Shooting in Conn. School

I think the bigger problem is how we treat mental illness in this country. You don't go to bed a normal human being and then wake up one morning with the urge to go on a killing spree on a school. People must have known that he wasn't right leading up to this event. If these people could get the medical help they need, a lot of this could be avoided.

Mag/Gun restrictions are simply a band-aid and don't get at the heart of the issue, which deals with mental illness, the uselessness of "gun free" zones and, as others have posted before me, a cultural mentality towards violence. For a developed nation, we are a violent one.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I think the bigger problem is how we treat mental illness in this country. You don't go to bed a normal human being and then wake up one morning with the urge to go on a killing spree on a school. People must have known that he wasn't right leading up to this event. If these people could get the medical help they need, a lot of this could be avoided.

Mag/Gun restrictions are simply a band-aid and don't get at the heart of the issue, which deals with mental illness, the uselessness of "gun free" zones and, as others have posted before me, a cultural mentality towards violence. For a developed nation, we are a violent one.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree RE: mental health and mag capacity bans a "band-aid" at best and more likely, IMHO, counter productive. Inanimate objects are easier to demonize and legislate than society and its abstract ills as a whole.

And as Mykevermin so delicately implied regarding the concentration of mundane shootings in "certain parts" of the country (legitimate stereotype noted) Southerners (myself included) have to deal with our "culture of violence" *ignores groans* where violence is hideously tolerated and socially much more acceptable- dating back to our application and, still engrained, acceptance of the Code Duello / Gov' JL Wilson's code of honor. It wasn't that long ago (perhaps I am dating myself in my late 80's childhood) that catching a spouse in flagrante delicto was an accepted reason for justifiable homicide &/or jury nullification. *cringes*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, legislation to ensure that they were properly secured whether by trigger locks or by safe would've gone a long way in preventing this type of tragedy along with the proper resources given to recognize and treat mental illnesses. It might be easier to secure guns than to treat mental illness, but we need to do both.

Either way, I'd still love to see your explanation as to how guns become "illegal."[/QUOTE]

I was actually going to post something along these lines, maybe even take it a step further and I know a bit far fetched but mandatory psyche evaluations before the purchase of a gun.

[quote name='Mooby']And how on Earth do you enforce legislation like that? Random home inspections? It's one thing when a measure sounds nice on paper but quite another to have it actually yield pragmatic results.



Eh, I guess you're referring to comments I made several hours ago? I wasn't ducking an answer I simply got up and did something else instead of monitor this thread. How do guns become 'illegal?' You realize there are no shortage of guns that are manufactured outside of the United States, right? So, yes, there's a fairly large black market of unregistered guns flowing into this country.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it would be hard to enforce but through registration and stiff penalties it can be done. How hard would it be to make everybody buy, register some kind of gun safe or lock to ensure somebody doesn't steal your guns or even take your gun to commit heinous crimes like this.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']If the legislation regarding "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" that was attempted to be included the last cyber security bill is to be the bench mark or foreshadow what is to come, possession would be limited exclusively to current owners with destruction/confiscation following their death. There would be no sale of what you own allowed and no transfer of the prescribed arms period.



Enter the limited capacity magazine fallacy. The irony is that a person who can quickly and effectively swap out a ten round magazine is more dangerous the someone wielding a weapon with a cheap high capacity magazine. It takes very little practice to learn to do so. Recent events being the best evidence- what part of his gun caused the jam allowing Loughner to be subdued? His 33 round pistol magazine according to witnesses.

What failed in James Holmes theater shooting causing him to flee?
What jammed in Jacob Roberts' rifle in the mall shooting?

As even the most novice gun owner can testify to it takes much longer to clear a jam than swap a mag.

Sickeningly, I'd rather these people equip themselves thusly than learn how to use something that is in reality far more formidable.


A "single fire" pump action shotgun with an eight round tube- every model of which can be reloaded while firing- pumping out buckshot is far more of a real threat than some attention seeking seeking mental case with a drum fed AR-15. It just lacks the allure and pop-culture draw of the weapons these guys gravitate towards.

