Another School Shooting

[jt25man]

I was watching the news a bit ago, and the top story was this.

For those of you who wish to skip the article, a 32 year old milk man went into a 1 room Amish Schoolhouse and bound up all the girls, sent the adults and boys outside, and proceded to shoot the 9 girls, killing 3 of them and critically injuring the other 7.

I mention this mainly becuase it's something I'd never thought I'd here, or even a thought passing through my mind. Amish people (for those who don't know), don't embrace modern technology (electricity, phones, tv, computers, etc.), they use horses and buggies still, and are probably some of the most passive people in the world. So, it's almost shocking to hear of a crime of such magnitude involving them. It also makes me think this guy was a big coward to essentially take out his grudge on these passive innocent people, just because it was the most convenient way to take out his grudge.

One of the other things I noticed reading the article, this is apparently the 3rd school shooting in a week in the US. When I was in school, we never dreamed of such an event; we didn't have metal detectors, and our random locker searches were for the most sinful thing teenagers would have at our school...cigarettes.

I was almost that they at least said the guy committed suicide after shooting the girls.

[jt25man]

Right, there were 9 girls and a teenage "Teacher's Aide" who was also a female and one of the three who died, I forgot to mention that part.

[Yahwe]

stop selling guns.

[jt25man]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

stop selling guns.

Wow, why didn't we ever think of this before???

The problem is at this point stopping the sale of guns wouldn't really do much, as there's enough black market weapons that anyone who really wanted one wouldn't have to go far to find one. Although this would be a good idea, to stop selling or manufacturing weapons for commercial use, but just for military or civil police.

On a side note, according to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, a town in Idaho is actually passing a law that there has to be a gun in every house. One of his better jokes was "Hate to be a Jehovah's Witness in that town."

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by jt25man

The problem is at this point stopping the sale of guns wouldn't really do much,

and not stopping the sale of guns will help how?

[jt25man]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and not stopping the sale of guns will help how?

Quoting half a sentence, inside a paragraph where I agree with you just so you can have something to demean or shoot down doesn't really add to the discussion, just makes you look like your whole goal in life is to try and make other people appear less intelligent than you or something, but that's a discussion better suited for a different thread.

Edit: Just so you know, this is the part where I agreed with you:

Originally Posted by jt25man

Although this would be a good idea, to stop selling or manufacturing weapons for commercial use, but just for military or civil police.

[Pilgrim]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/arti...-C1-Headline-2

heres the latest report

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and not stopping the sale of guns will help how?

By not leading them down a garden path of retardedness that will eventually result in the banning of knives and glasses, as politicians and middle class parents continually piss into the wind in a bid to end violence by banning anything that can conceivably be used as a weapon?

As always, if even one of the adults present at the school had been armed, this probably wouldnt have happened.

[jt25man]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

By not leading them down a garden path of retardedness that will eventually result in the banning of knives and glasses, as politicians and middle class parents continually piss into the wind in a bid to end violence by banning anything that can conceivably be used as a weapon?

That is a very likely scenario. If you ban the sale of guns, they'll just resort to something else such as knives, although this story is 2 years old, it does show that you don't need guns to cause havoc in a school. I only remember this story because one of my friend's mom was subbing at the school that day and actually saw the kid run by her classroom.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

As always, if even one of the adults present at the school had been armed, this probably wouldnt have happened.

Yeah, but you have to consider, an armed Amish person is probably brandishing a Pitch Fork, not a shot gun and a 9mm handgun.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

As always, if even one of the adults present at the school had been armed, this probably wouldnt have happened.

Maybe. The american way would likely be to encourage 20% to 30% of adults in a school to be trained on and wearing weapons. Add the new "shoot because you feel threatened" law and schools will be much safer Another good idea would be to add "school marshals" - midgets wearing guns and posing as kids.

Then they act surprised that the new barbwire fences and metal detectors didnt help much because there where more guns already inside the school then a common person could carry and the average teacher isnt really Jackie Chan with added sharpshooter abilities.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

By not leading them down a garden path of retardedness that will eventually result in the banning of knives and glasses, as politicians and middle class parents continually piss into the wind in a bid to end violence by banning anything that can conceivably be used as a weapon?

