Slashdot Mirror

You don't get mass shootings at gun shows, police stations, or sportsmans clubs.

Gun shows have had 4 mass shootings since 1987. However, there are a multitude of other shootings at gun shows.

As to police stations, 2016 mass shooting in Dallas, 2011 in Detroit, and 2012 in New Jersey where an inmate caused a mass shooting, 2012 again in New Jersey though this more a domestic issue. There have been numerous shootings of and at police stations, though they are not considered mass shootings.

Uh no, actually, the current era began with an incident on

Well I didn't really want to go that far back, but if we really want to we can start with 60 minutes back in the 1970's. I'm sure you already know that one.

Oh, if you want to go there, then let's go back to your old friend in the Publishing business. Or even....a made up incident!

But hey, at least you aren't going to war because of jealousy.

Meanwhile, oops... you believed another hoax!

Man, that is a crazy conspiracy Mashiki, and you don't even have a reason to blame the... You know, you wouldn't sound so crazy if you didn't make up such hysterical bullshit, but stuck to facts. Actual provable events.

Not your foaming at the mouth hyperbole.

Guess that's why some schools in the UK have seen a 2800% increase in kids suddenly claiming to be trans right?

Oh no! BIG HUGE PERCENTAGES! C'mon, you lying bullshitter, you know when you make blind claims of 2800% you'd just making yourself an obvious joke. You might as well complain that Hogwarts has had an outbreak of Goblin Flu for all the legitimacy that your complaints have.

Not been paying attention at all? I guess not.

Oh, is this like the time you wanted me to believe Satanic Worship was going on? Spare me your hysteria! You know what your moral panic doesn't mention? That the parents mentioned NOTHING other than a name change, a longer hair-style and different clothes. THE HORRORS!

Here's a real problem. Or this one. Or this!

Nope, I'm a citizen of the United States, and you may not understand this, but I want healthcare EVERYWHERE in my country, and more to the point, there are some practical considerations that necessitate my ability to cross state lines to get healthcare, as the boundaries of states were not set according to population or economics

How do you think it works in Canada?

According to you, it's apparently a death trap.

You know the single payer system that the left loves in droves? Each province is responsible for the level of healthcare. The federal government has no input. The fact that you want some bureaucrat in Washington to decide if Atlanta gets a new hospital is sure telling.

I sure don't want the idiots in Georgia deciding I get access to a hospital or not. And to be honest, they're not so good at paving their own roads. Or managing their own elections. Or staying away from other people's water. They need adult supervision. Sorry, but it's true.

Everybody everywhere has rationed healthcare. That's because health care resources are not infinite or unlimited.

Except the part where healthcare is rationed because the government is unwilling to pay for it right?

Nope, not when it's the insur

Despite what the article says, I'm going to go with the "this is not unwittingly." Those teachers and organizations know or should know exactly what they're doing.Seems like some kids are able to. The court case for anyone who wants to read it. Keep in mind that the UK is the same country that tried to create life-long student records for "extremism." And there was also most recently the trojan horse scandal, and on top of that a school recently turned around and said that "If you don't go to the mosque, they'll be marked down as a racist for their entire school career." FYI: School is in the same region as the trojan horse scandal. The UK has a lot of problems.

Dramatically understating the scope of the problem does not make for "safety":

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/te...
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
http://www.phonearena.com/news...
http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new...

And that's just the citations I could find from a 30-second Google search that didn't even glance beyond the second page of search results. Many (perhaps even most) of those phones were not being charged at the time of the incident.

You're officially too stupid to cite statistics. I'll ignore any further statistical argument from you.

You have provided exactly zero statistics. What has been cited by AC comments so far is widely known, such as the fact that the most successful mass shooters in this country tend to take their own lives and that they almost never are taken out by armed civilians. Go read the FBI investigation that was mentioned earlier, it is publicly available.
 
