Why no school shooter thread?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

What are the real problems in your estimation?

$$$ says it all comes back to the Demmycrats.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Let me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?

Virginia Tech. 9mm and .22 handguns. 32 dead. 

posted by justincredible

Virginia Tech. 9mm and .22 handguns. 32 dead. 

But the new meme floating around is that the AR-15 bullets kill people deader.

posted by gut

But the new meme floating around is that the AR-15 bullets kill people deader.

Well, they are faster so it's harder to dodge them. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

What are the real problems in your estimation?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Let me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?

Vegas was the only one that using an AR was an advantage over a couple pistols with multiple clips. In close quarters hand guns are much easier to maneuver and aim. Long rifles are better for hitting targets farther away.

posted by iclfan2

Only Vegas was an AR more beneficial than a pistol. And even there, he could have used a more hunting like rifle and with the time they said he had, easily shoot as many bullets with extended mags or just more loaded guns. 

Anyone else find it extremely odd we still don't know much about Vegas? And how they stopped covering it after a few days and the dems didn't try for the gun grab then?

The only reason an AR was used for Vegas was because he wanted to spray with a bump stock rather than be accurate.

If he wanted to be more accurate (and probably have a higher hit count) he would have used a longer hunting rifle like you mentioned (and multiple rifles).

In truth AR-15s are best suited for mid range sport shooting (target, competitions, etc).

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

What are the real problems in your estimation?

Shitty parenting and families. It all starts at home. The prevalence of 1 parent households mixed with parents who don't have an active interest in their kids lives.

posted by queencitybuckeye

I hope schools stick with it and suspend kids that walk out. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Let me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?

My response pretty much echos the sentiments of the other posters who responded to this, so I won't repeat it other than the fact you're cherry picking a small percentage of death crimes to try and make a point.  I am still waiting to see what your answer is to my question.  What will be the next step if/when it fails? Are you going to deflect for another few pages?

When our society was in the thick of deinstitutionalization, the rise of school shootings occured. 

Mass shooters are off their nut. Out of their minds. Bonkers. Nuts. They either fall through the cracks, are ignored by those closest to them, don't take the meds prescribed to them (if they are even taken seriously enough to be diagnosed and prescribed psychotropic drugs). There are also those who are known dangers to society yet no action is taken. Maybe one day we will see fit to remove those people from society that are dangerous. Right now we consider it "inhumane" to fence these people off and there's also that little issue of expense (a big reason why deinstitutionalism was begun). We call it overreach and draconic to remove dangerous non-criminals from society, regardless of the fact that dangerous people almost always become criminals and people end up dead. So we're at this impasse where we insist on remaining reactive instead of proactive. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

What are the real problems in your estimation?

I already made one or two posts including that information. 

posted by CenterBHSFan

When our society was in the thick of deinstitutionalization, the rise of school shootings occured. 

Mass shooters are off their nut. Out of their minds. Bonkers. Nuts. They either fall through the cracks, are ignored by those closest to them, don't take the meds prescribed to them (if they are even taken seriously enough to be diagnosed and prescribed psychotropic drugs). There are also those who are known dangers to society yet no action is taken. Maybe one day we will see fit to remove those people from society that are dangerous. Right now we consider it "inhumane" to fence these people off and there's also that little issue of expense (a big reason why deinstitutionalism was begun). We call it overreach and draconic to remove dangerous non-criminals from society, regardless of the fact that dangerous people almost always become criminals and people end up dead. So we're at this impasse where we insist on remaining reactive instead of proactive. 

I've thought about this too. I understand the expenses and perhaps some of the methods used back then were not the best, but it's like we swung the pendulum the whole other direction by shutting those places down.  Just think of the number of homeless people alone who would probably be safe in a place like this instead of living the way they do.  But then the question becomes where do you draw the line as to who gets involuntarily committed?  Some of these mass shooters are much more obvious compared to others.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Some of these mass shooters are much more obvious compared to others.  

And I would guess for every one of these shooters you MIGHT sweep up, you're throwing the book at 100 more, at least.  Sounding sort of like a real life minority report.

posted by like_that

My response pretty much echos the sentiments of the other posters who responded to this, so I won't repeat it other than the fact you're cherry picking a small percentage of death crimes to try and make a point.  I am still waiting to see what your answer is to my question.  What will be the next step if/when it fails? Are you going to deflect for another few pages?

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

posted by gut

And I would guess for every one of these shooters you MIGHT sweep up, you're throwing the book at 100 more, at least.  Sounding sort of like a real life minority report.

That’s my point. A lot of these guys look real obvious in hindsight. In reality, I think it’d be very difficult to try and judge what simeone’s capable of doing. There are a look of people who may be oddballs, but are harmless. How can you avoid not becoming a police state?  

posted by justincredible

Well, when "anywhere" is ultimately further restrictions I'm not going to get too upset about it.

Agree with this. If there are no further restrictions I call that a win. 

As for stopping school shootings, I don't think there is a silver bullet. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

That's exactly the slippery slope we're trying to prevent. Let's try this. It won't work, then we can try something else. Then something else. 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

This is an argument that will get you nowhere. This isn't what the 2nd amendment was meant to protect. And you're very explicitly trying to take away extremely popular options, so you're lying that people can still have "all ... they want."

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I answered that question. I said I don’t know what the next step would be. It may have an effect or it may not. If it doesn’t, we will have to figure out something else to try.  But maybe it will make some difference. In that case, it’d be worth it. 

 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

You do realize that an AR-15s main use is for target/sport shooting (competitions) and home defense (mainly for when attacker is outside, inside is pistol or shotgun)?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

 

Gun in owners would still have all of the hunting, target shooting and home defense guns they want. 

 

Eat shit and die ... I'm going to trust in Democrats and Liberal to insure my rights and security... hell no 

How that war on poverty, hunger, drugs, teen pregnancy, terrorism, crime, illiteracy ..... sorry if your track record is any indication of your wisdom, truth, integrity and foresight you have failed ... I'll stick the writing of our forefather in the Constitution they seemed to get it right the first time.