Shooting at Reynolds High School

[RR7]

Let's look at the latest shooting.

15 year old shooter. (legally can't purchase a firearm)

Gun was legally purchased by parents.

Guns were secured (per the police) but the shooter defeated the locks.

So how would background checks have stopped this? How would locks have stopped this from happening? They didn't.

What am I missing?

You said lower school shootings. You have no way of knowing if a law put into place to, say, prevent people from having guns in their house if they live with someone with mental illness would stop them, though. You want to treat the people, I've yet to see someone say HOW, instead of just shifting the debate, so how do you treat the people? And if you find someone that needs to be treated, do you think it'd be a reasonable idea to keep them away from guns if at all possible. Yes, yes, I know, how do you stop him from breaking other laws to get them. But you take away the easiest options for them.
Kid from Sandy Hook, with a hsitory of mental illness, there's no reason for his mom to have the guns around him. He can't get hi own, takes hers, bunch of people are dead. If there was a law in place where she couldn't have them because of him, you prevented that one, with it's specific details, from happening.

 

[Further]

What you are missing is that there are dozens of a school shootings a year and even if in this case the shooting still would have happened doesn't mean that any laws wouldn't have affected a different shooting. You keep taking specific incidents and applying the results to all possible school shootings when that's not how it works. Perhaps a different kid was unable to defeat the lock, or perhaps locks need to pass certain tamper-proof benchmarks in order to qualify as a gun lock. I know I have two gun safes, one is more a strong box that could be defeated in a couple minutes while the actual safe would take an expert to defeat.

There is no absolute answer, and no response is foolproof. But common sense gun laws, better mental healthcare, smaller class sizes and other components could all work together to lessen what is becoming a tragic reality of modern society that must be curbed.

 

[Natebishop3]

You said lower school shootings. You have no way of knowing if a law put into place to, say, prevent people from having guns in their house if they live with someone with mental illness would stop them, though. You want to treat the people, I've yet to see someone say HOW, instead of just shifting the debate, so how do you treat the people? And if you find someone that needs to be treated, do you think it'd be a reasonable idea to keep them away from guns if at all possible. Yes, yes, I know, how do you stop him from breaking other laws to get them. But you take away the easiest options for them.
Kid from Sandy Hook, with a hsitory of mental illness, there's no reason for his mom to have the guns around him. He can't get hi own, takes hers, bunch of people are dead. If there was a law in place where she couldn't have them because of him, you prevented that one, with it's specific details, from happening.

But that's so frustrating, because once again you have to lay the blame on the parents. If you have a child with mental illness, why the fuck WOULD you have guns around them? It makes no sense to me. I guess it boils down to people not wanting to believe that their kid is capable of this kind of thing, but it's common sense. If your child is dangerous, don't put them around dangerous things.

I already listed a few pages back what I think we should be doing. We need to do a better job of identifying these types of children. Determine behavior "tells" that might lead to this kind of event. I think a lot of that has to do with shrinking classes to a more manageable size. Give the teachers a chance to spend more time with the kids so they can hopefully see when a child is nearing some kind of mental break. We need to dump more money into schools, and not just because of shootings, but because it's the right thing to do regardless.

Honestly, I don't know if you can ever truly stop these kinds of things. As you said, if someone wants a gun they can break into someone's home to steal one. We can try all these preventative measures, and they might stop one or two kids, but the problem is that most of these shootings are premeditated. Most of the gun laws that are in place are meant to stop the impetuous killer. The person who, in a fit of rage, goes out and buys a gun to kill someone. They aren't effective at stopping someone who plans his shooting over a matter of weeks or months. Most preventative measures can be defeated if someone is planning for that long. They will figure out how to cut the locks. They will figure out how to get around things like metal detectors.

So honestly, I think the only real answer is trying to identify the type of person that does this, and then attack the problem at the source. It is the only real way that you stop these shootings. Why did they do it? What caused them to break? Did the parents notice a change in behavior? If they did, why didn't they do anything about it?

Dude, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm as frustrated as anyone. I'm tired of having this debate. I'm looking at this and I'm trying to figure out what I think is the best way to put a stop to shootings.

 

[RR7]

Identifying the kids with signs? Like Pres has mentioned with aspergers, what if every school shooter has aspergers. That doesn't make all aspergers individuals into killers. So if you recognize something that is similar...what?