 

As to mass shooters being dropped by people armed... here's one:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

Except that is not a mass shooter. It is one guy who unloaded his pistol and killed nobody. Did he intend to kill people? Probably but intent is not part of the definition of mass shooter; only the result is. The shooter in your story didn't kill anyone at all and therefore does not count as a mass shooter. Just because he used up all his ammo doesn't qualify him as a mass shooter. Hell, the story itself even mentions that he ran out of ammo and ran away; the result had nobody intervened would have been the same with regards to the number of people killed by the shooter.
 
 

I see no reason why the common citizen can't defend himself with lethal force

Again, go read the FBI report, kid. There are vastly more mass shootings stopped by unarmed civilians than by armed civilians. You have so far provided exactly zero cases of mass shooters being stopped by armed civilians.
 
 

If they were armed then the shooter would respect them.

Don't be ridiculous. If someone wants to kill people they will kill people. Go look at the picture of the Kevlar helmet that saved the life of on of the cops the Orlando shooter shot at. Was he respecting the armed cop? No, not in the least.
 
 

As to whether I want to wear armor... nope.

Wow, you can't even stay consistent on that part? You said before that you wanted to wear armor. Now you've realized how long you would have to save up your allowance to buy it and suddenly you're singing a different tune. Some "solution" you offer, there.
 
 

As to AR15.com, no idea what you're talking about. I'm just a guy talking about technological solutions to problems.

You have not proposed a single solution to anything. You want a solution? Don't go out in public visiting places that are attractive targets for shooters. That is orders of magnitude more practical than what you have been spouting off and costs nothing. Ordinary people can't afford what you were previously proposing.
 
 

As to your suggestion that I should have been disarmed

You're mentally unstable, kid. Hopefully your parents have another appointment scheduled for you to see your psychiatrist soon before you hurt yourself.

So an anti shark cage by your logic doesn't keep people safe from sharks because if you are in one then you don't ever get attacked by a shark.

You're officially too stupid to cite statistics. I'll ignore any further statistical argument from you.

As to mass shooters being dropped by people armed... here's one:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

Its not hard, chump. Stories like that all the time. Your entire position is irrational. The police that stop gunmen use guns. Why? Guns are the solution professionals use when they are called upon to solve this problem. And being that we are not a nation of peasants in the US... I see no reason why the common citizen can't defend himself with lethal force when some lunatic decides to win the Darwin awards.

As to me not respecting people that choose to be vulnerable... I'm not disrespecting them... the guy that wants to shoot them is disrespecting them. If they were armed then the shooter would respect them.

As to whether I want to wear armor... nope. But if you want a technological solution to getting shot... that is an option. Say what you like about my option... I have one. What is your technological solution? Got one? Or nothing?

As to AR15.com, no idea what you're talking about. I'm just a guy talking about technological solutions to problems. If you can't handle that then I guess I could proscribe you some medication that would solve your personality disorders. That's a technological solution to you being a tool.

As to your suggestion that I should have been disarmed... Come and take it, punk. Cowards like you whine to get braver people than yourself to do your bidding. Why don't you just come over here and take it. Come try it. And if the police take my gun away, you're just proving my point again. Because they're going to be armed won't they, retard? Why is that?

Because that is how you deal with armed people. You arm yourself and out number, over power, or outmaneuver them. Your idea is "what" exactly?

Give me YOUR technological solution. I have one. Do you have a solution or just more pathetic whining? I await more pathetic confessions of not having a point from you. Surprise me. Show me you can come up with an idea.

Solar panels are great until you have to fight a fire in a building that has them on the roof.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

Could be a meteor, or a military excercise, or a superhero in a hurry. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

While it is not a vendor's responsibility to control what a buyer does with the acquired product

Anti 2nd-Amendment zealots would disagree.

And, although the above lists mere tort-claims, there are movements afoot towards criminal liabilities for gun-sellers as well. For the Greater Good.

Yep, this case raised a major legal stink, and should probably have gotten the operators in more than a little hot water, considering the spied upon subjects were minors in their bedrooms....

How many people walk into police stations and start shooting? Ok, ok, I'm sure it has happened once, somewhere... Does it happen NEARLY as often as school shootings?