As always, if even one of the adults present at the school had been armed, this probably wouldnt have happened.

what rot.

the statistics on gun crime have been colated for years. Machiavelli himself warns against arming your populace.

Your problem, despite your irresistable and chronic need to troll, is that you have no real skill with logic. Your perverted little ginger infected mind tells you "if X who murdered 5 people had been shot no one would have been murdered" rather than telling you that "If X had been shot for carrying a gun, by another civilian carrying a gun, there would be one murder".

Your 'solution' reduces the murder rate from 5 to 1. Mine reduces the murder rate from 5 to 0 ... and you have the audacity to imply my solution is 'retarded'.

There is no workable model for both allowing people to carry guns and allowing people to shoot people who carry guns.

[milo]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and not stopping the sale of guns will help how?

By allowing those that want to continue to carry firearms for selfdefence the ability to do so without having to resort to obsolete weaponry. As Nod pointed out banning guns is the first step in taking ever increasing and absurd measures to stop people defending themselves; its a back door into developing a police state. Society complains about a nanny state yet advocates increased spending on the police in order to sort out every problem. If the teachers were allowed to arm themselves or at the very least fully armed security was present in every school those events would never occur. The amish would just have to accept their pacifism had drawbacks and relying on others to kill the gunman invariably leads to a delay in which greater harm can be done.

The guns aren't the problem, rather its the inequality in how and when they can be carried.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by milo

By allowing those that want to continue to carry firearms for selfdefence the ability to do so without having to resort to obsolete weaponry. As Nod pointed out banning guns is the first step in taking ever increasing and absurd measures to stop people defending themselves; its a back door into developing a police state. Society complains about a nanny state yet advocates increased spending on the police in order to sort out every problem. If the teachers were allowed to arm themselves or at the very least fully armed security was present in every school those events would never occur. The amish would just have to accept their pacifism had drawbacks and relying on others to kill the gunman invariably leads to a delay in which greater harm can be done.

The guns aren't the problem, rather its the inequality in how and when they can be carried.

Do you honestly believe that less people would die in the long run if the teachers on the Amish farm now carried guns?

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by jt25man

I was watching the news a bit ago, and the top story was this.

For those of you who wish to skip the article, a 32 year old milk man went into a 1 room Amish Schoolhouse and bound up all the girls, sent the adults and boys outside, and proceded to shoot the 9 girls, killing 3 of them and critically injuring the other 7.

I mention this mainly becuase it's something I'd never thought I'd here, or even a thought passing through my mind. Amish people (for those who don't know), don't embrace modern technology (electricity, phones, tv, computers, etc.), they use horses and buggies still, and are probably some of the most passive people in the world. So, it's almost shocking to hear of a crime of such magnitude involving them. It also makes me think this guy was a big coward to essentially take out his grudge on these passive innocent people, just because it was the most convenient way to take out his grudge.

One of the other things I noticed reading the article, this is apparently the 3rd school shooting in a week in the US. When I was in school, we never dreamed of such an event; we didn't have metal detectors, and our random locker searches were for the most sinful thing teenagers would have at our school...cigarettes.

I was almost that they at least said the guy committed suicide after shooting the girls.

I never knew it was an amish school, that makes it even sader as i find it hard to believe that someone can have a hate for them.

[jt25man]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I never knew it was an amish school, that makes it even sader as i find it hard to believe that someone can have a hate for them.

I don't think he had anything against the Amish (according to the story), it just happened to be close, convenient, and he knew there would be no security.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by jt25man

I don't think he had anything against the Amish (according to the story), it just happened to be close, convenient, and he knew there would be no security.

I doubt having metal detectors and an armed guard would help any common school against a mass murderer like this one.

