Why no school shooter thread?

posted by Spock

You dont get it.  You dont understand the psychology behind this stuff.  Most of these shooters are cowards and young.  The shootings occur at soft targets.  The idea that someone may shoot back would deter some of this.  To argue against this idea just shows how much you dont understand.

Please, feel free to educate me from your vast knowledge of the human psychology behind this.  I'm sure you have case studies with controls and variables, of course.

The truth is that you don't get it.  You're not wrong that this is cowardly, and the people who do this are often (but not always) young.  What you're missing is in your assumption that they're interested in self-preservation.  Have you not noticed that a significantly high percentage (an overwhelming majority) either kill themselves before capture or had plans to do so?

A homicidal asshole who doesn't care if he lives or dies isn't going to be afraid of dying at the hands of someone else with a gun.  Hell, we use the exact same argument to demonstrate that they don't care what laws are in place.

If someone is intending to murder, they don't care about the laws.  But if someone is intending to commit suicide, they don't care about armed opposition, either.

I'm not even pro-regulation FFS.  I'm one of the biggest gun-humpers (I've decided to use this phrase as a point of pride) around.  But insisting that more guns automatically results in deterring this behavior or fewer deaths is presumptuous.  You're naive if you think it's that simple.

For the record, I'm in full support of allowing teachers and faculty to be armed if they choose to.  Whether or not there's a causal relationship between an absence of guns and these events, I still don't think that means that someone shouldn't be allowed to arm themselves for the purpose of protecting themselves.  I think any adult should have that right.  I'm just not so naive as to believe that it would automatically result in fewer of these sorts of events.
 

posted by ppaw1999

I think the last few school shootings were at schools that had on duty police officers assigned to these schools. I would think the shooters were aware these officers were at the schools when they made their attacks. It didn't seem to deter them.

Don't confuse him with facts.
 

posted by Spock

First off, these campuses are huge.  Reaction times are longer than we may think. 

Reaction times aren't knowable prior to such an event happening.  You're arguing from a position of absence of evidence.

Also Parkland officer was a coward.  He never went in.  The recent one the other gun showed up and the shooting stopped.  Also I guess you dont remember that a resource officer just stopped a shooter.

The shooter didn't know that the Parkland officer wasn't going to go in.  For all the shooter knew, the officer was the second coming of John McClane.  It didn't deter him, either way.

I didn't forget that a resource officer stopped a shooter.  But I also didn't forget that an unarmed patron of Waffle House did as well.  Pointing to individual incidents isn't an adequate defense unless you're arguing against a categorical statement (an "always/never" statement).

Your initial statement was that more guns would reduce the problem.  Not fix it when it arises.  You don't have any evidence to suggest that that is true.  At least not any that cannot be countered with equally credible evidence.

Here's an interesting article on the possible psychology behind these shootings.  No easy solutions and more laws will be insignificant, IMO.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/

posted by Tom

Here's an interesting article on the possible psychology behind these shootings.  No easy solutions and more laws will be insignificant, IMO.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/

and thank you very much.  Just reinforces my post that the gun law screamers are wrong on this

posted by Tom

Here's an interesting article on the possible psychology behind these shootings.  No easy solutions and more laws will be insignificant, IMO.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/

The Author suggests additional laws in the form of temporary gun violence restraining orders

posted by justincredible

Hawaii and Alaska are about as comparable. Just because they're both states doesn't mean they are in any way the same. One is a tropical paradise, the other a remote wilderness that's rotates between 100% daylight and 100% darkness. And, as superman mentioned, most gun deaths in Alaska are suicides. Not exactly shocking that Alaska's climate and daylight patterns lead to a lot of people wanting off this planet.

It means they are both subject to the United States Constitution and a broader American culture and the wealth and standard of living of the United States. They are not one to one by any means but about as good as we can do as far as controlled experiments go IMHO. And, why do suicides not count? It is not desirable from a public policy perspective to have citizens prematurely killing themselves due to unregulated access to firearms. We know that the elimination of gas stoves reduced suicide and that was a positive outcome for humanity. You could have the same daylight patterns in Alaska and more regulated firearm access and people would kill themselves less - just like they did in dreary ass England when gas stoves went away. 

posted by superman

Obviously Alaska is the highest.  However, 80% are suicide. 

