Slashdot Mirror


4 Calif. Students Arrested For Alleged Mass-Killing Plot

The New York Times reports that four high school students in the small California town of Tuolumne, about 120 miles east of San Francisco, have been arrested, but not yet charged, for planning an attack on their school, Summerville High School. According to the Times, three of the four were overheard discussing this plot, and a fourth conspirator was later identified. Their goal, according to Toulumne sheriff James Mele, was "to shoot and kill as many people as possible at the campus"; they had not however been able yet to obtain the weapons they wanted to carry out the attack. From NBC News' version of the story: "Detectives located evidence verifying a plot to shoot staff and students at Summerville High School," Mele said. "The suspects' plan was very detailed in nature and included names of would-be victims, locations and the methods in which the plan was to be carried out."

452 comments

  1. Did anyone else read the headline as ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... "4 Calif. Students Arrested For Alleged Mass-Killing Pot"?

    1. Re: Did anyone else read the headline as ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    2. Re:Did anyone else read the headline as ... by kamakazi · · Score: 1

      I read the name of the high school as "Sunnydale" the first time through, but that may be because I just finished a rewatch of Buffy.

      --
      "Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
    3. Re:Did anyone else read the headline as ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you just won a single internet

  2. Therapy is for cow posters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Therapists say, "You should come talk to me!" Sooooooon! Soooooon! Talk to the therapist you cow poster!

  3. I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I come here for geek/tech news. I read stuff like this on real news sites.

    1. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is a lie. They like lying to you. First they trick you, then they post something to be controversial, but it's all a lie. They like to complain about other people lying, but take pride in their hypocrisy. I'm waiting for stories about the kardashians here
      I didn't used to be like this, but real nerd news no longer sold. Most people aren't nerds, they simply flock to where the money is and cargo cult their way around. Maybe a result of social media. Who knows. Or cares.

    2. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then why did you click the link? You could have spent 3 seconds reading the headline and scrolled on to the next article.

    3. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why did you click the link? You could have spent 3 seconds reading the headline and scrolled on to the next article.

      Because after 4 hours, this shit is the best Timothy could come up with?

    4. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm waiting for stories about the kardashians here

      They're remaking DS9?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I come here for geek/tech news.

      Thats odd. Most people come here to read the comments. Nobody reads TFA.

    6. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Ethanol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who wasn't around when Jon Katz was writing his "Voices From The Hellmouth" columns, after the LIttleton massacre when nerdy teens were suddenly public enemy #1. As an old-timer, this looks exactly like the sort of story I'd expect /. to link to and discuss.

    7. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's appropriate since they were planning mass murder after wasting weekends installing and setting up linux only to not be able to play games or do their homework...

    8. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read stuff like this on real news sites.

      Not really. The only reason "terrorism" is relevant here at all, is that Americans are get so scared they shit themselves all over the Constitution whenever terrorism is mentioned. Unless your so-called news site basically says, "some insignificant statistic happened, so get ready to give up more freedoms and/or expect people to start discussing terrorism again", then it's not a real news site.

      Wake me up when terrorists kill more people than peanuts. People aren't afraid of dangerous things like cars, but shit themselves over terrists.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    9. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows. Or cares.

      So who is the doctor, but who is this or?

    10. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      "I don't come to slashdot for these stories"

      Agreed. If this sort of padding continues, along with the downward slide of quality and relevance of comments, it'll be time to move on.

    11. Re: I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah I've been around since the days of Jon Katz. I have a 5 digit UID. I used to bitch about his rants too. Glad he doesn't post here anymore.

    12. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who wasn't around when Jon Katz was writing his "Voices From The Hellmouth" columns, after the LIttleton massacre when nerdy teens were suddenly public enemy #1.

      Mostly in the eyes of nerdy teens, and mostly inflated all out of proportion due to confirmation bias. The rest of the world forgot about it in a week or two - but Katz's inflammatory rhetoric (not helped by /. moderation that, even then, tended towards groupthink*) did the geek/nerd community grave damage by igniting a wave of paranoia that echoes to this day.

    13. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who wasn't around when Jon Katz was writing his "Voices From The Hellmouth" columns, after the LIttleton massacre when nerdy teens were suddenly public enemy #1. As an old-timer, this looks exactly like the sort of story I'd expect /. to link to and discuss.

      Huh? If you actually read TFA, there's precisely zero information in either linked article to suggests the suspects are 'nerdy teens' or have any other reason to be linked to the /. demographic. As a /. old-timer, I'm with OP, there's pretty much no reason for this to be on /. other than the slipping standards of the editorial staff.