[Chika]

Yeah that was a sucky thing to do. The thing thats lol is that he dropped his OWN kids off at school, then went to ANOTHER school and shot up little girls.
Whats sad is that he wasn't crazy or anything. He had enough composure to drop his kids at school. Locate a different school, and then let out the pregnant women and women with small babies.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Chika

Yeah that was a sucky thing to do. The thing thats lol is that he dropped his OWN kids off at school, then went to ANOTHER school and shot up little girls.
Whats sad is that he wasn't crazy or anything. He had enough composure to drop his kids at school. Locate a different school, and then let out the pregnant women and women with small babies.

there's all sorts of crazy. Apparantly this was because of something that happened 20 years ago. No-one knows yet just what this event was.

He may have gone home to write his suicide notes (4 of them, to each child and the wife) and then it may have been the nearest school from his home.

[cisco]

5 dead now unfortunately, and still rest on critical list the only saving grace from all this is that the sick **** that did it is dead :s

Why oh Why do these things happen, as a father of 3 i cannot imagine the heartache to be felt from that happening to one of my little girls!

[Ste]

Originally Posted by cisco

the only saving grace from all this is that the sick **** that did it is dead :s

I don't see that as a saving grace.
He cannot be punished and we cannot find out why he did it.

The only "good thing" about him being dead is that he can't shoot anyone else... but if he was arrested then he wouldn't be able to anyway.

[cisco]

Originally Posted by Ste

I don't see that as a saving grace.
He cannot be punished and we cannot find out why he did it.

The only "good thing" about him being dead is that he can't shoot anyone else... but if he was arrested then he wouldn't be able to anyway.

How would he be punished tho? a slap on the wrist and some years behind bars at the expense of joe public?
I think not!

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by cisco

How would he be punished tho? a slap on the wrist and some years behind bars at the expense of joe public?
I think not!

kill those who have killed to show them that killing is wrong. a+++++++

[cisco]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

kill those who have killed to show them that killing is wrong. a+++++++

I didnt say that he should be killed tho, all i said is that i am glad he is dead!

[Ste]

Originally Posted by cisco

How would he be punished tho? a slap on the wrist and some years behind bars at the expense of joe public?
I think not!

What?
If you're telling me that people who have committed mass murder get a 'slap on the wrist' (especially in the US) then what crazy propaganda have you been reading?
Let him spend the rest of his days in prison. If anyone says that isn't a punishment then I'd like to see them survive a couple of weeks of it let alone 40 years.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Ste

Let him spend the rest of his days in prison. If anyone says that isn't a punishment then I'd like to see them survive a couple of weeks of it let alone 40 years.

What an absurd waste of money; have you any idea how much it costs to keep someone in prison for 40 years?

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by jt25man

When I was in school, we never dreamed of such an event; we didn't have metal detectors, and our random locker searches were for the most sinful thing teenagers would have at our school...cigarettes.

I don't know what type of school you went to or what it was like back then, but cigarettes aren't really an issue compared to what there is in most of the schools here.
As some of you may know, I attend a private school in North London. Most private schools are not full of "rude boys" who try their hardest to get involved in gang warfare, they are generally full of civilised people who know that their parents are paying for their education etc, they aren't involved in any of this popular gang warfare in London.
My school has/had people bringing cannabis into school, I mean 3/4 or so of the people in my year smoke cannabis regularly/semi regularly (some do it during lunch break etc), so schools aren't really what you percieve.

My old school, however, was far worse, we had people brinigng knives in every day etc, I'd never seen anyone selling drugs (unlike my new school, this one wasn't really a tight-knit community so I didn't really know who were the drug dealers etc, but it did happen).

Basically, schools have really changed since when you were in school

[jt25man]

You guys are making somewhat of a good point in that if there was armed security at the school it might not of happened, but being an Amish school, they probably never saw a need, the crime rate among Amish is so low it's almost ridiculous to even imagine something like this would happen. As for normal schools, yes they should be have adequate security, but maybe they could use those wonderful new rubber bullets that don't kill the guy, or a stun gun. I don't think having loaded guns with real bullets in a school sends out a good message to the students, thinking that they're in such danger going to school they need armed security. Sure you might argue it provides a sense of protection, but a majority of the nutcases who shoot up schools do enough planning they'd probably figure out a way to neutralize the guard anyway.