While superficially it might seem like a good idea, hobbling "magazine capacity," is more feel good- take that NRA- nonsense than impactful legislation.[/quote]

Are you arguing that, if he had smaller-capacity magazines, James Holmes would have killed *more* people in that theatre in Aurora?

Or is your critique distillable down to "people who are trained are more dangerous than those who are untrained," which is a pretty remarkable moving of the goalposts?

For critics who question advocates concern over the incremental creep of gun control, those who have followed the issue for a long time have watched the slippery slope in action in other Western societies that once had liberal gun ownership rights- oftentimes following highly publicized tragedies. Competitive and hobbiest pistol shooters in the UK are well versed in the "registration leads to confiscation" cliche and whether or not it's true. Aussie gun owners watched even "sporting use" (cringes at the inevitable & irrelevant concept vis-à-vis our 2nd amendment) weapons become prohibited. Mr LaPierres often asinine statements aside, it's hardly a mind-fuck.
Click to expand...

UK? Australia? You bring up a very good point - we certainly wouldn't want gun-related fatalities in the US to reach *those* levels, now, would we? ;)
 
^ :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: police state? welcome, Libertarian endgame hyperbole. It took over 100 posts to get there, y'all are getting slow in your age.

Let's talk about per capita incarceration rates and then we'll see who the police states are. :rofl:

[quote name='h3llbring3r'](legitimate stereotype noted)[/QUOTE]

there's no stereotype, it's data. murders are significantly far more likely to happen in metropolitan areas than in rural/suburban areas. any stereotype you read into it beyond the urban/rural divide is of your own manufacture. and if that stereotype is what I think it is, you can drag your knuckles back to the stormfront forums and leave us alone here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: police state? welcome, Libertarian endgame hyperbole. It took over 100 posts to get there, y'all are getting slow in your age.

Let's talk about per capita incarceration rates and then we'll see who the police states are. :rofl:

[/QUOTE]

Did I ever say we weren't also a police state? Why did you change the subject so quickly?

Go to the UK and see how long you can go without have a camera pointed at you. Look on youtube at what happens in the UK when anyone stands up to police authority. Australia is the same way, but they have even tighter controls over what their peasants get to watch or listen to.
 
You brought up police states, my friend. Not me.

As for police states, the examples you bring up are unrelated to gun ownership - so, tying this back to the original topic (something you did not attempt to do, as you're rambling about cameras and video censorship or somesuch), what exactly does any of this have to do with gun control (or the lack thereof)?
 
What I took from your earlier post was "statism works for them, we should be more like that!" I'm telling you that it's not all peaches and cream over there.

You're right though, I'm going off topic.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']What I took from your earlier post was "statism works for them, we should be more like that!" I'm telling you that it's not all peaches and cream over there.

You're right though, I'm going off topic.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't help that the demographics in the U.K. Australia and Switzerland are a quite different from that in the U.S.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']What I took from your earlier post was "statism works for them, we should be more like that!" I'm telling you that it's not all peaches and cream over there.[/QUOTE]

Oh, that's good to know. I thought they were both straight up utopias, and we were really missing out. They were superior on every level, and have no problems whatsoever.

:roll:

get fuckin' real, dude. that's like a straw man wrapped and prepared with words you put in my mouth, braised in a reducto ad absurdum. christ.

Looking solely at firearm-related fatalities across those three first world nations, it takes a special brand of ideologue to continue to embrace the US approach to gun ownership (and by that - take a breath, please - I mean the utter refusal, the fingers-in-the-ears-and-shouting-NONONONONONONO approach to discussing any sort of gun control).

To people like you, it's unfettered 2nd Amendment all-the-arms-you-want-all-the-time* or it's "statist gun grab." Black and white, 0 and 1. Your refusal to see shades of grey, of the possibility for any negotiation or mature discussion of gun control whatsoever, contributes to the problem in ways that, if you ever admit it to yourself, you will never forgive yourself.

*(the asterisk is because you actually don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. Nobody does.)
 
And as hb pointed out, that grey area that you're talking about historically leads to black. Or white. Whichever end you're talking about.

