. I can beat your skull in with a hammer or I can build a house with it. No matter which I do it does not transmute a moral standing to the hammer.

Nobody uses a gun to build a house; thats the difference. Just like nobody uses a gun to drive to work. Nobody uses explosives as a cleaning agent. You are just being facetious.

As I said previously the focus on the firearms is just a convenient way for weak minded people to avoid looking at the issues that might cause these individuals to have such intent to begin with, which is of course a much more complicated issue. It is a far easier task to simply point at guns, throw your hands up, and declare the inanimate objects responsible. You play the roll of the savior when you are really the ostrich hiding from the problem looking for a convenient way to absolve yourself from any responsibility in the matter logically or otherwise. This is the harsh reality you hide from.

Ok other than "more guns," what is your solution? There's already more than 1 gun for every person in America, so don't say "more guns."

Just answer this... why is it owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident? Clearly cars cause auto deaths, therefore they should be banned without any examination of the benefits of car ownership right? RIGHT!

Again, more facetious foolishness. Cars aren't manufactured to be weapons. That's the difference.

You evaded my question. Answer it.

Just answer this: why do you think Americans have so many gun-related deaths each year as compared to most other countries?

So you are psychic now you know what I am going to say before I say it? Who the fuck do you think you are, Miss Cleo? The fact that you don't give a shit about my opinion is kind of the problem, because this subject directly effects me, but not "other cultures". SO DIVERSE!

I don't think you have any idea how "gun free zones" operate. The fact that you made such a generalized blanket statement is not a good sign. Firearms have more purposes than only being used to kill. They can defend your life and the lives of your family, they can feed you, they can help you defend your other civil rights. Just because all you can see is an instrument of death is YOUR issue. As with nearly every gun control argument, yours comes from an emotion based argument of fear of an inanimate object.

The fact that humans will find other ways to kill is not at all a straw man, it is a direct critique of your gun control argument. The fact is that removing guns will not remove the ability to kill, even quickly and in large numbers. It is not hard to find ways to kill people if that is really your intent. Gasoline and fires for example, large vehicles used against crowds, improvised explosive devices, we have seen all of these things used already for mass murder. The problem is what is driving them to mass murder, not the firearms they use.

Firearms do not even necessarily need to be fired to be useful. The fact that they are widely owned is a criminal deterrent and a deterrent to state level actors which might want to invade for one example. Simply brandishing a weapon at some one who may be in the process of attacking you is often enough to end the conflict. Your position that guns are only for killing is myopic. Guns are tools and tools are for whatever the human wielding them intends to use them for.

My solution is for one to stop drugging up all these kids. A good 90% or so of these shootings they were on some kind of MAOI or SSRI drug which are proven to create suicidal and homicidal ideation in some people. Then I would suggest people stop letting television, the internet, and the state raise their children. There are a lot of other solutions that should be addressed at the core of the issue before we start steamrolling very hard fought civil rights.

I didn't evade anything, I simply took your loaded question and responded to it with an equally loaded question. That would be like saying since more people die in Australia because of kangaroo attacks than do in the US, it is proof that the USA has superior kangaroo management policies. If you own a car your chances of dying in a car accident increase. If you own a pool your chances of drowning increase. The fact that the USA has more gun crime is an artifact of gun availability just like Russia has more vodka related crime. You are only looking at the little subsection you want to use to argue your point then ignoring the totality of the situation where there are other benefits as a whole.

[Quickseller]

Guns are already banned from schools, and this is precisely the reason why there are so many mass shootings in schools.

Teachers and school administrators should be allowed to carry guns on school property, and this would probably stop ~all school shootings. Not every teacher needs to have a gun in their classroom, but the threat that they might have one is going to be enough to prevent someone from wanting to carry out a school shooting.

I dont really think that is the case. How many shootings end up with the shooter killed by the police or themselves at the end of it? I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine a lot of people that plan attacks, don't intend on escaping alive. You don't see the same patterns as with armed burglary where the attacker gets in, does what they came to do, and quickly leaves before police arrive. People go in and stay until they are surrounded by police.

I also don't believe that attacks are more frequently perpetrated on gun free zones because attackers are concerned for their own safety. Its just a guaranteed way to get on the news. If you are a suicidal psychopath, being on national news for a final hurrah might be appealing. The cycle will continue until we stop giving these people the attention they crave. Of course that won't happen though.

[...]

Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.

[SaltySpitoon]

Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.

I am not a fan of the idea of arming teachers. First, teachers would be required to go through at least similar levels of training as police in order to make that viable. The whole, give a vigilante good guy a gun and a 30 minute seminar on how to operate the safety and you are good to go is simply not the case. It might be some people's wet dream to be able to shoot a home invader, but for people who aren't deranged, there is a lot psychologically that goes into actually making the decision to shoot someone, even in a life or death situation. If you put someone who isn't extensively trained into a situation where they are in possession of a weapon and afraid for their life, you end up with bad results. No matter how heroic someone is, it takes a lot of training to be able to go against your body's fight or flight response to behave calmly and not make mistakes. Lets say that somehow every school has a teacher that has been in a combat position in the military or something, who is going to fund them? From my experience, teachers are constantly fighting the government for budget, because they are paying for chalk/whiteboard markers out of pocket. I can't see there being the budget for guns, ammo, training, extra wages for time spent training, hazard pay?

While its possible, for the sake of staying on a single point, I'm not going to entertain the thought that the teachers themselves could snap during a bad day, overreact, and shoot an aggressive student that challenges their authority. I bet no one here has ever had an experience with an authoritarian, power tripping teacher. Just something else to think about.

[Spendulus]

....Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.

Brilliant! You are correct.

May I follow your logic to the clear and evident conclusion?

All we need to do is shut down all gun free zones except ONE, and widely publicize it. All the wanna be mass shooters will then head there to wreak their havoc. They will find what appears to be elementary schools and a clearly target rich environment.

Unknown to them would be the thousands of armed and ready folks just waiting for them.

[BADecker]

^^^ Of course, once all the shooters are there, they will find that all the other shooters with guns are there. So, it won't be a gun-free zone any longer.

Search for it. There have been for a long time, a number of schools in the USA where the teachers go armed. And they do it by State orders.

[Astargath]

Guns are already banned from schools, and this is precisely the reason why there are so many mass shootings in schools.

Teachers and school administrators should be allowed to carry guns on school property, and this would probably stop ~all school shootings. Not every teacher needs to have a gun in their classroom, but the threat that they might have one is going to be enough to prevent someone from wanting to carry out a school shooting.

I dont really think that is the case. How many shootings end up with the shooter killed by the police or themselves at the end of it? I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine a lot of people that plan attacks, don't intend on escaping alive. You don't see the same patterns as with armed burglary where the attacker gets in, does what they came to do, and quickly leaves before police arrive. People go in and stay until they are surrounded by police.

I also don't believe that attacks are more frequently perpetrated on gun free zones because attackers are concerned for their own safety. Its just a guaranteed way to get on the news. If you are a suicidal psychopath, being on national news for a final hurrah might be appealing. The cycle will continue until we stop giving these people the attention they crave. Of course that won't happen though.

[...]

Someone wanting to carry out a mass shooting wants to inflict maximum damage to his victims, and going to a gun free zone will mean the shooter has an extended time until he encounters any kind of resistance to his attack. If a shooter were to go into a school in which all the teachers have guns, he would be stopped nearly immidiately, which is not what he wants, so he will not even try.

Also someone who wants to carry out a mass shooting will certainly don't care where and how he gets his firearms, even if all firearms were illegal in that country he would still be able to buy them illegally, it's also quite easy when you don't give a shit about anything.