 

[Natebishop3]

Identifying the kids with signs? Like Pres has mentioned with aspergers, what if every school shooter has aspergers. That doesn't make all aspergers individuals into killers. So if you recognize something that is similar...what?

Well, obviously you send them off to a concentration camp. Possibly an island where they can just kill each other.

 

[Further]

Identifying the kids with signs? Like Pres has mentioned with aspergers, what if every school shooter has aspergers. That doesn't make all aspergers individuals into killers. So if you recognize something that is similar...what?

I actually worry about this, and about a persecution coming of kids who already are outside the norm. Some experts suggest as many as 1 in 88 children has some level of aspergers. So there are about 55 million k - 12 students in America. That means right now in our school systems there are over 625,000 kids with aspergers. If you say every single school shooting since sandy hook (74 shootings) was done by an asperger kid, that still means that any particular asperger kid only has a 0.0001% chance of having been one of those shooters. So although it's easy to point our fingers at people on the spectrum, let's make sure to realize that these kids are individuals and that any one of them has almost no chance of being a school shooter. And of course, I don't know if all 74 were on the spectrum, I was taking the worst case scenario in order to do the math.

 

[Natebishop3]

I actually worry about this, and about a persecution coming of kids who already are outside the norm. Some experts suggest as many as 1 in 88 children has some level of aspergers. So there are about 55 million k - 12 students in America. That means right now in our school systems there are over 625,000 kids with aspergers. If you say every single school shooting since sandy hook (74 shootings) was done by an asperger kid, that still means that any particular asperger kid only has a 0.00012% chance of having been one of those shooters. So although it's easy to point our fingers at people on the spectrum, let's make sure to realize that these kids are individuals and that any one of them has almost no chance of being a school shooter. And of course, I don't know if all 74 were on the spectrum, I was taking the worst case scenario in order to do the math.

I don't think blanket accusations, like pointing the finger at aspergers kids, would accomplish anything. I think we need to shrink class sizes so teachers can better recognize when a kid becomes despondent, or apathetic. Talk to students more about how things are going in their lives. Communicate with parents more. Obviously this can't really happen unless the burden is lowered on the teachers. I'm not saying that they should start a witch hunt. Just pay more attention to how kids are acting and then talk to a student that seems distressed. Hell, maybe just talking to them and letting them know that someone cares would be enough to prevent something like this from happening.

 

[RR7]

So your answer to gun violence is smaller classes, so teachers can talk to students better. That wouldn't have stopped a single one of these school shootings.

I'm not just trying to be argumentitive, but I think it's easy to just say "treat the problem" as if that means anything, or as if there's an actual way to go about doing that.

 

[Further]

I don't think blanket accusations, like pointing the finger at aspergers kids, would accomplish anything. I think we need to shrink class sizes so teachers can better recognize when a kid becomes despondent, or apathetic. Talk to students more about how things are going in their lives. Communicate with parents more. Obviously this can't really happen unless the burden is lowered on the teachers. I'm not saying that they should start a witch hunt. Just pay more attention to how kids are acting and then talk to a student that seems distressed. Hell, maybe just talking to them and letting them know that someone cares would be enough to prevent something like this from happening.

On this point, we agree.



I actually don't worry about the witch hunt from the law or from school district, I worry mainly about the general idea of kids with aspergers getting labeled as dangerous in casual settings and having their peers, other kids, treat them as the enemy. This could likely have the opposite effect and cause more feelings of being bullied, abused, laughed at, and separated from the heard, potentially leading to more violent outbursts.

 

[Natebishop3]

So your answer to gun violence is smaller classes, so teachers can talk to students better. That wouldn't have stopped a single one of these school shootings.

I'm not just trying to be argumentitive, but I think it's easy to just say "treat the problem" as if that means anything, or as if there's an actual way to go about doing that.

How do you know it wouldn't have stopped one of the shootings? The kid looked like a completely normal guy. Nobody cares why he decided to load up a bunch of mags, put on a protech helmet and a plate carrier and go down to the school?

These aren't usually impetuous decisions. They don't go home, grab some shit laying around the house, and then come back and kill people. They usually plan it in advance. He obviously had a plan. He had a bunch of loaded mags. He had the vest and the helmet. He hid it in a guitar case. So obviously this wasn't something that happened spur of the moment.