    14. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      it begs the question as to why you clicked on the article, read the posts in order to reply to one if that is really your attitude to this type of article. why not just ignore it and not click on it?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    15. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: What motorcycle do they drive on DS9?

      A: Gul Ducati

    16. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      "why not just ignore it and not click on it?"

      Silence implies acceptance. Response shows attitude.

    17. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are articles?

    18. Re: I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Because then Encyclopedia Dramatica will create a page for your "Hero"-ness.

      Remember, kids: if it was the drugs that made you do it, you get no points.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    19. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They aren't reading the comments though, numbuts. They look at page clicks, if you open the page you add to the page clicks, and you encourage more of it.

    20. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by dinfinity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd actually really appreciate a 'regular' news site that had a high-quality community and an effective moderating system like Slashdot has.

      I don't think one of those exists, does it?

    21. Re: I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jon Katz, Signal 11

      I really miss those days. They really got some stick from Slashdot.

      Now they'd be squealing about harassment and toxic geek culture.

    22. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Nobody reads TFA.

      Some folks don't even bother to read the summary.

      . . . And it seems to me, that some don't read the post that they are replying to.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    23. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary is a moron. She can't win.

    24. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      People are afraid of cars, that's why they spend so much time looking at safety rating when making a purchase and teaching their kids how to cross the road safely. There are huge volumes of law in place that successfully made cars much, much safer than they otherwise would be.

      Most people aren't actively soiling their pants over terrorists either, it's just that when you ask them directly if something should be done to make them safer they find it hard to argue against that. It's not fear of terrorism, it's fear of being accused of aiding terrorists by refusing to give up rights in the name of safety.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People are afraid of cars, that's why they spend so much time looking at safety rating when making a purchase

      Only wealthy people can even afford to do that. Everyone else buys used what they can afford. Remember, the middle class is vanishing. Car sales are up right now because gas prices are down and consumers are feeling froggy but they will go up again the next time it suits the agenda, and then car sales will plummet once more.

      and teaching their kids how to cross the road safely.

      I sure wish they would do that. They clearly don't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      The "world" may have forgotten about it in a week or two but schools and governments still fixated on it. That's the important part. The effects of it are still being felt in the form of "zero tolerance" policies and morons mistaking clocks for bombs.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    27. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > People are afraid of cars, that's why they spend so much time looking at safety rating when making a purchase and teaching their kids how to cross the road safely.

      Only in your fantasy land.

      In real life they couldn't care less about car safety ratings and themselves give you dirty look when you tell them to not walk in the street.

      I WISH people were frightened of cars. They would get out of the damned street.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    28. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then why did you click the link? You could have spent 3 seconds reading the headline and scrolled on to the next article.

      If he hadn't click the link, the OP wouldn't have had something to bitch about. Some people need to bitch about trivial things to have a faux feeling of accomplishment.

    29. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's why people vote for politicians that promise better road safety. They want it, and realize that raising the minimum standards costs them a lot less than what the market charges for those same safety features.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re: I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that safety ratings are at all important beyond the new mom demographic is laughable. That's practically the last thing most buyers consider. Brand, design, power, (emotion) fuel economy, roominess, perceived reliability and general comfort all come well before safety for 90% of buyers.

    31. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine's son got expelled from school because he asked about the Haber process, and the teacher immediately called security (technically a police force with statewide jurisdiction) reporting that the kid wanted to know "terroristic knowledge".

      The #1 fucking problem in the US is education. Used to be, high schools were meant to help kids get into college or vocations. Now, the only real greased path to anywhere is to the private prison system.

    32. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by njnnja · · Score: 1

      Not that I am aware of, but they are trying to do a new series about Worf that will probably have the U SH SH Defiant fighting the Kardashians from time to time.

    33. Re: I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like one hell of a lawsuit for your son's friend's parents.

    34. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Car accidents and terrorism are apples and oranges. I find this argument to be repulsively dismissive of life. It sounds like the, "That stuff only happens to other people, not me" mindset. Until it happens to you or someone close to you. When people die in a car crash, it's an accident. It's random. Shit happens, but no one was [i]intentionally[/i] trying to mow you down in their car. That's the whole difference. Intent is the big deal, because there's a human intelligence creating and driving it, not random circumstance, and that intent is to cause and increase the pain, suffering, and death as much as possible. (And if a car accident killed 20, 100, or 2,000 people in a single event, I think it'd get a LOT of attention). Admit it or not, but one of the reasons so few people have died via terrorism is probably because there's a ridiculously lopsided massive effort to fight it.(though the TSA is a bit of a joke).
      If the system simply said, "Big deal, more people die in car accidents" and did nothing, there'd be more terrorist attacks and deaths, because it's not for lack of trying on the part of ISIS and AQ, who clearly want to, who have have the resources to. And while the feds can't catch everyone (Boston bomber) that doesn't mean they don't thwart others.
      Just to clarify, I'm not justifying the intrusion on the Constitution, just addressing the car deaths analogy.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    35. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they clicked the link in order to make that comment?

