toldailytopic: What can be done to help prevent the epidemic of school shootings?

[Traditio]

You'd be surprised how many homicides are spur of the moment, crimes of passion, committed not by gang bangers but otherwise ordinary people who snap. Now if they were going about their business, coming to that moment without a handgun you reduce the likelihood of a tragic consequence.

Fair enough. More on this later on below.

But mostly criminal law is about defining parameters and punishment thereafter.

But in this case, we're talking about something which isn't malum in se. It's not intrinsically evil to bring a gun to a movie theater or to a school. What justifies the passing of such a law is because it is effected for the common good.

My question is: do gun-free zones really serve the common good?

Yes, it prevents law-abiding citizens from getting into shootouts with each other. But that's about it.

So, benefit: you prevent law-abiding citizens from getting into shoot-outs with each other.

Harm: the law-abiding citizens are now defenseless against people who are not law-abiding citizens, but have guns or other deadly weapons.

I think that a choice must be made: either we respect a so-called right to bear arms or not. Either people have access to guns or not.

If people by and large have access to guns, but people in a particular area don't have access to guns...? Sorry, but I think that this is just a tragedy waiting to happen. As proven by the fact that at least two massacres recently have taken place in gun-free zones.

Sure, they were wearing body armor. But what if they hadn't been wearing body armor?

And if they do you want the means to penalize. You can't do that for lawful conduct.

Right.

Not something I ever suggested. I think I've clarified on the point prior and above.

Explain to me why teachers, school administrators, etc. shouldn't be able to bring guns to schools.

Do you think laws against criminal conspiracy impact the decision of criminals to enter into one? Likely not. And the arsonist? Does he refrain from burning down buildings because a law is in place? Likely not.

Generally speaking, probably not. But those laws are different. Arson, generally speaking, is malum in se.

 

[Alate_One]

I never stated that it was causation. The strong negative correlation, however, presents a higher burden for those claiming the exact opposite: that public acceptance of evolution results in a higher murder/mass shooting rate.

They now have to explain why the correlation is the exact opposite of what their assertion would predict. They'd have to provide evidence for some other factor that overwhelms the effect of public acceptance of evolution on the murder rate, that causes a significant drop in the murder rate and is also correlated positively with public acceptance of evolution! A much higher hurdle to support their hypothesis indeed!

I absolutely agree with you on that point.

But recommending more evolution acceptance and less religion as a solution to gun violence is silly.

 

[chrysostom]

That kind of violence isn't just directed at schools. It's directed at crowds. That's why you have the same thing happening at a movie theatre or a post office or a McDonalds.

can you count?

you will find schools seem to be the primary target
and
there is a reason why it is

 

[chrysostom]

What is your answer to that question?

most here already know my answer
and
most don't even want the questioned asked

 

[kmoney]

most here already know my answer
and
most don't even want the questioned asked

What is your answer?

 

[chrysostom]

What is your answer?

have you ever experienced a bad teacher?

a bully at school?

all we have are teachers at school to protect our children
and
they seem to be protecting themselves

don't you think the children notice that?

 

[gcthomas]

have you ever experienced a bad teacher?

a bully at school?

all we have are teachers at school to protect our children
and
they seem to be protecting themselves

don't you think the children notice that?

A larger proportion of the adults got killed than students at Newtown. Does that fit into your naïve theory?

 

[Huckleberry]

Pearl, Mississippi 1997: 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car.

Edinboro, Pennsylvania 1996: 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun when he was confronted and stopped by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. He held Wurst at gunpoint until police arrived

Winnemucca, Nevada 2008,: Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). Ernesto was shot while he was reloading.

Colorado Springs, Colorad 2007: Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer. Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, then killed himself.

 

[gcthomas]

Pearl, Mississippi 1997: 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car.

Edinboro, Pennsylvania 1996: 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun when he was confronted and stopped by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. He held Wurst at gunpoint until police arrived

I notice that both school shootings you refer to had the perpetrator challenged on his way out AFTER the mass killings.