Why do you think that there wouldn't have been warning signs? We can usually link people who have sexual perversions to some kind of history of abuse. Why is it that we blame other crimes on their upbringing, but not school shootings?

 

[RR7]

How do you know it wouldn't have stopped one of the shootings? The kid looked like a completely normal guy. Nobody cares why he decided to load up a bunch of mags, put on a protech helmet and a plate carrier and go down to the school?

These aren't usually impetuous decisions. They don't go home, grab some shit laying around the house, and then come back and kill people. They usually plan it in advance. He obviously had a plan. He had a bunch of loaded mags. He had the vest and the helmet. He hid it in a guitar case. So obviously this wasn't something that happened spur of the moment.

Why do you think that there wouldn't have been warning signs? We can usually link people who have sexual perversions to some kind of history of abuse. Why is it that we blame other crimes on their upbringing, but not school shootings?

But again, what do you do with warning signs before a crime has been committed? Yes, there is a responsibility of parents. But that's like saying if we all just got along, none of this would happen either. Saying parent better is the same as ban all guns.

 

[Natebishop3]

But again, what do you do with warning signs before a crime has been committed? Yes, there is a responsibility of parents. But that's like saying if we all just got along, none of this would happen either. Saying parent better is the same as ban all guns.

So what you're saying is, we're fucked? You could have just said that. We're fucked.

 

[RR7]

So what you're saying is, we're fucked? You could have just said that. We're fucked.

Not at all, but most likely if people everywhere refuse to budge a little. If there's a line in the sand on infringement, then, well yeah, I think so. There's not one answer to the problem, because there's not one cause, but focusing on mental health, schools, families, community AND guns could net a much better result. Or, we get to a point where people say well, that won't work, with no way of knowing, and then we'll sit back and watch another 20 or so kids get killed this year.

 

[blue32]

But again, what do you do with warning signs before a crime has been committed? Yes, there is a responsibility of parents. But that's like saying if we all just got along, none of this would happen either. Saying parent better is the same as ban all guns.

Fuck it, we need the "pre-cogs" and setup the Pre-Crime department, ALA minority report.

boom

 

[Further]

How do you know it wouldn't have stopped one of the shootings? The kid looked like a completely normal guy. Nobody cares why he decided to load up a bunch of mags, put on a protech helmet and a plate carrier and go down to the school?

These aren't usually impetuous decisions. They don't go home, grab some shit laying around the house, and then come back and kill people. They usually plan it in advance. He obviously had a plan. He had a bunch of loaded mags. He had the vest and the helmet. He hid it in a guitar case. So obviously this wasn't something that happened spur of the moment.

Why do you think that there wouldn't have been warning signs? We can usually link people who have sexual perversions to some kind of history of abuse. Why is it that we blame other crimes on their upbringing, but not school shootings?

I know this isn't a school shooting, but the shooting last week in Nevada of the police at pizza and guy in walmart, the male shooter had previously been trying to get an AR15 but couldn't since he was a felon. He ended up having to get whatever he could, a couple handguns. As a result, we have 3 dead. How many might have been killed if he had gotten the AR15. I'm not saying ban guns, but i point this out to show that although there are instances where kids plan things out for months (adults in the Nevada case) they don't always plan them well, and will often move off their original plan to something less lethal if roadblocks are put up. I remember reading about a local case (Oregon or Washington, can't remember) a few months ago where students turned in another student who was likely planning a massacre because he kept talking about aspects of his planning at school. If a kid has a hard time getting an available gun, perhaps he gets turned in trying to buy one at school, or gets caught stealing one from a neighbor. Perhaps he simply moves onto a different plan, maybe one with a knife instead of a gun, or one with a .22 instead of a .45. Making it difficult does have a role to play in 1) perhaps getting his actions noticed ahead of time and plan averted, 2, getting him to move onto a different plan less thought out or with lesser equipment, where 1 or 2 get injured instead of 10 or 20. Also, perhaps making it difficult does nothing for this specific incident, but one elsewhere is averted.