I see you're still pumping that "nobody believes in the 2nd." I quite liked my answer to you about nukes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, that's good to know. I thought they were both straight up utopias, and we were really missing out. They were superior on every level, and have no problems whatsoever.

:roll:

get fuckin' real, dude. that's like a straw man wrapped and prepared with words you put in my mouth, braised in a reducto ad absurdum. christ.

Looking solely at firearm-related fatalities across those three first world nations, it takes a special brand of ideologue to continue to embrace the US approach to gun ownership (and by that - take a breath, please - I mean the utter refusal, the fingers-in-the-ears-and-shouting-NONONONONONONO approach to discussing any sort of gun control).

To people like you, it's unfettered 2nd Amendment all-the-arms-you-want-all-the-time* or it's "statist gun grab." Black and white, 0 and 1. Your refusal to see shades of grey, of the possibility for any negotiation or mature discussion of gun control whatsoever, contributes to the problem in ways that, if you ever admit it to yourself, you will never forgive yourself.

*(the asterisk is because you actually don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. Nobody does.)[/QUOTE]

This is what I think is so obtuse of Conservatives, I think it's so far easier for a Liberal to have more of a conservative view than it is for a Conservative to be more liberal.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you arguing that, if he had smaller-capacity magazines, James Holmes would have killed *more* people in that theatre in Aurora?

Or is your critique distillable down to "people who are trained are more dangerous than those who are untrained," which is a pretty remarkable moving of the goalposts?



UK? Australia? You bring up a very good point - we certainly wouldn't want gun-related fatalities in the US to reach *those* levels, now[/QUOTE]

A. Yes. No one's moving goalposts.

B. How were their numbers before the racheting up of restrictions in comparison to now? How were their numbers before in relation to ours.

Ends ands means, ands freedoms. . . do we just get rhetorical from here on out?


[quote name='mykevermin']
there's no stereotype, it's data. murders are significantly far more likely to happen in metropolitan areas than in rural/suburban areas. any stereotype you read into it beyond the urban/rural divide is of your own manufacture. and if that stereotype is what I think it is, you can drag your knuckles back to the stormfront forums and leave us alone here.[/QUOTE]
It was meant to be tongue in cheek hence the "legitimate."

Stormfront forums? Please, not a regular there however their posts seem more well thought out and poignant than most of what I am reading in here, present company excluded of course. ;) VS is the basest knuckle dragging territory on CAG. Let's have an ad hominem party!!! The foul breath of liberal mouth breathers is choking me!

Save me Diocletian king! Save me gubment, the second age of Kali Yuga is here but it's the repuglicans and their ilk who ushered it in.

SMH, even drunk vs seems weak at best.
 
So how exactly would gun control prevent tragedies like this from occurring? If someone wants to do something like this, they'll find a way. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's inaccessible, ie: Drugs. Gun control is just a red herring in a situation such as this, the bigger issue is how we identify and treat mental and psychological issues, but even that won't solve the problem because all too often we find out that these people lived their lives otherwise normally, but had deep troubles bottled up inside and just snapped one day.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']And as hb pointed out, that grey area that you're talking about historically leads to black. Or white. Whichever end you're talking about.[/quote]

Historically = two case studies?

What about our maple-chugging friends to the north and their mandated registration?

I see you're still pumping that "nobody believes in the 2nd." I quite liked my answer to you about nukes.
Click to expand...

I don't seem to recall what your response was. Remind me, please.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']A. Yes. No one's moving goalposts.[/QUOTE]

You answer an A or B question with "yes." Lovely. Good to know that's what I'm working with.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']A. Yes. No one's moving goalposts.

B. How were their numbers before the racheting up of restrictions in comparison to now? How were their numbers before in relation to ours.

Ends ands means, ands freedoms. . . do we just get rhetorical from here on out?

It was meant to be tongue in cheek hence the "legitimate."

Stormfront forums? Please, not a regular there however their posts seem more well thought out and poignant than most of what I am reading in here, present company excluded of course. ;) VS is the basest knuckle dragging territory on CAG. Let's have an ad hominem party!!! The foul breath of liberal mouth breathers is choking me!