    36. Re: I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's because it's Obama's fault !

    37. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, there's a TFA?! Why haven't I been told about this!

    38. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Phaid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's also when /. jumped the shark.

    39. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You're not an old-timer, and recurrent social phenomena such as this are worthy of impartial analysis and discussion.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    40. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A response such as yours only demonstrates that you're trolling yourself and blaming the article.

    41. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admit it or not, but one of the reasons so few people have died via terrorism is probably because there's a ridiculously lopsided massive effort to fight it.(though the TSA is a bit of a joke).

      I can't tell if you're being facetious. There is NO evidence to back this claim, yet there are HARD numbers showing how many people have been killed by terrorists.

    42. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (number of readers) * (3 seconds) wasted! We can save more time if this stuff just never makes it to the front page.

      SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

    43. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      What claim is that? That more people would die than actually have, if not for the anti-terrorism efforts? What's facetious about that? I never said more would die than have died in car accidents, if that's what you think I said, because I didn't; you may need to slow down and read more carefully. Regards evidence, I know for a fact that there is a massive anti-terrorist undertaking, but why would the CIA/FBI/NSA and myriad other LE agencies publish their information as to how many they've thwarted, which leads to questions like "how" and "when"? That would be like sending a western union telegram and telling them exactly what we're doing to combat them. Same is true of investigations into the Mafia or any other criminal enterprise, ongoing investigations are kept closely guarded.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    44. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      an effective moderating system like Slashdot... I don't think one of those exists, does it?

      Nope. There is definitely no Slashdot with an effective moderating system. But it's a nice fantasy.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    45. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      You must not remember the Hellmouth series, n00b.

      Go somewhere else if you don't like the content.

    46. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In real life they couldn't care less about car safety ratings and themselves give you dirty look when you tell them to not walk in the street.

      Yes, well if you yell at them when they are in the crosswalk and have the walk sign (and yes I have had real drivers do that).

    47. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sunnydale is the hellmouth where kids plot mass murder together, not summerville. Get it right.

    48. Re: I don't come to slashdot for these stories by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Why are nerds paranoids about being associated with spree killers? Because deep down, under the unwashed pasty-white skin, the flaccid chicken-flesh drooping from their bones, the filthy and hopelessly pathetic clownish clothes, the rage seethes. Well-adjusted kids do not go shooting up people. It's the weirdos, the shunned, the rightfully unloved ones. It's time to step up the social isolation and cast them out of the schools meant for Real People. Confine the geeks into special schools where they can be of no danger for us Real People. Meanwhile we'll find a way to keep them out of society too.

      Strap them down while you take away their SSRIs and the madness will stop.

    49. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by macs4all · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine's son got expelled from school because he asked about the Haber process, and the teacher immediately called security (technically a police force with statewide jurisdiction) reporting that the kid wanted to know "terroristic knowledge".

      The #1 fucking problem in the US is education. Used to be, high schools were meant to help kids get into college or vocations. Now, the only real greased path to anywhere is to the private prison system.

      Good God, what an overreaction! All he was trying to do was make some Meth, not an Ammonium Nitrate device!

    50. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Americans are get so scared they shit themselves all over the Constitution whenever terrorism is mentioned..... People aren't afraid of dangerous things like cars, but shit themselves over terrists.

      Wrong-headed, scatological "insight." Popular claim, but just wrong.

      I'd say that if you are talking about the U.S., and factor out 9/11, then the claim is perfectly valid.

    51. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Intent is the big deal, because there's a human intelligence creating and driving it, not random circumstance, and that intent is to cause and increase the pain, suffering, and death as much as possible. [...] If the system simply said, "Big deal, more people die in car accidents" and did nothing, there'd be more terrorist attacks and deaths,

      OK then, what's the intent of spending mountains of money fighting terrorism, when that same money would save more lives if spent fighting cardiovascular problems, diabetes, and cancer? Imagine if the entire Iraq/Afghanistan war budget, and TSA budget, had been spent on healthcare/research instead.