 

[Huckleberry]

I notice that both school shootings you refer to had the perpetrator challenged on his way out AFTER the mass killings.

And what do you think that means?

 

[gcthomas]

And what do you think that means?

Er, that the children still died? That the guns didn't protect them?

 

[Huckleberry]

Er, that the children still died? That the guns didn't protect them?

Because they weren't there.

Which is exactly what you're arguing for. That guns not be allowed to be there to protect anyone.

They were onhand to stop the murderer from leaving the scene or relocating somewhere else and killing more people. This establishes that, had they been on the scene (the principal having his weapon in his possession rather than in his car, for example) they likely would have protected those children.

Do you even realize you arguing against yourself here?

 

[gcthomas]

Because they weren't there.

Which is exactly what you're arguing for. That guns not be allowed to be there to protect anyone.

They were onhand to stop the murderer from leaving the scene or relocating somewhere else and killing more people. This establishes that, had they been on the scene (the principal having his weapon in his possession rather than in his car, for example) they likely would have protected those children.

Do you even realize you arguing against yourself here?

The Newtown murderer killed himself after attacking two classrooms. He was not headed anywhere else. The Principle had no time to get to the scene and would not have stopped anything even if armed. Arming primary school classroom teachers? Never going to happen.

Stop the perp from having legally owned firearms? That would have worked.

 

[Traditio]

Arming primary school classroom teachers? Never going to happen.

Why not?

 

[gcthomas]

Why not?

One, most primary school teachers are not the sort of people to want to carry a firearm strapped to their dress while they are on the floor doing hand painting with the juniors.

Two, there will be outcries when the non-intentional fatalities start coming in.

 

[Traditio]

One, most primary school teachers are not the sort of people to want to carry a firearm strapped to their dress while they are on the floor doing hand painting with the juniors.

Why not an "in case of emergency, break glass" deal?

Two, there will be outcries when the non-intentional fatalities start coming in.

Primary school teachers are educated. I'm sure that they can follow safety protocols. :idunno:

 

[Huckleberry]

The Newtown murderer killed himself after attacking two classrooms. He was not headed anywhere else.

Who said he was?

The Principle had no time to get to the scene and would not have stopped anything even if armed.

Who said he could have?

Arming primary school classroom teachers? Never going to happen.

Because of people like you.

Stop the perp from having legally owned firearms? That would have worked.

Not possible. All you can do is make it harder on them and all the more harder on law abiding, rational citizens. That is not progress.

 

[Traditio]

Stop the perp from having legally owned firearms? That would have worked.

Yes, because people don't have access to illegal things. Like meth. Or marijuana. Or cocaine. Or... lain:

 

[gcthomas]

Who said he was?

Who said he could have?

Because of people like you.

Not possible. All you can do is make it harder on them and all the more harder on law abiding, rational citizens. That is not progress.

The gun behind glass is the best idea so far, but of course, the teacher would not need a gun at home or when out shopping, so licensing ownership is not an issue for schools.

 

[Alate_One]

Now I really can't figure out where you're going with this topic. Angel seemed to be insinuating that those who do not deny evolution believe we're all a bunch of animals and can therefore act in any way we feel like regardless of consequence. Fool pointed out that animals don't do the things this shooter has done. Non human animals do not behave as badly as we do. They do not have the capacity for it.

Depends on the animal you're talking about. Male Lions, when taking over a pride, will kill all of the cubs of the previous pride male in order to father their own offspring. Gray Langurs will do the same thing, for the same reason. However, in these human massacres, there's not even a self serving purpose to it. I know of no animal that would kill a bunch of unrelated individuals of the same species and then kill itself.

But the entire argument of "you're nothing but an animal so you should act like one" is specious. Would someone that finds out their father is a rapist or a murderer say to themselves "I come from rapists/murderers, therefore I should be one"?

The argument is nonsense.