Save me Diocletian king! Save me gubment, the second age of Kali Yuga is here but it's the repuglicans and their ilk who ushered it in.

SMH, even drunk vs seems weak at best.[/QUOTE]
What the motherfuck is this? This is Poe's Law right?

[quote name='spmahn']So how exactly would gun control prevent tragedies like this from occurring? If someone wants to do something like this, they'll find a way. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's inaccessible, ie: Drugs. Gun control is just a red herring in a situation such as this, the bigger issue is how we identify and treat mental and psychological issues, but even that won't solve the problem because all too often we find out that these people lived their lives otherwise normally, but had deep troubles bottled up inside and just snapped one day.[/QUOTE]
You might want to read the thread because it's been brought up numerous times that neither increased regulations and increased resources to better recognize/treat mental illness will 100% prevent all such events, but that it would reduce the overall likelyhood of them happening. What you're implying is that since they're both pretty much useless, why bother doing anything at all. There are always telltale signs and they don't just manifest out of the blue. Gun control is anything BUT a red herring when access to the guns is pretty relevant to what happened especially when they weren't his to begin with.
 
[quote name='dohdough']There's something called the Chain of Custody. If someone along that line was negligent, then that needs to be dealt with.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Mooby']The most recent thing I saw was that the guns -- including the assault rifle (which was apparently grandfathered in as she owned it pre 1993) -- were all legally owned and registered by the mother/teacher.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='NBCNews.com']Investigators believe the gunman shot his mother at home,[/quote]

Looks like DD got his wish.

Easy to forget that, often times, the gun owners are victims too.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I agree though that making baseless statements before all facts are known is advisable[...][/QUOTE]

Kotaku has an article up about a flub with Facebook and Mass Effect.

More interesting is the fact that one guy's name was attached to the shooter and it turned out to be his brother.

All the more reason to give it some time before flying off the handle.
 
[quote name='Mooby']People just don't want to admit that sometimes you just can't stop some tragedies from occurring.[/QUOTE]

We are not the only country with crazy people, yet we lead the planet in mass shootings.

Discuss.
 
[quote name='Clak']The actual type?[/QUOTE]
Okay, my response is a bit belated, but...seriously? Do you honestly think a person without mental issues would shoot up a school of small unarmed children? Is there a sane reason for doing so? I don't even think "crime of passion" or "temporary insanity" can apply to this situation. There are a lot of details we don't know yet, but I think it's a given that he was mentally handicapped in some capacity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='h3llbring3r']If the legislation regarding "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" that was attempted to be included the last cyber security bill is to be the bench mark or foreshadow what is to come, possession would be limited exclusively to current owners with destruction/confiscation following their death. There would be no sale of what you own allowed and no transfer of the prescribed arms period.



Enter the limited capacity magazine fallacy. The irony is that a person who can quickly and effectively swap out a ten round magazine is more dangerous the someone wielding a weapon with a cheap high capacity magazine. It takes very little practice to learn to do so. Recent events being the best evidence- what part of his gun caused the jam allowing Loughner to be subdued? His 33 round pistol magazine according to witnesses.

What failed in James Holmes theater shooting causing him to flee?
What jammed in Jacob Roberts' rifle in the mall shooting?

As even the most novice gun owner can testify to it takes much longer to clear a jam than swap a mag.

Sickeningly, I'd rather these people equip themselves thusly than learn how to use something that is in reality far more formidable.[/QUOTE]

Isn't it possible for them to, y'know, do both? Learn how to swap and use multiple high capacity mags?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Isn't it possible for them to, y'know, do both? Learn how to swap and use multiple high capacity mags?[/QUOTE]

You do realize he is talking moron gibberish right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']You do realize he is talking moron gibberish right?[/QUOTE]
Okay, I was 1. Drinking (and indeed apologies are in order for posting UI) and 2. Assuming your referring to my later rant- I was seeing Mykevermin's invocation of Godwin's law and raising him with Poe's- it seemed obvious and funny at the time.

Look who's talking about moron gibberish. Prattle, prattle, prattle.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Woah. Godwin? Where?