      Remember, you're just as dead if you died from a heart attack as from a terrorist. (bonus points if the heart attack is attributable to having been unnecessarily afraid of terrorists, or if you got cancer from a TSA scanner).

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    52. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      it's that impression you piece together from all the comments and what they're discussing.

      but no, the "article" is a metaphor... or something.

    53. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      like, you know improv? the "article" is like the audience's prompt...

    54. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... even the people that are against the damn scanners aren't making the claim that they contribute even minutely to cancer risk; and the tsa agent probably has a bigger gripe then the passengers on that count.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      the second intifada, you want to talk about the kind of stuff that goes on when islam gets real crazy on you?

      you're talking about people afraid to take a bus or go to market because they don't feel like dying that day. you're talking about a chilling effect. the airlines lost 30% traffic immediately following 9/11.

      you extend that to every aspect of the US economy and see what happens. Soccer mom, afraid to shop, soccer mom, afraid to ride the buss, soccer mom afraid to go out to eat, soccer mom afraid to see a movie.

      It means something to have an airline industry to come back to. And the downstream effects of lost tourism, business, etc.

    55. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      As if /. was in any way capable of impartial analysis and discussion. It's not, and never has been been.

      Like the individual to who I was replying, you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

    56. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I like your bonus points. Well, it's a weird balance I guess; there's a fair amount of money spent on health research too; and there's no guarantee that throwing more money at something will make it happen. I would not argue that the military has not spent wantonly and recklessly, of course they have; government knows no other way. But if you have people trying to kill you, as well as your allies, and disrupt economies of the world, you have to address that too.
      The middle east is a necessary evil right now, as so much of our economy is tied into it. Instability in that region translates to economical instability, and ... and... well crap, there's the crux of it. Our huge spending on terrorism is mostly about protecting the economy, or more namely: Wall Street. The fringe benefit is that it can save lives.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    57. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      TSA scanners cause fatal car accidents, and steal funds that could be better used in cancer research.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    58. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Babylon 5 jokes are so stupid....

    59. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who wasn't around when Jon Katz was writing his "Voices From The Hellmouth" columns, after the LIttleton massacre when nerdy teens were suddenly public enemy #1. As an old-timer, this looks exactly like the sort of story I'd expect /. to link to and discuss.

      Don't say "Jon Katz" again, he'll suddenly re-appear and start talking about trenchcoats.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    60. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      you're assuming that more people would fly if the scanners weren't there. that is not an assumption i think you should make.

      i don't mind the scanners, and i fly just fine. knowing that they have confiscated weapons of all kinds, and the body scanners, and x-ray machines have contributed to that, makes me less worried about flying.

      and in an ideal world, it would be

      'millions for research not one red cent for defense'

      but we don't live in that world

    61. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You're not an old-timer, and recurrent social phenomena such as this are worthy of impartial analysis and discussion.

      You cannot judge a /. users time here by their UID. I have had 3 in total because there have been periods of time I have not been here and my ISP given email accounts were no longer relevant for password reminders.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    62. Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I read stuff like this on real news sites.

      Not really. The only reason "terrorism" is relevant here at all, is that Americans are get so scared they shit themselves all over the Constitution whenever terrorism is mentioned. Unless your so-called news site basically says, "some insignificant statistic happened, so get ready to give up more freedoms and/or expect people to start discussing terrorism again", then it's not a real news site.

      Wake me up when terrorists kill more people than peanuts. People aren't afraid of dangerous things like cars, but shit themselves over terrists.

      I'm glad I don't live in the USA and that my grandkids are not in American schools. America is a wealthy country without a soul.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  4. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You euros must be learning your anti-american bigotry from your radical communist media.

  5. does anybody do proofreading here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Really. Fuck this site.

    Also, how is this news for nerds?

    We should get updates on cat videos and honey boo boo.

    1. Re:does anybody do proofreading here? by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Honestly I suspect a lot of nerds fantasized about doing things to their classmates of a violent nature. This subculture exists in-part because many of those who joined it were ostracized from others, and school as an artificial construct tends to force people that otherwise wouldn't associate to have to associate.

      We'll probably never learn much about this case of any real meaning, but that the conspirators supposedly had a list, and that list as-reported contained the names of other students specifically, leads me to believe that the conspirators felt that they had been done injustice by these other students and that they felt they had no recourse beyond such a violent act. It could also be that there was never any serious intention to actually pull-off a spree killing, and that fantasizing about doing it was a way of blowing-off steam about how they felt.

