I suspect it's largely about the aging of the baby boom generation.
toldailytopic: What can be done to help prevent the epidemic of school shootings?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Christ's Word
New member
You left out: number of shooting deaths at schools on a Saturday= 0
So obviously the solution is to have classes only on Saturday.
No, it just appears Sam Clemens was right about statistics.
Which is why every school system has this sort of tragedy in it...I mean most...well, an impressively large minority then...well.lain:
More can be done. More should be. We have to learn from tragedies like this one. There are any number of reasonable responses. Arming untrained teachers isn't one of them.
First and foremost, clown sheratic, you are too stupid to solve this type of problem, bad for you, and the children that will be killed by the next evil jackwagon. Secondly, many P.E. teachers are hunters and outdoorsman/outdoorswomen. They would be excellent candidates for security and active shooter response training, as many of them already teach marksmanship in their P.E. classes. As would many veterans that have specific MOS qualifications.
But more importantly, girls like you, masquerading as men, always fail epically to answer the most important question of all......
Why do evil people always pick the unarmed and defenseless to carry out their mass murder plans???????????????????
The simple answer is, and always will be, wait for it.....there is no one there to shoot back.
Simply placing a few trained, armed adults in each school, some that are in plain view, and a couple others that no one knows are armed, will clearly act as a deterrent, and push the crazies to a softer target.
Don't forget about perimeter security, and all of the other disciplines that go into force protection. Our kids are just as vulnerable in the parking lots and on the athletic fields as they are inside the buildings. It is about time the teacher's union take a salary cut to hire some real security.
Well said Trad, Chrys, DrBrumley, and jeremysdemo!
The libtards are incapable of solving a problem like this, they can't even defend themselves, much less our children.
I already noted your irrationality with the loopy chrys/men comment, but I appreciate the additional demonstration for potentially new readers. I'd try to match your wit, but I don't see the point in going around calling you Chrysostom's Turrets.
I actually proposed a reasonable response. Any actual, on point criticism or did you mean to restrict your interaction to a metaphorical spittle bath?
So your problem is more of a reading comprehension deficit, since I noted earlier that training was key. I even entertained the notion of arming and training teachers, then specified a problem with that approach and suggested, instead, a policeman dedicated to one concentrated task. Lowers the number of firearms and chance of accident from divided attention and a few other foreseeable problems.
Epic immaturity noted. But you needn't. I recall you from the last time you were sent into the penalty box after acting out.
That you think anyone needs that answered is indicative of part of your problem here.
Now you know how most of us who argue with you feel.
Because crazy people make rational decisions about targets and behavior.
lain: Rather, you run a sweep before school, limit access to a buzz in and have an armed, trained officer in a central place with sufficient monitoring and one dedicated task to perform.Nah, just cut the salaries we pay to Congressmen. Most schools have monitoring in place already. My notion wouldn't be as expensive as training larger numbers of people who might not be school employees the next year. It utilizes existing facilities and requires only the assignment of an active officer during the school year and hours.
I only read Trad and chrys idiotic anti union rant. I answered Trad point by point.
Not that liberals are incapable of defending themselves, but no, that's just your irrational bias asserting itself in a premise and/or conclusion without an actual argument to prop any of it up.
Last edited:
Christ's Word
New member
Iron clad proof you are a poser and an idiot.....
"Rather, you run a sweep before school, limit access to a buzz in and have an armed, trained officer in a central place with sufficient monitoring and one dedicated task to perform."
I don't know what kind of a naive dweeb pretender, other than you, could propose something so impotent. The sheer size of the campuses in our public district here places your "CENTRAL Officer" minutes from most areas of campus, when seconds decide how many will die. Amateur hour is over, you are a joke and a pretender. What you know about security would fit in a shot glass with 1.2 ounces of whiskey. Have another drink clown, only you could imagine that one officer could secure the average Missouri Middle School, much less a High school campus. :cheers:
"Rather, you run a sweep before school, limit access to a buzz in and have an armed, trained officer in a central place with sufficient monitoring and one dedicated task to perform."