It is not a good thing for society when people kill themselves and unregulated access to firearms increases suicide. IMHO firearm advocates downplaying suicide doesn't help the case. We're supposed to have unregulated access to firearms in order to defend ourselves from Tyranny and to be able to preserve our lives in the face of grave danger and yet more people in Alaska are killing themselves than protecting themselves from either Tyranny or unjust coercion from others. Again, by not taking the tangible increase in suicide as a result of unregulated access to firearms - advocates of the right to bear arms empower those who make the argument for gun confiscation. 

posted by Spock

The one thing thAt is pretty much the same with every school shooting is that it ends when another gun arrives.  And if it doesnt end....at least the gun isnt being pointed at the kids anymore.

What if we can have a greater police presence in schools while also trying other things? The father in this case was grossly negligent. Adam Lanza's mother was grossly negligent. T.J. Lane's father or grandfather (can't remember which one) was grossly negligent. The father of the Tennessee shooter was grossly negligent. There should be a standard of behavior that constitutes reasonable, prudent stewardship of firearms. 

Such standards would let the free market solve the problem. Currently all actors within the firearm market get to pass on all the negative and harmful costs of production and risks to all the rest of us.

posted by Spock

1.  Hawaii and its statistics reside in a vacuum.  1000 miles from nowhere.  Not a good comparison

2.  Chicago and DC have gun violence problems because you can go next door and get them.  Jesus that is a fucking stupid argument..  I live by a grocery store.....i should weigh 500 pounds.

3.  People that shoot people don't care about the laws.  More laws arent doing shit.

4.  These shootings are about mental health and the access to devient cultural behaviors that kids have access to.  Their social media is more to blame then the gun they use.

1. Because Hawaii is in a vacuum is precisely why it is a good test of its firearm regulations. The cost of flying to Texas to get an unlicensed hand gun is too high so motivated criminals have less opportunity to commit crimes with firearms and turn to less tools to execute criminal mischief. 

2. Not surprising the example fails to resonate with the gym teacher. The point CC is that you probably go get groceries that you desire at the grocery store right next to you don't you? If your city council decided to ban said grocery store you would travel to the grocery store outside of the city limits if you costs of doing so did not outweigh your demand for groceries. The cost of traveling to Gary, Indiana to obtain a firearm is low and so the firearm bans are ineffective. The cost of driving from Toledo to Chicago to get an abortion is low and so the abortion relative to the demand for abortion and so the restrictions passed by the Ohio legislature are ineffective. Do you see how this works yet? You wouldn't get abortions if you had an abortion clinic right next to you because you have no demand for abortions. You're not 500 pounds despite a grocery being next to you because you don't have a demand for that many calories. The point is that our federal system does and disparate state laws do not put enough barriers to suppress the demand for firearms in most of our states because our Constitutional Right to travel freely interstate makes state by state firearm regulation largely ineffective relative. 

3. "More laws ain't doing shit." - This is an argument against law in the first place. And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it. There has not been a St. Valentine's Day massacre with Tommy Guns since they were made illegal. Laws work because the free market works and motivated criminals are not totally free from rationality. If the costs are high and there are barriers to opportunity they'll try to use vans instead of guns and you can't drive a van into a school full of children. 

posted by BoatShoes

What if we can have a greater police presence in schools while also trying other things? The father in this case was grossly negligent. Adam Lanza's mother was grossly negligent. T.J. Lane's father or grandfather (can't remember which one) was grossly negligent. The father of the Tennessee shooter was grossly negligent. There should be a standard of behavior that constitutes reasonable, prudent stewardship of firearms. 

Such standards would let the free market solve the problem. Currently all actors within the firearm market get to pass on all the negative and harmful costs of production and risks to all the rest of us.

I'm not uninterested in hearing this teased out.