I'm for common sense gun laws, and that goes both ways. For example, although on one hand I think proof of age and legal ownership abilities should be required to buy ammo, I also believe we should get rid of laws that are based on appearance of evil but play zero role in actually affecting the situation, like what kind of handle you can have on a shotgun or rifle.

 

[MarAzul]

What you are missing is that there are dozens of a school shootings a year and even if in this case the shooting still would have happened doesn't mean that any laws wouldn't have affected a different shooting. You keep taking specific incidents and applying the results to all possible school shootings when that's not how it works. Perhaps a different kid was unable to defeat the lock, or perhaps locks need to pass certain tamper-proof benchmarks in order to qualify as a gun lock. I know I have two gun safes, one is more a strong box that could be defeated in a couple minutes while the actual safe would take an expert to defeat.

There is no absolute answer, and no response is foolproof. But common sense gun laws, better mental healthcare, smaller class sizes and other components could all work together to lessen what is becoming a tragic reality of modern society that must be curbed.

Do you have an amendment to the Second amendment that you think will correct the ills of our society and that will pass through the process?

 

[THE HCP]

Man some of you guys...... Some of these posts are making me sick to my stomach reading.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!

 

[THE HCP]

You should see in person what flying hot rounds do to a human being before being able to post an opinion on this. Sickening.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!

 

[blue32]

You should see in person what flying hot rounds do to a human being before being able to post an opinion on this. Sickening.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!

Why's that? It doesn't take someone to get shot in front of you to understand what bullets do to the human body.

 

[Natebishop3]

Man some of you guys...... Some of these posts are making me sick to my stomach reading.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!

Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation HCP, other than to insult the people who are trying to discuss the topic.

We get it. You think all guns should be banned. Go circlejerk with the rest of the anti-gun crowd on Facebook.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Strictly regulate it how? I still have yet to see a realistic idea for firearm regulations that would actually lower school shootings.

I see you have been discussing this with RR7 who articulates things better than i do in my rushed manner. But my gut reaction is are you kidding me? Like I'm going to solve this incredibly complicated issue with suggestions on the internet?

But I can tell you this . . . millions of dollars have been poured into study how to stop drunk drivers from killing people. The national government comes out with numerous studies and data to suggest how to handle the this and put best practices in place to help curb this problem (obviously can't completely stop it). They have been successful with regulations and specialty courts and through data over the decades, this is a proven fact. Texas is a great example of closing prisons while reducing recidivism.

If the government had the power to regulate guns this way, I'm sure they would come up with practices to put into place that would continually evolve in hopes of curbing these types of incidents as much as possible. But they are restricted because of the constitutional rights when it comes to guns.

Anyways RR7 says it better than I, but these situations are so incredibly sad it needs to be attacked at all angles. Unfortunately (in my mind) one angle is closed off because of the constitutional issues.


FWIW- I'm no expert (and there lies the problem with asking for solutions on the internet) but mental health exams and responsibility tests be required before being allowed to own a gun comes to mind, but I can't imagine anything like that would pass the constitutional test.

 

[Further]

Do you have an amendment to the Second amendment that you think will correct the ills of our society and that will pass through the process?

No, I personally don't think an ammendment is needed. I am not looking to restrict gun ownership. I am looking to make some common sense changes in other laws surrounding guns, like mandatory gun locks or safes of a certain quality for any firearm not on ones body or within a certain distance from their being (10 feet or 1000 feet, I don't have specifics.) I would like to see ammo much more regulated. I just ordered some Critical Duty rounds for one handgun over the internet, no age checks or anyone checking that I can legally own a gun. I think ammo purchases should be in person and ID. I think guns should be either sold through licensed gun shops, through FFL's, or be done at the local sheriff station where a background check can be administered, no private sales without a background check.

I don't believe any of these laws would violate the 2nd amendment, especially if they are administered at the state level.

 

[Sedatedfork]

He was one of us (as a Blazers brethren, not a poster here)

Totally sad and senseless. RIP Emilio.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Why's that? It doesn't take someone to get shot in front of you to understand what bullets do to the human body.

I think that sort of context is important. Maybe that's it: in order to get a gun, you have to be shot in the leg first. Then you know.

 

[RR7]

it needs to be attacked at all angles. Unfortunately (in my mind) one angle is closed off because of the constitutional issues.