      My guess as to why they haven't been charged yet is that they're in that as minors without ready access to the implements needed to actually carry-out such a shooting it's difficult to know if there actually is anything to charge them with. Conspiracy generally requires an ability to carry out the ends of the conspiracy. People want to do harm to others, usually specific people and specific others, all of the time, but that doesn't mean that they're guilty of a crime because of a want.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:does anybody do proofreading here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly I suspect a lot of students fantasized about doing things to their classmates of a violent nature.

      Fixed that for you.

      People around the world, of all stripes and kinds, often fantasize violence.

      This is not new. It is an ancient condition. But getting past it, without unwarranted action, is possible.

      And sometimes, and this is the scary thing, is those desires are entirely justified.

    3. Re:does anybody do proofreading here? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      That's perhaps one of the most bizarre positions I've ever seen posted on /. You're suggesting that this site exists and is successful because... its populated by pissed off nerds with latent violent tendencies who were actively drummed out of the Scientific America crowd and forced to talk to one another by a school?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    4. Re:does anybody do proofreading here? by TWX · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying a subset of the geek/nerd subculture found itself in that subculture because it was ostracized. It ended up here as a form a counter-culture. This site is popular amoung the geek/nerd subculture, so there are a significant number of users that can sympathize with people that would desire to cause harm to those that were perceived to have previously harmed them. That the vast majority of them would never actually cause harm would mean that they don't actually have violent tendencies.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  6. Safety by Kohath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even if they had the weapons, everyone at school would have been safe. The school was designated a gun-free zone. I'm pretty sure there's no way they could have gotten the guns past those "gun-free zone" signs.

    1. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Well sure, as long as someone adds the "No really, we mean it!" stickers to those signs. History of those signs has been pretty poor so far without the new stickers.

    2. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?

      I mean, we have laws against murder, but murder still happens, so I guess we should do away with the law. People drive over the speed limit, and speed in school zones, I guess we should get rid of those laws too.

      There might be reasons to get rid of that law, but this reason is stupid.

    3. Re:Safety by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      What "law"? Perhaps you could like to it.

    4. Re:Safety by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?

      No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not. The laws are there so that there's a mechanism by which to punish people who do such things, should they be apprehended. The laws don't actually stop evil little shits from being evil little shits.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. I'm just going to assume we normally don't crave conflict and violence. As long as Hollywood glamorizes violence as a solution to conflict then gun laws on their own are useless. They're even making woman appear as shitty and aggressive as men are thought to be. Congratulations Hollywood.

    6. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?

      No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not. The laws are there so that there's a mechanism by which to punish people who do such things, should they be apprehended. The laws don't actually stop evil little shits from being evil little shits.

      They can, and do, when the little shits are incarcerated.

      That is the main reason we have prisons, not to "punish" people, but protect us from them.

    7. Re:Safety by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The school was designated a gun-free zone.

      That totally misses the point. Planned massacres, like terrorism, make up only a very small proportion of gun deaths. The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly. It has nothing to do with the lesser problem of killing sprees.

      And the idea that schools in the US even need "gun-free zone" signs is bat-shit crazy. On the other side of the world, I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension. (That was before secure gun safes were mandatory.)

    8. Re:Safety by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the idea that schools in the US even need "gun-free zone" signs is bat-shit crazy. On the other side of the world, I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension. (That was before secure gun safes were mandatory.)

      And that is a shame... my father took his rifle to school and kept it in his locker, they had a gun club at school and kids would often go shooting after classes were out...

      And he has never owned a gun safe, and amazingly enough in 71 years none of his guns have jumped up and shot anyone... No one in any of his schools was ever shot either...

      Guns didn't change, society did, for the worse...

    9. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My mind was blown by the fact that they weren't able to obtain firearms. Does that mean gun control is actually working?

      Wait no, lets take away everyone's guns. "Just to be safe"

    10. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the law against murder hasn't totally eliminated murder, so obviously we should just throw it out and legalize murder, right? Oh, what's that? You realize this line of reasoning is fucking retarded now?

    11. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean free of guns, or that the guns have freedom in those zones?

    12. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Guns didn't change, society did, for the worse..."

      Yep. About time that second amendment was updated to reflect the modern military prowess of the United States, and the lack of the need for 'militias'.

    13. Re:Safety by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      They can, and do, when the little shits are incarcerated.

      And they can't be incarcerated unless they've been convicted for actually breaking the law. It's after the fact, by definition. Even in this case, it's a matter of convicting them of conspiracy to commit murder ... something the law did not prevent them from doing: they sat there and conspired even those there's a law against doing that. See?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Got used to your collar, doggie? Masters feeding you well? Taking you out for regular walks?