Armed teachers, armed parents, would solve this problem. Heck, armed teenagers would solve this problem. When my father went to school, you could still bring your .22 rifle to school, they had a shooting club and people had gun racks in the pack of their pickup trucks. No one would have dreamed of shooting up that school, 20 or 30 kids had guns there.

Police station shootings happen quite frequently: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/police-station-shooting/, http://ktla.com/2014/04/07/lapd-officer-wounded-in-shooting-at-police-station/, and http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/West-Deptford-Police-Station-Shooting-270886191.html.

While I do agree that we may have gone too far to in disarming otherwise law-abiding citizens, I am not sure that arming every single teacher would do anything to solve the problem. In fact I can envision many scenarios where an armed teacher (or worse, a student) runs headlong into a situation where they have little to no training, likely complicating the efforts of the police to resolve the situation. The best place for that teacher to be is locked in the classroom with their students, making sure they follow the procedures proscribed for the situation.

in the school, why the fuck are they giving students (or allowing them to have) electronic gizmos with recording capabilities in the school? which presumably may also include bathrooms and locker rooms?

oh, wait. this is pennsylvania.. where schools spy on students via webcams http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

You can't fire or "not hire" somebody for doing something perfectly legal that has nothing to do with the job, if it isn't happening on the job.

Incorrect. More and more companies are refusing to hire tobacco users. I believe it SHOULD be illegal to not hire someone for doing something entirely legal, but that is not the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/health/UPenn-Health-System-to-Stop-Hiring-Tobacco-Users-191852991.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1

Ahhhhh ahahahahah

Article 1: Is The Philly Cellphone Jammer A Hero Or A Jerk?
Article 2: FCC Wants To Know If It Sometimes Might Be Okay To Jam Cellphones In Interest Of Public Safety
Article 3: FDA Adds Diabetes & Memory Loss Warnings To Statins
Article 4: Chase Plans On Caring Even Less About Customers With Less Than $100K In The Bank
----
Oops, did I intend to post this link?:
* http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/

The world may never know...

Article 1: Is The Philly Cellphone Jammer A Hero Or A Jerk?
By Chris Morran on March 1, 2012 12:15 PM

# http://consumerist.com/2012/03/is-the-philly-cellphone-jammer-a-hero-or-a-jerk.html

"A man in Philadelphia decided he'd had enough with listening to his fellow bus passengers blab away on their cellphones. But instead of buying himself some noise-cancelling headphones or politely asking people to pipe down, he chose to fight back with a handheld device that jams their signals.

"I guess I'm taking the law into my own hands," he told NBC10, which caught him red-handed with the illegal jammer, "and quite frankly, I'm proud of it."

Those who ride the bus with the man say he should be ashamed, not proud.

"How dare you decide that I can't speak to somebody or I can't use my cellphone?" asks one passenger who spotted the man using the jammer on her way to work. "He's blatantly holding this device that looks like a walkie-talkie with four very thick antennae. I started to watch him and any time somebody started talking on the phone, he would start pressing the button on the side of the device."

Experts tell NBC10 that there is a good reason the FCC has made it illegal to jam cellphone signals: "With cellphone jammers you are limiting all types of communication tools that use the radio frequencies. You have the potential to cause a public safety disaster. Cutting off communication by not only our public officials to their dispatch centers but also cutting off the public's communication to 911 can be a dangerous thing."

When confronted by a reporter about the illegality of the device, the jamming gent said he believed it was "more of a gray area," but hours later contacted NBC10 to say that after further research he would get rid of the jammer." (Article includes video not linked here)

* View more videos at: http://nbcphiladelphia.com/
* http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Rider-Annoyed-by-Calls-Jams-Phones-on-Septa-Bus-140966733.html

© 2005-2010 Consumer Media LLC except where noted.
--
Article 2: FCC Wants To Know If It Sometimes Might Be Okay To
Jam Cellphones In Interest Of Public Safety
By Chris Morran on March 2, 2012 3:30 PM

"Chief among the reasons given by the Federal Communications Commission for outlawing the practice of using signal-jamming devices for cellphones is public safety. With 70% of 911 calls now made on wireless devices, the FCC has argued that deliberately blocking cell signals could put people at risk. That being said, the agency is now willing to hear from people who think it might occasionally be in the public interest to jam wireless signals.