[Ärketrollmannen]

milo do you propose teachers should carry guns at all times? If you don't then it's pretty pointless I guess, since they won't be able to get to their guns if the shooter KNOWS they are trying to arm themselves. If you do, what do you think the odds are a student will steal the gun from the teacher? Most teachers are in pretty close contact with the students.

[milo]

Incidently since the concept of 'suicide gunmen' was brought up, i really can't see the conceptual difference between allowing pilots to arm themselves to fight off hijacking and allowing teachers to arm themselves to fight off hostage taking.

[jt25man]

Originally Posted by milo

Incidently since the concept of 'suicide gunmen' was brought up, i really can't see the conceptual difference between allowing pilots to arm themselves to fight off hijacking and allowing teachers to arm themselves to fight off hostage taking.

Pilots are usually behind locked doors (at least after 9/11), and would keep the gun in a secure lockbox. Airports also have very high security now a days and it's damned near impossible to get a weapon on a plane.

The idea of arming teachers is just wrong for the following reasons:
1. In order to have the gun accessible in case of a hostage situation, or student on rampage, they'd have to have the gun easily accessable, while teacher's writing on the board, disgruntled student could rush or sneak to the spot where gun is and kill everyone, or whatever.

2. Having teachers carry guns or other weapons would again as I mentioned earlier would probably have an effect on the students that there school is not safe and there lives are in danger whenever they enter the school. It would create a sense of fear in the school, and could possibly effect the students psychologically, or there ability to focus or get good grades.

3. Parents might not want there students going to a school where teachers arm themselves and put there children in private or home schooling, which would decrease the funding going into the school. Or the children themselves might not want to return.

The main problem is really that there is no great solution. Arming people just gives more chance to an accident of a student shooting himself or others, or just more shootings in general. Stopping the sale of weapons will put a slight deterrant but if they're resovle is high enough they'll still find a way there's litterally millions of guns in the world that aren't being sold legitimately. So while it may in the future have a small affect, it's not really a solution, it will just result in the people who choose to do such things finding other ways.

Edit: You may not agree, but having more guns, or arming more people is definetly not a solution, or a good idea in general.

[dda]

A number of years ago, my home town of Stockton, had a school shooting where a nut-job took a high powered rifle to a school about a mile or so from my house and shot and killed seven asian elementry school children who were out on the playground.

He then killed himself.

The big news at the time, in the aftermath, was that Michael Jackson came to town to comfort the children.

True story (sadly).

[milo]

Originally Posted by dda

A number of years ago, my home town of Stockton, had a school shooting where a nut-job took a high powered rifle to a school about a mile or so from my house and shot and killed seven asian elementry school children who were out on the playground.

He then killed himself.

The big news at the time, in the aftermath, was that Michael Jackson came to town to comfort the children.

True story (sadly).

Apparently it was five kids (everyone overestimates asians), lol at MJ comforting the kids.

[Dante Hicks]

There's clearly other factors at work which causes the Americans to enjoy shooting themselves other than "they have guns". We are told most homes in Switzerland have automatic weapons, and almost anyone can buy a gun with a licence (which are not difficult to get). Yet, last time I checked, they had a lower murder rate than the UK.

Of course, this does not mean guns lower crime either. I'm pretty sure that if you made guns totally legal in this country there would be more murders simply because it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Therefore, a good proportions of the stabbings we hear about will turn into shootings (from which more people would die).

In any case, in the UK we have pretty much banned all private use of most guns and yet we still had something 10,000 firearm offences in 2005. This has been steadily growing since '97 afaik, and will probably continue to grow. Considering drugs have been totally illegal for decades and anyone who has money can easily obtain them (with prices continually decreasing, despite steady demand), I find it curious that people think the government will be able to stop the flow of illegal firearms into this country.

Similarly, people have suggested that the US government "confiscate all non-legitimately held firearms". Do you honestly think that would be an easy task to undertake?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Just reiterating the point to the "he'd have done it with a knife" crowd: it is significantly more difficult to kill and threaten a large number of people with a knife than it is with a gun. So no, I don't think this would have happened had he only had a gun.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Wel, if you believe that the world is objectively one giant chemical reaction, predestined to react in a certain way due to the initial action of the big bang, then yes.