    15. Re:Safety by Kohath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Gun free zone" means there's not even a weapon locked in a safe in the office, or in a staff member's car in the parking lot. It's a soft target.

      But yeah, if you don't care about mass shootings, a "no weapons" policy makes some superficial sense.

    16. Re:Safety by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      "Guns didn't change, society did, for the worse..."

      Yep. About time that second amendment was updated to reflect the modern military prowess of the United States, and the lack of the need for 'militias'.

      Yeah, society has no need of able-bodied males age 18 to 45.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    17. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did society change? Was it safer during your father's day? Or is the interconnectedness of the world allowing us to be more aware of incidences?

    18. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Australian.... Your idea's intrigue me.

    19. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as much as the "gun free zone" thing has become a talking point and every Republican presidential candidate has made hay out of the critical fact that this was a gun free zone...

      It wasn't.

      Oregon is one of fewer than a dozen states, along with more conservative counterparts like Mississippi and Utah, which allow concealed carry on college campuses.

      At Umpqua Community College, the site of Thursdayâ(TM)s tragedy, the policy change came in a meeting of the board of directors on 9 November 2011. According to the minutes, the Oregon Community College Association legal counsel âoespoke about the gun law changes which affect the ability to carry a concealed weapon on campusâ.

      As a result, the counsel noted: âoeIf you have a concealed weapon card, the policy of the board may not restrict a person from carrying a weapon.â

      In other words, gun free zones at schools had been legislated out of existence in Oregon and other conservative states... where these shootings still happen.

    20. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension.

      Your school unleashed punishment without signs or rules? Completely arbitrary punishment. And you think choosing to not have that is insane.

      Well something here certainly is bat-shit crazy and having rules isn't it. In some rural communities, even today in the wave of school shootings, they have exceptions for shotguns and rifles legally stored in locked trunks on school grounds during hunting season. Without those rules in place, the kids would just take them to school anyway and lie about it. That is what kids do.

      Honestly your posts just look like a bigoted agenda of US bashing. That needs to stop like all the other hate that is spewed out.

    21. Re: Safety by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yes let's arm school children. What could possibly go wrong?

    22. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Gun-Free School Zones Act."

    23. Re:Safety by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not.

      Like any other crime, there are a few people who will commit the crime regardless of any law, and there are of course many people who would never commit the crime, even if they were 100% guaranteed to get away with it. The law's deterrent effect is seen only in the third group of people: those who would commit the crime if they thought they could get away with it, but won't actually do it because of the risk of being caught and punished.

      It sounds like you are arguing that the third group does not exist. If so, I think you are wrong about that.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    24. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?

      No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not. The laws are there so that there's a mechanism by which to punish people who do such things, should they be apprehended. The laws don't actually stop evil little shits from being evil little shits.

      Except that isn't what the laws are there for, at least not so simply. The law that bans guns in schools is from 1990. Its goal was not to stop "people who want to kill other people for notoriety." They were there to drive gang and drug related gun violence away from schools.

    25. Re:Safety by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 2

      And your point?

      Do we now ban guns cause today's society can't handle guns?

    26. Re: Safety by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Try teachers and other staff.

      Many schools used to have rifle teams and hunter safety programs in which student would bring guns to school, and somehow there wasn't mass carnage. Any ideas about that?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    27. Re:Safety by jcr · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's more like, victim disarmament is an idiotic policy, so laws requiring it, besides being blatantly unconstitutional, should be repealed because they're harmful to the public.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    28. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people weren't doing hard drugs back then. I'd like to know the correlation between violence in general (and mass murders) and drug use in America.

      Of course I must realise I'm on Slashdot though, where it's no doubt cool to use something... just because...

    29. Re:Safety by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Guns didn't change, society did, for the worse.." - not really, the gun lobby still lives in the time period of 200+ years ago and its all its supporters seem to as well. its about time they matured into the 21st century.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    30. Re: Safety by AJWM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Back in my high school days, I and plenty of my fellow students frequently went armed, some with considerably more lethal weapons than are customarily allowed in the US. I fired my first machine gun when I was seventeen.

      Mind, we were only so armed during our nights/weekends with our reserve units, but we were still, technically, armed school children.

      Aside from the occasional shoulder/cheek bruise (from not holding it properly while firing - a 7.62 FN packs a bit of a kick), I don't recall any gun-related injuries.

      --
      -- Alastair
    31. Re:Safety by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was different...

      His parents were married all their adult lives and remained together until their death.

      Corporal punishment was allowed in school, kids did not talk back to teachers and were taught respect for their elders.