"While the important function that wireless service plays in protecting public safety is undisputed, some commentators, including some law enforcement personnel, have raised concerns that wireless networks can be used in way that put the public's safety at risk," writes the FCC in its notice to seek public comment on the matter.

Those in favor of the selectiv

Article 1: Is The Philly Cellphone Jammer A Hero Or A Jerk?
Article 2: FCC Wants To Know If It Sometimes Might Be Okay To Jam Cellphones In Interest Of Public Safety
Article 3: FDA Adds Diabetes & Memory Loss Warnings To Statins
Article 4: Chase Plans On Caring Even Less About Customers With Less Than $100K In The Bank
----
Oops, did I intend to post this link?:
* http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/

The world may never know...

Article 1: Is The Philly Cellphone Jammer A Hero Or A Jerk?
By Chris Morran on March 1, 2012 12:15 PM

# http://consumerist.com/2012/03/is-the-philly-cellphone-jammer-a-hero-or-a-jerk.html

"A man in Philadelphia decided he'd had enough with listening to his fellow bus passengers blab away on their cellphones. But instead of buying himself some noise-cancelling headphones or politely asking people to pipe down, he chose to fight back with a handheld device that jams their signals.

"I guess I'm taking the law into my own hands," he told NBC10, which caught him red-handed with the illegal jammer, "and quite frankly, I'm proud of it."

Those who ride the bus with the man say he should be ashamed, not proud.

"How dare you decide that I can't speak to somebody or I can't use my cellphone?" asks one passenger who spotted the man using the jammer on her way to work. "He's blatantly holding this device that looks like a walkie-talkie with four very thick antennae. I started to watch him and any time somebody started talking on the phone, he would start pressing the button on the side of the device."

Experts tell NBC10 that there is a good reason the FCC has made it illegal to jam cellphone signals: "With cellphone jammers you are limiting all types of communication tools that use the radio frequencies. You have the potential to cause a public safety disaster. Cutting off communication by not only our public officials to their dispatch centers but also cutting off the public's communication to 911 can be a dangerous thing."

When confronted by a reporter about the illegality of the device, the jamming gent said he believed it was "more of a gray area," but hours later contacted NBC10 to say that after further research he would get rid of the jammer." (Article includes video not linked here)

* View more videos at: http://nbcphiladelphia.com/
* http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Rider-Annoyed-by-Calls-Jams-Phones-on-Septa-Bus-140966733.html

© 2005-2010 Consumer Media LLC except where noted.
--
Article 2: FCC Wants To Know If It Sometimes Might Be Okay To
Jam Cellphones In Interest Of Public Safety
By Chris Morran on March 2, 2012 3:30 PM

"Chief among the reasons given by the Federal Communications Commission for outlawing the practice of using signal-jamming devices for cellphones is public safety. With 70% of 911 calls now made on wireless devices, the FCC has argued that deliberately blocking cell signals could put people at risk. That being said, the agency is now willing to hear from people who think it might occasionally be in the public interest to jam wireless signals.

"While the important function that wireless service plays in protecting public safety is undisputed, some commentators, including some law enforcement personnel, have raised concerns that wireless networks can be used in way that put the public's safety at risk," writes the FCC in its notice to seek public comment on the matter.

Those in favor of the selectiv

The words you are looking for are Black. And also Mexican. Crime in the US is almost exclusively by Black people, and Mexicans. In NYC in 2009, Blacks accounted for 80% of all shootings in NYC in the first half of 2009. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98% of all shootings. Blacks committed 70% of all robberies. Whites committed 5% of all violent crimes, and 1.8% of all shootings, and less than 5% of all robberies. Whites are 35% of the City, and Blacks 23%.

Liveable, walkable cities are simply incompatible with any large amount of Blacks or Mexicans. Europe is suffering from Muslim / North African / Pakistani street crime as well, along with imported Black variety. Witness the car-b-ques in France, the ethnic cleansing (of native Europeans) out of whole areas, targeting of native European women, etc.

