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

[Delmar]

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

After they left the "gun free zone" that is correct!

 

[This Charming Manc]

If his mom did not have the guns and ammo stored in the house, its unlikely any of this would have happened.

He didn't have to try to get weapons they were there on a plate for him to pick up and use.

By the way what Alan is broadly suggesting is what works in most of the civilised world.

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.

 

[chrysostom]

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

there are many fine teachers out there
but
it doesn't take many bad teachers to turn an unstable student into a monster
and
the union is protecting them
and
you can hold all the teachers responsible for that union

 

[jeremysdemo]

Not to take away from the topic or given any disrespect to those whom lost their loved ones but.....

Where was the concern when the Afghanistan children were being killed here, , here and here?

is it only topic worthy if it is our own children dying?

keep shinin

jerm

Won't you allow us to grieve this day the loss of our own innocents?

Sure, that is why I first said, not to take away from the topic or disrespect those whom lost their loved ones.

if that is you, grieve away, and if my words got in between you and your grief, I sincerely apologize.

Please don't globalize and thereby trivialize this tragedy.

I thought I made it clear that was not my intention.

I saw nothing on this forum for months as thousands of Afghanistan children were killed.

to each their own I suppose, I don't hold their lives in any less value than my own family or countrymen.

this will be in US media for a few weeks maybe months, and the black out about the afgan kids will continue as if it is not even happening....

keep shinin

jerm

 

[chrysostom]

I think you have to separate 2 types of school shootings. One is done by a student. The other, like yesterday's tragedy, is done by an outsider.

an outsider?

former student
mother taught at school
used her car and guns

not an outsider

 

[drbrumley]

As it turns out, this murderer was autistic.

 

[sky.]

Maybe a school should be treated like a gated community. You have to have permission and a reason to even enter the outside property.

 

[drbrumley]

Maybe a school should be treated like a gated community. You have to have permission and a reason to even enter the outside property.

In the short term, that may end up as to what happens. I wouldn't object to that.

 

[Town Heretic]

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.

It's not evil to bring a condom to a shooting range. It's just inappropriate if you mean to use it and pointless if you don't.

What justifies the passing of such a law is because it is effected for the common good.

And I noted an example of that good. The presence of guns serve no legitimate education purpose while raising the level of probability of a negative outcome.

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

Yes and for the reasons given above and prior.

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

No, trad. It also introduces additional punitive measures and may cause even those disinclined by practice to obey that sort of law to reconsider if the penalty is severe enough and known. A simple cost/benefit analysis at the fundamental level of self interest.

But it won't stop crazy.

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

Well, no. The law coupled with no other measure would do that, but it isn't without additional considerations and measures. The real question involves their effectiveness or failure and the need for additional measures and their effectiveness. I noted a couple of potential solutions. You've stepped around them.

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.

Catastrophically, profoundly wrong headed response. There are better, safer ways to go about this and you're not even trying to explore them. You seem to have entered with a singular vision and it's blinding you to important considerations.

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

Have you ever been under fire? Absent serious training your flight impulse will get you killed or, if you have a weapon and lack that same sort of discipline/training, you're as likely to kill someone else by accident and/or not come close to hitting anything you're aiming at. The reason troops are put through under fire simulation after they've had extensive drill in proficiency in the use of a weapon is that without understanding the impact, the personal impact of adrenaline on how you shoot and even think you aren't prepared to use that weapon, won't be able to use it properly.

The absolute worst idea here, unless you mean to employ teachers who are former soldiers and place that obligation in their hands, subject to review and rotation, would be to put civilians in that position.

 

[kmoney]

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?

So you think Lanza shot up this elementary school because he had a bad teacher or was bullied?

 

[kmoney]

an outsider?

former student
mother taught at school
used her car and guns

not an outsider

What I meant was someone who wasn't a student or teacher. He shouldn't have been allowed in. I suppose you could say he'd be allowed in anyway because of him being the son of a teacher, but I don't imagine someone dressed like that and carrying a few guns would have been let in even if he was the son of a teacher.

 

[Dena]

What I meant was someone who wasn't a student or teacher. He shouldn't have been allowed in. I suppose you could say he'd be allowed in anyway because of him being the son of a teacher, but I don't imagine someone dressed like that and carrying a few guns would have been let in even if he was the son of a teacher.

The last thing I read said he forced his way into the school. It also said his mother wasn't a teacher but may have been a volunteer. So...who knows?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Gun control works, and is the answer.

Funny it hasn't worked in Chicago.

 

[kmoney]

The last thing I read said he forced his way into the school. It also said his mother wasn't a teacher but may have been a volunteer. So...who knows?

I hadn't heard how he gained entry. That's good to know.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Animals do not slaughter babies in large numbers for no reason whatsoever.

Sure they do, they eat their own babies too.

They do not go insane and shoot their mother in the face and then kill themselves.

I'm not claiming we are animals. What you are describing is even less than an animal - but why not? No reason for morals in natural selection.

Seems you are missing the point.

Uh...killing offspring is the exactly opposite of encouraging the species to survive.

Nice case against natural selection, since animals often kill their own offspring when they perceive it as weak.

Nevermind that fact that natural selection is not a process whereby the species picks and chooses what will and will not work for the best.

I agree that its a crock.

 

[Stripe]

The argument is nonsense.