      He also went to an all white school of middle class Americans where everyone had a common background and understood each other.

      50+ years ago was a different world, and while it was unfair to a lot of people (mostly anyone who wasn't white), it was a world in which these mass shootings were not so common.

      It was also a world where you could spank other people's kids if they got out of line, kids could go out and play all day outside unsupervised, and so on...

      Of course, it had other issues... but in this specific case, we were better off...

    32. Re:Safety by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It is a shame that you learned nothing about American History in school.

      You're not alone of course... there is reason you want (or should want) and armed population...

    33. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Murder laws don't prevent people from saving lives. Anti-gun laws do.

    34. Re: Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course. The 1st, 4th and 5th must be amended to reflect the new reality as well.

    35. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of countries have gun violence like the USA. Don't lie. Mass shootings has no standard definition, but for the less restrictive definitions, our mass shooting incidents even happen at lower rates than some european countries! Maybe time for you to revisit your sources.

    36. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was different...

      "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

      While often attributed to Socrates, this is unlikely, but still, what provenance it does have shows that such words have long been spoken.

      Yours are just another variation on a long-held theme.

      These mass shootings are rare, but they were not unknown, nor other myriad forms of violence. You want to believe, fervently, that the world was once better off, that somehow, it was different.

      But Rebel Without a Cause was already a movie even then. And I could make comments about Romeo and Juliet, it may seem to simply be a love story, but there are undertones of violence and aggression, it could have been written as a tragedy of conflict instead.

      Take off your rose-tinted glasses. They're coloring your perspective.

      The only difference is that today's firearms have a reduced chance to misfire.

    37. Re: Safety by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those schools are not in downtown Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, LA, etc. Care to try letting kiddies bring in guns to schools in those cities?

    38. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And as much as the "gun free zone" thing has become a talking point and every Republican presidential candidate has made hay out of the critical fact that this was a gun free zone...

      It wasn't.

      Oregon is one of fewer than a dozen states, along with more conservative counterparts like Mississippi and Utah, which allow concealed carry on college campuses.

      At Umpqua Community College, the site of Thursdayâ(TM)s tragedy, the policy change came in a meeting of the board of directors on 9 November 2011. According to the minutes, the Oregon Community College Association legal counsel âoespoke about the gun law changes which affect the ability to carry a concealed weapon on campusâ.

      As a result, the counsel noted: âoeIf you have a concealed weapon card, the policy of the board may not restrict a person from carrying a weapon.â

      In other words, gun free zones at schools had been legislated out of existence in Oregon and other conservative states... where these shootings still happen.

      Yet... the price for getting caught was expulsion from the school, losing any scholarships and possibly non-transferable credits, and getting an expulsion to trade around for references due to the leftist "we will ignore the law and do it anyway" administrators, board, and operators of the college.

      Explain to me this; what is the bigger threat to the typical community college student? A big financial hit and loss of possible any schooling or a simple trespassing or minor "weapons" crime?

      Hint: these same students frequently face bigger punishment for weed possession, illegal drinking establishments, and underage drinking.

      You, my friendo, are a _liar_. The law did not make it a "gun free" zone, the idiots running the place did.

    39. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how this is "interesting", despite there being no evidence that arming the victims prevents mass shootings. In fact, there's a 1 in 5 chance that a mass shooting will use weapons the killer didn't own but obtained from gun owners on site.

      I'd love to see proof for your assertion that disarming victims is harmful in the context of larger gun culture.

    40. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murder laws don't prevent people from saving lives. Anti-gun laws do.

      No anti-gun law stopped this killing, nor did it save any lives.

    41. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_US

      its actually pretty consistent. especially considering the population at the beginning of the timeline was 1/20th the current population. now count the number of incidents per year. not 20 times as much, not even 10 times as much. in fact there is a spike in the 80s but in recent times it has gone down to late 1800's numbers. and as you say, only well off white people used to go to school.

    42. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.)

      A knife is a tool, a gun is a weapon. Somehow, ancient man carried knives for thousands of years, and we still have a population. Go figure.

    43. Re: Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So because a law abiding citizen wasn't allowed to carry, and thus protect themselves and others, please don't leave a bloody mess for others to trip over when running out the door.

    44. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, my friendo, are a _liar_. The law did not make it a "gun free" zone, the idiots running the place did.

      What would people carrying guns have done? Would they all start shooting at the bad guy? What about the people with those guns that missed the target, and were firing in the direction of another one of the 'good guys'? "Hey! There is another shooter! Better fire at them, too." The Wild West went away for a reason. Here is a tip for you. If you hear shooting, head the other direction.