FWIW- I'm no expert (and there lies the problem with asking for solutions on the internet) but mental health exams and responsibility tests be required before being allowed to own a gun comes to mind, but I can't imagine anything like that would pass the constitutional test.

Totally agree with this. If ANY sort of alteration is met with staunch resistance because we like to assume that the founding fathers got THIS one right, and it shouldn't be touched even after 200+ years, then what's there to do? The document that people don't want touched as it pertains to the 2nd amendment had to be amended to allow blacks and women to vote. Why? Shouldn't we just assume they had it right when they did it?

 

[blue32]

I think that sort of context is important. Maybe that's it: in order to get a gun, you have to be shot in the leg first. Then you know.

IMO, every kid in the world should have that context given to them from the time they are old enough to understand. And it'd be a damn shame if a child was brought up never understanding the full impact of what a firearm can do, and the respect they deserve.

 

[Natebishop3]

I see you have been discussing this with RR7 who articulates things better than i do in my rushed manner. But my gut reaction is are you kidding me? Like I'm going to solve this incredibly complicated issue with suggestions on the internet?

But I can tell you this . . . millions of dollars have been poured into study how to stop drunk drivers from killing people. The national government comes out with numerous studies and data to suggest how to handle the this and put best practices in place to help curb this problem (obviously can't completely stop it). They have been successful with regulations and specialty courts and through data over the decades, this is a proven fact. Texas is a great example of closing prisons while reducing recidivism.

If the government had the power to regulate guns this way, I'm sure they would come up with practices to put into place that would continually evolve in hopes of curbing these types of incidents as much as possible. But they are restricted because of the constitutional rights when it comes to guns.

Anyways RR7 says it better than I, but this situations are so incredibly sad it needs to be attacked at all angles. Unfortunately (in my mind) one angle is closed off because of the constitutional issues.


FWIW- I'm no expert (and there lies the problem with asking for solutions on the internet) but mental health exams and responsibility tests be required before being allowed to own a gun comes to mind, but I can't imagine anything like that would pass the constitutional test.

You're right, you and others should just keep throwing out terms like "stricter regulations" and "common sense gun laws" because that will get the job done.

While you do that, I'll keep saying we need to cure cancer.

 

[RR7]

You're right, you and others should just keep throwing out terms like "stricter regulations" and "common sense gun laws" because that will get the job done.

While you do that, I'll keep saying we need to cure cancer.

That's not the case at all. I think Further has mentioned a few of his own proposals. Your solution is treat the kids. Yours is just as bad if not worse than regulations on guns. It's not at all like saying cure cancer. He listed specific things. You said more teachers and money for schools. Cure cancer with that too, I suppose.

 

[Natebishop3]

That's not the case at all. I think Further has mentioned a few of his own proposals. Your solution is treat the kids. Yours is just as bad if not worse than regulations on guns. It's not at all like saying cure cancer. He listed specific things. You said more teachers and money for schools. Cure cancer with that too, I suppose.

I wasn't talking to Further. I was talking to ToB. When I asked him what he meant by "stricter regulations," he just gave me that "aww shucks" attitude and said that he would leave it up to the government to figure it out.

Further at least proposed ideas, although I don't know if mandatory gun locks will actually do anything because it would be impossible to enforce and I'm not sold on their effectiveness. Regulating ammo is another option, but again, I don't see how it prevents someone from stockpiling and then doing what this kid just did.

You guys keep throwing out window-dressing ideas that sound nice, but won't actually do anything because even if you take away the guns, there will still be angry individuals who want to hurt people (as shown by that stabbing recently in Pennsylvania.)

 

[RR7]

You guys keep throwing out window-dressing ideas that sound nice, but won't actually do anything because even if you take away the guns, there will still be angry individuals who want to hurt people (as shown by that stabbing recently in Pennsylvania.)

You don't know if they won't do anything, but I guess stating it emphatically makes you feel better, so what's the point of the discussion here. Your window dressing is treat the kids, not the tools, but the only thing you offered up is money to teachers/schools. Trying to find stricter gun laws that might curb some violence COMBINED with other steps COULD potentially help. You have no idea. I'm not stating 100% it will, yet you're certain it will not. But have offered nothing. How do you want to treat kids that might show some sort of predictable violent behavior exactly? Or are you just tossing out your very own window dressings, with nothing behind to prop it up?