What precisely *had* you been drinking last night?[/QUOTE]

You told me to go back to the Stormfront forums. (which in my naivete I actually had to google, because initially I thought it was a game).

Mid-grade Bourbon.
 
Why weren't the guns properly secured? I've never owned a gun but if I did it would be in a safe that only I knew the combination to.

People whining about more regulation should note that we are tougher on beer than we are on guns.

I've heard reasonable arguments on both sides of the gun debate, but is this incident really applicable? I guess our culture of gun worship might have contributed.

On a side note, perhaps I'm cynical but it irritates me to see people so moved by this tragedy on Facebook when none of them seem to care about all the kids getting laid out daily in Syria and other parts of the world.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']How are we tougher on alcohol (real question)?[/QUOTE]

We aren't. It is easier for a young person to get alcohol than it is a gun, but both can be easy. We have black markets for both products, but I imagine an adult would be more willing to purchase alcohol for someone under the age of 21 than purchase a gun for someone under the legal age.
 
[quote name='spmahn']So how exactly would gun control prevent tragedies like this from occurring? If someone wants to do something like this, they'll find a way. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's inaccessible.[/QUOTE]

Heres the rub: (Not to repeat myself) This is exactly what Giuliani was insinuating on CNN the day before the shooting. Where does this idea even come from?
If someone wants to do something like this, they'll find a way.
Click to expand...
Certainly not experience.
You can throw a random case of a mass stabbing from Japan at me as evidence but that doesn't make it factual. What happens more often? Mass shootings or stabbings?

As for the notion of mental illness and how to identify , treat and commit these individuals - Thats the red herring.
We know absolutely nothing about the psychology of the people that commit these crimes. Nothing.
Think of all the psychology we know about murderers , serial killers, rapists etc etc etc. Take all the collective knowledge on psychology we have on criminals and their motives. We have no idea, no concept, no clue, no answers at all to what sets off or motivates anyone to commit massacres like this.

So now what? You guys want to go back to the twenties where husbands could just tell the Doctor - "My wifes crazy" And then shes committed to a mental institution against her will?
Lets loosen these laws instead of tightening these laws - Makes no effin sense.
What does treat these individual even mean? Medicate? What happens when they decide "I'm well now, I dont need this medication anymore"??

Lets just get rid of the guns already ffs. It isnt rocketsurgery

Note : Thirty of these types of mass tragedies have occured since Columbine.
Doing something about the guns *again the thing thats happening in reality* is overdue.

We can at least try to stop this.
Pulling a Flanders beatnik parents all "Ive tried nothing and Im all out of ideas" isnt going to fly anymore.
 
There are other dimensions to this story and issue aside from the actual shooting.

I think we may have the most hypocritical leader in the free world. Obama cries about children being killed in Newtown while under his administration, between 282 and 535 civilians have been killed in drone strikes, including 60 children. These are only credible reports and it would be difficult to have an accurate count of this for obvious reasons.

Since Friday afternoon, 10 people were wounded in nine separate Chicago shootings and two are in serious condition. It appears that Chicago has not slowed down since the summer. It goes without saying that Chicago is a place with very serious gun control. The 2011 running tally for Chicago's South Shore neighborhood is over 100 homicides and many more wounded.
 
I've been drinking heavily. Also I have monster children. So YMMV.

Gun locks with fingerprint unlock.
Gun safe a requirement for ownership. You don't even have to use the fucking thing. Most will because they were forced to buy it.
...

That's all I got.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
Gun safe a requirement for ownership. You don't even have to use the fucking thing. Most will because they were forced to buy it.
[/QUOTE]
You're a tool of Big Safe!
 
Glock, Sig Sauer and 223 Bushmaster. Are these the guns used in the shooting? I haven't read anything that states what guns were used. I saw this on a clip of Piers Morgan on Huff Post.

Ok, forget it, just founded the answers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/[/QUOTE]

http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html

"There is no pattern, there is no increase: says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University."

"Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."
"Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. "There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening."
 