Laplacian determinism is unfashionable.

[Ärketrollmannen]

First of all I have to agree with Ste here, second:

Police officers are trained in a way I think would be very expensive for a teacher and they do have a different attitude when confronting people.

[jt25man]

I'll agree with Cannon_Fodder, the idea of building a better weapon for "protection" against others, only leads to more weapons that can do more damage, and increases the probability that sometime in the futre this is going to bite us in the ass when one of those countries gets ticked off and presses the button finally.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by milo

Why is that any more unreasonable than allowing the use of the nearest implement to hand for self-defence?

BECAUSE IT IS INCREDIBLY EASY TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE VERY QUICKLY FROM DISTANCE WITH A GUN christ you're awful.

[Nodrog]

Death is awesome when it happens to people who deserve it.

Don't be so afraid of your own mortality steven

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Death is awesome when it happens to people who deserve it.

Don't be so afraid of your own mortality steven

I'll bring you grapes

[Vermillion]

People who are considering a murder-suicide should really try suicide-murder instead. The order of things makes such a difference?

Did somebody on this thread actually make the point that, if berift of guns, the crazies in question would just use knives?

There have been three school shootings in the last 3 weeks in the US. They don't even make the news anymore unless there are a lot of bodies. Where are the shootings in the nations with strict gun laws? They exist to be sure, one in Canada a month ago, one in Germany last year, but in terms of frequency, FAR less often.

But hey, if you can give me ANOTHER reason, then by all means, I am all ears.

[Ramihyn]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

People who are considering a murder-suicide should really try suicide-murder instead. The order of things makes such a difference?

"Mass-murderers" usually try to kill as many people as they can before beeing taken out. They only commit suicide because of an external reason forcing them and they cant proceed with their killing anymore. Otherwise we wouldnt even talk about it because it would just be another suicide.

Originally Posted by Vermillion

There have been three school shootings in the last 3 weeks in the US. They don't even make the news anymore unless there are a lot of bodies. Where are the shootings in the nations with strict gun laws? They exist to be sure, one in Canada a month ago, one in Germany last year, but in terms of frequency, FAR less often.

This specific person would not have had a problem getting the necessary guns legally in germany. (Short term) Availability of guns certainly plays a role in some incidents, but not in this one.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

There have been three school shootings in the last 3 weeks in the US. They don't even make the news anymore unless there are a lot of bodies. Where are the shootings in the nations with strict gun laws? They exist to be sure, one in Canada a month ago, one in Germany last year, but in terms of frequency, FAR less often.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html

But hey, if you can give me ANOTHER reason, then by all means, I am all ears.

Socio-economic disparities, lack of equal opportunity, previous crime rates, current moral and ethical outlooks in society and lots of other things like the relative decline in afternoon tea over the past seventy odd years.

Originally Posted by The NCPA

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

Even ignoring the virtual prohibition on private handguns and whatever other partisan facts are offered up there's obviously a reason why so many homicides occur in these areas that isn't related to gun control. I quite firmly believe that if you can solve these problems the issue of gun control can become nigh on irrelevant. I'm not some nutcase who thinks my M-16 (if I owned one) would help defend me against the state if they decide to "get" me (hay newsflash but I think the army has tanks these days) incidentally.


Edit: I took this from a pro-gun control site.

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.

This is all quite true but it's ignoring the bigger question. Why does violence occur over domestic arguments or romantic triangles? The idiocy involved in describing as a "normal family fight" an event which ends with someone's head being blown off is mind-boggling. I'm sure plenty of families have had numerous disagreements over the years without having to resort to gun violence.

Actually reading further on it gets a bit funny.

For example, for the first question, murder was 2.4 times more likely in a household where any member drank alcohol.

Oh shit. Considering that I drink enough for five people and there's only four in my family we're well overdue



Anyways quite clearly the fact people are sexually uptight and frustrated is the major contributing factor in the murder rate. Y'know, cos Freud said so.

[jt25man]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

(hay newsflash but I think the army has tanks these days).

Not to mention those GPS guided ALCMs can be quite accurate.