Mono-racial/cultural places like Japan or (still for now) Helsinki are safe, import a bunch of people from Pakistan or Nigeria and surprise, they act as criminal in Europe or the US as they do back home. All those nice things you like, are simply incompatible with diversity. And Multi-racial societies. Pedestrian life implies safety, you can walk on the street without getting mugged, and you don't have to be Lou Ferrigno to do it, either. You can be old or frail.

Nothing comes for free. Multiculturalism costs ... all those pedestrian oriented cities. Because no one wants to be beaten to death like this White guy in Philly for ticking off a bunch of Black guys by yelling for a cab. Diversity = private cars, the internet withdrawal from public space, great social isolation, ever larger commutes from distant but safe suburbs. Big surprise, Third World people act Third World.

Ask where the bacteria come from to begin with.

Most people dont know what happens to our waste once we flush the toilet.

Hint - EPA Title 40 Section 503 - Land application of Sewage Sludge.
Hint #2 - if it doesnt say USDA Certified Organic on label, the winning bet is human sewage was part of production cycle.

www.sludgefacts.org
www.sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com
www.deadlydeciet.com
Big problem in PA
Big problem in CA
Big problem in VA

Private schools do better because the class clown that disrupts the learning environment is not required to remain in the classroom. Search online for student videos of my science class or other cell phone videos of public classroom teaching. Most of them show the learning environment is a zoo and can be hardly listed as a learning environment.

Schools cut down on special ed and tried to integrate special needs kids back into the classroom. This was followed with no child left behind. This coupled with regulations against effective discipline to maintain classroom order and the aggressive kids without the same rules then can make the rules. This went unchecked for a while which is now followed by anti bully reactions.

It is time to stop applying patch on top of patch and wishing it will work. It's broken and not working. Public school is not a place to advance your learning, feel good about doing well, and becoming well prepared to face the future.

Those who can use private school. Those who can't afford private school home school and use co-op schooling. ( a huge part of my community does co-op )

The main difference in this is the privileged are taught by the successful to succeed in business. The under privileged are taught how to use social services, run a hidden grow operation, or other business to be successful with their peers. They are not afforded the same educational opportunities as they are taught early on that they will not be able to succeed. They are taught instead how to work the system.

I was raised in public school. It was NOTHING like public school today. I too have had to use an alternative to educate my kids. Unfortunately I didn't start early enough so bad habits learned in public schools from their peers is still negatively impacting them. Due to this some are ill prepared to take on secondary education at this time and will not be wasting money on student loans only to fail.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39911910
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/Cramer_Tackles_the_Student_Loans_Crisis_Philadelphia-115674714.html
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/11-2

College if it happens will be pay as you go instead of being part of the next sub prime bubble.

Here's a video http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/blogs/philthy-stuff/PhillieBot_Throws_First_Pitch_Philadelphia-120319864.html

I bet the trains run on time though.

Nope.

Because they were too busy searching people at the stations without a valid reason.

If main stream news sources in copious quantities isn't sufficient corroboration for you, call the court and ask.

Not my fault the school administrators are monumentally stupid.

Oh, and dial back the paranoia a notch. It got away from you.

As is noted, this was posted on facebook for all the world to see. If it were truly a threat it would either be in a much more personal venue or you would likely be able to see a pattern of other such public statements.

Oh, that's right. People would NEVER post legitimate threats on a a publicly-readable site.

FTA you linked: "Detailed Horrific Slay Plot on Web Diary"

I believe a detailed description of how someone was going to horrifically slay a person/persons is a slight bit different from an ad-hoc remark venting frustration.

Here's the main problem, yours and the university in question:
People are so afraid of their own damn shadows that they refuse to apply critical thinking to even the most simple of circumstances.

Seriously, try actually processing information before reacting with reckless abandon.

As is noted, this was posted on facebook for all the world to see. If it were truly a threat it would either be in a much more personal venue or you would likely be able to see a pattern of other such public statements.

Oh, that's right. People would NEVER post legitimate threats on a a publicly-readable site.