I was just talking with my sister and her ultra-conservative husband about this and he says to me EVERY teacher should have a gun and be trained to deal with this. I kind of just stared at him because I really could not believe he thought this was the logical answer to the problem. 6+ million teachers all bringing a loaded gun to school. Yeah that sounds like the solution.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I was just talking with my sister and her ultra-conservative husband about this and he says to me EVERY teacher should have a gun and be trained to deal with this. I kind of just stared at him because I really could not believe he thought this was the logical answer to the problem. 6+ million teachers all bringing a loaded gun to school. Yeah that sounds like the solution.[/QUOTE]

That sounds like a horrible idea and one bad thought away from "Everyone should be armed" as if we live in the Wild West.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I think the bigger problem is how we treat mental illness in this country. You don't go to bed a normal human being and then wake up one morning with the urge to go on a killing spree on a school. People must have known that he wasn't right leading up to this event. If these people could get the medical help they need, a lot of this could be avoided.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that. Sometimes people just snap. My dad had a guy at work come in about 10 years ago and beat the shit of somebody with a baseball bat. The person he hit wasn't even a target, but he just snapped one day and came in looking for his boss, and when he couldn't find him, hit the first guy he saw.

And to be honest, I could see it happening again. I worked at the same place with my dad for 3 years, and as pissed off as people were about the shitty working conditions, I wouldn't be surprised. It's not like these guys aren't 'normal human beings', it's just that there's only so much you can take.

I do agree that there are some of these cases that you can see coming a long way off. But in some situations, there's really no warning signs. It's a 'straw that broke the camel's back' scenario, and some guys just snap.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I was just talking with my sister and her ultra-conservative husband about this and he says to me EVERY teacher should have a gun and be trained to deal with this. I kind of just stared at him because I really could not believe he thought this was the logical answer to the problem. 6+ million teachers all bringing a loaded gun to school. Yeah that sounds like the solution.[/QUOTE]

Yes, because nothing makes me feel better than the idea of an overworked, underpaid, disgruntled teacher who has to deal with rowdy children and teenagers 5 days a week carrying a firearm during math class.

Logic fails these people, and hard.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I don't believe that. Sometimes people just snap. My dad had a guy at work come in about 10 years ago and beat the shit of somebody with a baseball bat. The person he hit wasn't even a target, but he just snapped one day and came in looking for his boss, and when he couldn't find him, hit the first guy he saw.

And to be honest, I could see it happening again. I worked at the same place with my dad for 3 years, and as pissed off as people were about the shitty working conditions, I wouldn't be surprised. It's not like these guys aren't 'normal human beings', it's just that there's only so much you can take.

I do agree that there are some of these cases that you can see coming a long way off. But in some situations, there's really no warning signs. It's a 'straw that broke the camel's back' scenario, and some guys just snap.[/QUOTE]

Nobody just snaps one day and kills 20 kids. Sorry, but your evidence of "my dad knew a guy!" doesn't prove anything. What was the guy like before he "snapped?" Totally normal? Also, how does beating somebody with a baseball bat equate to shooting up a school? Was the guy he beat with the bat just standing around and chosen at random? Too many holes.

[quote name='Purple Flames']Yes, because nothing makes me feel better than the idea of an overworked, underpaid, disgruntled teacher who has to deal with rowdy children and teenagers 5 days a week carrying a firearm during math class.

Logic fails these people, and hard.[/QUOTE]

Probably not teachers, but they should have had trained and armed people. There wasn't a single person there who could have stopped the shooter. I'm really shocked that the gun-free zone sign didn't make him just turn around and take up knitting instead.
 
People can just snap one day, it just all depends on what is going in said persons life. This story hits a little close to home since I'm a UPS delivery driver it's tragic in it's own and the school shooting also hits real close since the wife is a school teacher, lets not bring in the facts that I have children too.

I find it a bit discerning that some of you can just blow this off as a random act of violence. It could have been you, your family or even a close friend or even somebody that even frequents these boards. I'm not going to argue the statistics because they are there but if there is something that can be done all possibilities should be open.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Probably not teachers, but they should have had trained and armed people. There wasn't a single person there who could have stopped the shooter. I'm really shocked that the gun-free zone sign didn't make him just turn around and take up knitting instead.[/QUOTE]
Real talk: do you advocate armed security personnel at every American school?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top