Anything that threatens your precious evolutionism must be attacked, regardless of the actual reason for the attack.

Animals act amorally. Evolution implies no necessity for morality and in fact, atheists teach us that morals evolved.

So the argument is not nonsense.

 

[drbrumley]

It Didn't Take Long

Posted by Butler Shaffer on December 15, 2012 04:51 PM


As the blood continues to dry at the grade school in Connecticut, the political vultures have descended to exploit the atrocity for political gain. I have received a number of e-mails and on-line petitions announcing "vigils to end gun violence," an undertaking I suspect will not include any references to the "gun violence" engaged in by the state that such "vigilantes" seek to persuade. Given that a number of these shootings have taken place at government schools, might the suggestion be advanced to disband government systems of education?

As I have suggested before, if those who believe that legislation can resolve the problem of mass-killings, why don't they propose enacting a law to prohibit such behavior?

 

[Traditio]

It's not evil to bring a condom to a shooting range. It's just inappropriate if you mean to use it and pointless if you don't.

1. The use of contraceptives is malum in se.

2. To my knowledge, that actually wouldn't be that bizarre. Don't some people carry at least one with them wherever they go "just in case"? For example, in one's wallet?

And I noted an example of that good. The presence of guns serve no legitimate education purpose while raising the level of probability of a negative outcome.

I deny this. The presence of guns indeed may serve a legitimate educational purpose: preventing the students from getting shot to bits by maniacs with guns.

No, trad. It also introduces additional punitive measures and may cause even those disinclined by practice to obey that sort of law to reconsider if the penalty is severe enough and known. A simple cost/benefit analysis at the fundamental level of self interest.

You basically just repeated what I said: "It prevents normally law-abiding citizens from getting into shoot outs with each other. And that's about it."

In any case, I don't disagree with the necessity of (at least certain) gun-free zones in general. There should be exceptions, though (teachers, for example).

Well, no. The law coupled with no other measure would do that, but it isn't without additional considerations and measures.

Were there additional considerations and measures either at 1. the Colorado movie theater or 2. the recent school where the mass shooting took place?

The real question involves their effectiveness or failure and the need for additional measures and their effectiveness. I noted a couple of potential solutions. You've stepped around them.

Yes. I "stepped around" your suggestions because I didn't really disagree with them. Armed gaurds and metal detectors, right? Yes, those seem like good measures. [Though, it does strike me as a potentially expensive measure.]

Arming the teachers seems like another good measure.

Catastrophically, profoundly wrong headed response. There are better, safer ways to go about this and you're not even trying to explore them. You seem to have entered with a singular vision and it's blinding you to important considerations.

You took this out of the larger context. My claim isn't that everyone should be allowed to take their guns wherever they want. My claim is that if people, generally speaking, have guns, then we can't pretend as though there are certain places where they aren't going to be taken. There's a chance that people are going to take guns into "gun-free" zones and start shooting people. At least some people should be able to have guns in these "gun free zones" in order to defend themselves.

Have you ever been under fire? Absent serious training your flight impulse will get you killed or, if you have a weapon and lack that same sort of discipline/training, you're as likely to kill someone else by accident and/or not come close to hitting anything you're aiming at. The reason troops are put through under fire simulation after they've had extensive drill in proficiency in the use of a weapon is that without understanding the impact, the personal impact of adrenaline on how you shoot and even think you aren't prepared to use that weapon, won't be able to use it properly.

The absolute worst idea here, unless you mean to employ teachers who are former soldiers and place that obligation in their hands, subject to review and rotation, would be to put civilians in that position.

Two points:

1. Soldiers have that kind of intensive training because there's a chance that they'll have to fight other people who have had the same kind of intensive training. Do policemen have to undergo the same training that soldiers do? Self-defense in a war-zone and self-defense at, say, a movie theater just strike me as generically different.

Did either the school shooter or the Colorado movie theater shooter have military training?

2. The last thing you said doesn't follow. What seems to follow is that teachers 1. should have access to guns in school and 2. they should be trained to use them. It doesn't follow that teachers should 1. be ex-soldiers or 2. should receive military training.

To my knowledge, people who have concealed-carry permits have to undergo training on how to use fire-arms. Why not just extend the requirment to teachers and school administrators?

It wouldn't even be necessary to have all the teachers buy a gun and carry it around. As per my previous "in case of emergency, break glass" idea. We plan for contingencies all the time. That's why there tend to be things like fire extinguishers and fire-arms around public buildings.

 

[Alate_One]

Anything that threatens your precious evolutionism must be attacjed, regardless of the actual reason for the attack.

No. You have the problem backwards. There are those on the right trotting out evolution as the cause of every social ill, which is ridiculous.

You didn't answer my proposition. If you come from a long line of perfectly human murderers and thieves, does that give you an excuse to become a murderer or thief? Does it automatically make you think you should be a murderer or thief?

Animals act amorally. Evolution implies no necessity for morality and in fact, atheists teach us that morals evolved.

Why do they say morals evolved? Because higher animals do have patterns of behavior that are acceptable and non-acceptable in group living. Chimps have a concept of "fairness", it's simple completely unsophisticated but animals do not behave in a random fashion towards one another.

 

[Stripe]

Why do they say morals evolved?

Irrelevant.

Our morality is based upon God's standards, not random mutations and natural selection.