Meanwhile, another police officer was just killed, in Maryland, and the suspect is on the loose.  I am waiting for the media outrage, especially given the number of officers fatally wounded over the last 24 months. 

posted by QuakerOats

Meanwhile, another police officer was just killed, in Maryland, and the suspect is on the loose.  I am waiting for the media outrage, especially given the number of officers fatally wounded over the last 24 months. 

263 officers killed in the line of duty between 2016 and 2017.

Over the same time frame, 2093 people were killed by officers.

Why would there be media outrage?

posted by BoatShoes

It is not a good thing for society when people kill themselves and unregulated access to firearms increases suicide. IMHO firearm advocates downplaying suicide doesn't help the case. We're supposed to have unregulated access to firearms in order to defend ourselves from Tyranny and to be able to preserve our lives in the face of grave danger and yet more people in Alaska are killing themselves than protecting themselves from either Tyranny or unjust coercion from others. Again, by not taking the tangible increase in suicide as a result of unregulated access to firearms - advocates of the right to bear arms empower those who make the argument for gun confiscation. 

LOL this might be your most ridiculous post, but I will give you credit for managing to "sound" intelligent.   In a nutshell you are trying to say because people are killing themselves, it delegitimizes the purpose of the 2A.  That's like saying the 1A should be repealed, because lately it has done more harm (in the eyes of radicals) than good.

Also, you are assuming these people are killing themselves because they have guns.  Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and they aren't allowed to have guns.  Banning guns from the mass millions of law abiding citizens is not the best approach to stopping suicide, but I think you know that.

Also, when was the last "mass" shooting at an inner city school?  They all have to go thru security when they come into school.  Why can't this be applied to most schools?

posted by like_that

Also, when was the last "mass" shooting at an inner city school?  They all have to go thru security when they come into school.  Why can't this be applied to most schools?

agreed......when I taught on 5th st in Dayton everyone walked through a metal detector and doors were chained shut at the start of the day......this was 20+ years ago (pre Columbine)

posted by Spock

agreed......when I taught on 5th st in Dayton everyone walked through a metal detector and doors were chained shut at the start of the day......this was 20+ years ago (pre Columbine)

Which school?

I am still laughing at the fact that BS posted an article from theonion and then agreed with it...

posted by like_that

Also, when was the last "mass" shooting at an inner city school?  They all have to go thru security when they come into school.  Why can't this be applied to most schools?

That is a really good point, IMO. 

Food for thought. 

posted by QuakerOats

Meanwhile, another police officer was just killed, in Maryland, and the suspect is on the loose.  I am waiting for the media outrage, especially given the number of officers fatally wounded over the last 24 months. 

Nice off-topic apples-to-oranges comparison!!!

I'd guess any outrage would be blunted by the simple truth that, while it's obviously not a desired result, when a person makes law enforcement their occupation, it's basically understood that there is a chance that on a given day or night, you'll be in a situation where your safety and even your life may be at risk and there also is a chance that you won't survive that situation. It's the reality of a profession where one is expected to confront and apprehend criminals who may be violent.

Which is a bit different than groups of young people being shot down in their schools by deranged classmates and the like. Neither are good, but there's always going to be less outrage for the death of a professional in a job that has moments of high risk than there will be for young people getting killed in their school, or worshipers getting killed in their church, or concert-goers getting killed at a venue. That's the sort of common sense thing that anyone with enough brain cells to handle basic motor functions should be able to reason their way through.

Hope this helps.

posted by like_that

Which school?

Stivers

posted by BoatShoes

It is not a good thing for society when people kill themselves and unregulated access to firearms increases suicide. IMHO firearm advocates downplaying suicide doesn't help the case. We're supposed to have unregulated access to firearms in order to defend ourselves from Tyranny and to be able to preserve our lives in the face of grave danger and yet more people in Alaska are killing themselves than protecting themselves from either Tyranny or unjust coercion from others. Again, by not taking the tangible increase in suicide as a result of unregulated access to firearms - advocates of the right to bear arms empower those who make the argument for gun confiscation. 

Suicide sucks, I don't disagree. But, as the US is very different than other countries, and Alaska is very different than Hawaii, suicide is very different than murder.