I don't know what kind of a naive dweeb pretender, other than you, could propose something so impotent. The sheer size of the campuses in our public district here places your "CENTRAL Officer" minutes from most areas of campus, when seconds decide how many will die. Amateur hour is over, you are a joke and a pretender. What you know about security would fit in a shot glass with 1.2 ounces of whiskey. Have another drink clown, only you could imagine that one officer could secure the average Missouri Middle School, much less a High school campus. :cheers:
No, only proof that you're eager to assume whatever serves that deep seated anger issue of yours.
You don't know a lot of things...how to argue, for one.
It's a simple enough matter to address. Now our county seat is a typical small town and all of the schools in our county could be served as I noted. Most small towns could run it exactly that way. With larger municipalities you'd have to have more officers and points of observation. That's a given. But it would still have all the advantages I noted earlier without the potentially lethal drawbacks the alternatives proposed so far entail, along with the economic problem of training numbers of teachers who might not be retained.
The facts are not disputable. Violent crime in the US is way up, and goes up when gun control laws violate the 2nd amendment, or other freedoms.
When Teddy Roosevelt was President at the turn of hte 20th century the rate was 1.1 per 100,000. There were spikes with prohibition and ending the death penalty. Now, we are about 5 times that rate. Dropping from total thuggery to just plain thuggery, doesn't mean anything. We are high, and way higher than in the past.
When Teddy Roosevelt was President at the turn of hte 20th century the rate was 1.1 per 100,000. There were spikes with prohibition and ending the death penalty. Now, we are about 5 times that rate. Dropping from total thuggery to just plain thuggery, doesn't mean anything. We are high, and way higher than in the past.
Do you have any evidence that gun ownership is correlated to lower rates of gun violence? Or an explanation why so many other nations get by with so much less gun crime and so many fewer guns?
...when you just make them up as you go along.
gcthomas
New member
gcthomas
New member
The Canadian Medical Journal has published a study into the international comparisons of homicide rates, and concluded:
So the argument that if you take away the guns then the murders will still happen with different weapons is shown to be false. Fewer guns, fewer murders, given similar social or economic factors.
Results: Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership.
sourceSo the argument that if you take away the guns then the murders will still happen with different weapons is shown to be false. Fewer guns, fewer murders, given similar social or economic factors.
Please explain your thinking on this.
noguru
Well-known member
This is accurate.
noguru
Well-known member
This is accurate as well.
If I were going to give up my life, I would make sure it was in exchange for some benefit of the human race in general and the growing children in particular.
I have no idea why one would chose any other way.
noguru
Well-known member
Brilliant. Then why try to blame violence to children on knowledge of the natural world?
Barbarian observes:
Spending more money on security cameras, training teachers for emergency procedures, and so on, would be more effective and less costly.
Which is why it (arming and training teachers to shoot intruders) isn't done.
Schools have hired security specialists to assess risk and recommend changes. They are aware that children may be more effectively protected by other steps, given limited resources.
Spending more money on security cameras, training teachers for emergency procedures, and so on, would be more effective and less costly.
Which is why it (arming and training teachers to shoot intruders) isn't done.
Schools have hired security specialists to assess risk and recommend changes. They are aware that children may be more effectively protected by other steps, given limited resources.
oldhermit
Member
Gun laws are too restrictive and need to be broadened. If you want to stop this kind of slaughter, put guns in the hands of those who are in a tactical position to stop it - the teachers.
Enact laws that demands the automatic death penalty for those who engage in such attacks. Quit worrying about WHY some did such a thing and deal with the individual. Who in the world cares why they did it. Knowing why they did it will not stop it.
Enact laws that demands the automatic death penalty for those who engage in such attacks. Quit worrying about WHY some did such a thing and deal with the individual. Who in the world cares why they did it. Knowing why they did it will not stop it.
pay attention
first she was a teacher
then
she was a substitute teacher
then
she was a volunteer
and
now they never heard of her
we will have to wait for real story
first she was a teacher
then
she was a substitute teacher
then
she was a volunteer
and
now they never heard of her
we will have to wait for real story
rainee
New member
Ok, ok, I can't take it! I've only gotten up to reading page 14 and must post or burst.
And this is going to be weird in some places - do you want the weird first or last?
NOT weird: Knight really should get post of the day for what he put. And I thank God that those in authority still come out like God has His hand on them when it really counts. I mean it, I thank God because Knight might not have been able to write a good post like that in the face of what's happened if God hadn't honored authority. So yeah now I'm gonna get weird.
I am afraid we have to consider the children as easiest to be influenced by, uhmm, evil temptations..
But before I get really weird let's talk about Asia, Europe and Northern Europe and even GB, places many of our forefathers came from because there was no religious freedom and the governments were persecuting their own people!
You want to say those places are better than the States? For all I know the governments of Europe lived in wars and they are simply tired. And the people too may be worn out from all the violence of their past! Please DO NOT point to suffocating (or terrifying in some cases) governments and say we should want what those people have. Those people are still trying to come here.
Now then, I think most of us knew the rise in promiscuity and the rise of divorce and the rise of abortions of this country was not good but scary. I think some of us thought it meant something about our spiritual health here in the States. Then the congregations started splitting across the country, do you remember that? And I had to consider the power of spiritual warfare.
NO offense to Angel, but after that an "angel craze" went over the country like a wave and I really was suspicious as to why even atheists were loving the angel fad that was going on. Victoria's Secret is still parading women with "angel" wings though the craze has died down if not totally gone.
So let's say the children are at risk for delusions. Let's also say maybe this is happening where money is the most powerful god for the grown ups.
We have to be salt and light.
And this is going to be weird in some places - do you want the weird first or last?
NOT weird: Knight really should get post of the day for what he put. And I thank God that those in authority still come out like God has His hand on them when it really counts. I mean it, I thank God because Knight might not have been able to write a good post like that in the face of what's happened if God hadn't honored authority. So yeah now I'm gonna get weird.
I am afraid we have to consider the children as easiest to be influenced by, uhmm, evil temptations..
But before I get really weird let's talk about Asia, Europe and Northern Europe and even GB, places many of our forefathers came from because there was no religious freedom and the governments were persecuting their own people!
You want to say those places are better than the States? For all I know the governments of Europe lived in wars and they are simply tired. And the people too may be worn out from all the violence of their past! Please DO NOT point to suffocating (or terrifying in some cases) governments and say we should want what those people have. Those people are still trying to come here.
Now then, I think most of us knew the rise in promiscuity and the rise of divorce and the rise of abortions of this country was not good but scary. I think some of us thought it meant something about our spiritual health here in the States. Then the congregations started splitting across the country, do you remember that? And I had to consider the power of spiritual warfare.
NO offense to Angel, but after that an "angel craze" went over the country like a wave and I really was suspicious as to why even atheists were loving the angel fad that was going on. Victoria's Secret is still parading women with "angel" wings though the craze has died down if not totally gone.
So let's say the children are at risk for delusions. Let's also say maybe this is happening where money is the most powerful god for the grown ups.
We have to be salt and light.
Neg rep for comments without actually refuting the data of 1.1 in 1901 and 4.8 now.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Interestingly though, it rose to 4.6 in the period 1901 to 1909, the presidental period of Roosevelt. The rate was unusually low in the latter half of the 19th century, but it was higher before that again. It peaked in the 1960-1990 and is now declining. However, historically speaking, homicide rates have declined significantly (as in the overall trend over a large period of time). Your "rejection of God" theory is contradicted by facts, not just by US numbers but also by the fact that the homicide rate in far more secular countries are a fraction of the US rates. Inzl Kett's claim, that there is a causal link between the rejection of creationism and violence is ludicrous, the correlation is opposite of that claim (which is not the same as claiming an opposite causal link).
Your rate is also much higher than other modernized countries with far stricter gun laws than the US (Most European countries and Japan as well). On the other hand, you have Switzerland that have an abundance of guns, but fairly low homicide rate. So it is not my intention to say that there is a necessary causal link between abundance of private weapons and homicide rates, but there is a correlation. The cause is probably complicated, social and cultural factors.