    45. Re:Safety by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly. It has nothing to do with the lesser problem of killing sprees.

      I believe that in the State of Texas, you can be 18 to purchase, but the firearm must stay at the residence. Meaning you can't carry until the age of 21; which means you're an adult. Besides, even with the school ban in place, there's no reason why teachers and staff can't carry anyways.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    46. Re:Safety by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I couldn't find numbers for the 1950s, but recently the trend has been downwards: http://curry.virginia.edu/rese...

      People think the 50s were great, but the reality is very different. There was a lot more violence back then. I'm no expert on the US, but people in the UK are often surprised to learn that during the war kids would be arrested for breaking in to bomb shelters and smashing them, or looting bombed houses, on a quite regular basis. Capital punishment never worked, and while classrooms were certainly grimmer back then a large part of that is due to the really bad kids simply not attending school at all.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re:Safety by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you are arguing that the third group does not exist. If so, I think you are wrong about that.

      It sounds like you are arguing that the third group does exist. If so, I think you are wrong about that. In the context of mass shootings the are almost always murder suicides or the individual is so insane they are either not capable of or at least not applying that kind of logic to their actions, like the Aurora CO. shooter.

      Its not like we are talking about embezzlement, speeding, drug use, or even armed robbery here. There is little to suggest these mass murders give any thought at all to a future past their attack. The exception seemingly when they plan to die in the attack and become infamous. I for one do not fear or being prosecuted for possession of illegal fire arms, any other sort of weapon, let alone murder has any impact on their actions no would it no matter what you make the penalties.

      If anything the threat of being purged from existence might be best. You and your property will be burned, people will be asked no to speak of you by name, birth records destroyed, any remains that speak to you ever having existing will be buried deep in an unmarked undiscovered location. That might give some of them pause.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    48. Re:Safety by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Why? maybe it would be better for society to think about returning to a period where people did not commit so many mass murders?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    49. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas you have to be 18 to purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun), and 21 to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. You can buy a handgun in a private sale at 18 legally. You have to be 21 to get a concealed carry license. License excluded, as long as you're 18 and following the rest of the laws, you can take your guns anywhere that a 21 year old can (ie: carried in your car, or transported to a range or hunting area, or whatever else).

      The laws in Texas for teachers carrying at schools (the state laws and the federal laws) overlap in such a way that individual school districts have the discretion to allow their teachers to carry on campus, but the district has to explicitly allow it, not just have no policy against it. There is at least one district in west Texas that allows this. I don't know of any in the more populated areas.

    50. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Capital punishment? Take it easy there Joe!

    51. Re:Safety by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was also a world where you could spank other people's kids if they got out of line, kids could go out and play all day outside unsupervised, and so on...

      The world is safer today than it ever has been before. Shit, there's probably less per capita killings in the Levant right now than there ever have been in history, that place has been a bloodbath since forever. The media narrative, however, is that things are more dangerous than they have ever been before. Bullshit. We simply have higher awareness of what is going on. Remember, gun killings are down. Gun deaths are holding fairly steady because suicide is up. People point to that as justification for banning guns, but there are lots of reasons why that is fallacious, among them having the right to take your own life if you choose. You don't have the right to determine that people must live a life in which they cannot be happy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Safety by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      When I was in elementary school in MN, I remember it being not uncommon for the high schoolers to bring (cased) shotguns on the bus, because there was some class where they did shooting.

      It was no big deal, and not one single shooting (of a person) or massacre transpired.

      It's not the guns in school that are the problem.

      --
      -Styopa
    53. Re: Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And here is your hypocrisy right here. So instead as most pro gun people say blame the person not the gun. You say blame the drugs not the person. Do you see what u did there. To me freedom to consume what you want and do what you want to your own body takes precedence over the right to bear arms. Though I do like both.

      Reminds me off reefer madness... I take you have never done drugs either. I'd be willing to bet more gun deaths have occurred under the influence of alcohol than all other drugs combined... But I doubt anyone would be surprised. We have an issue with all the "vices" but that is another topic.

      As to gun free zones... Most areas where people now days want to kill peeople have these zones. Angred youth wants to shoot up school or racist at a black church. But if the answer is u want every school armed ... More guns for kids to have access to? Part of growing up is learning to control impulses and if a kid sees a gun in a moment... And we know how awesome and organized our public schools are.

      I don't pretend to have all the answers. I'm not sure the best course of action but don't go placeing blame just on things you don't like. I own guns and don't like some of our laws but can see we do need stricter ones.

    54. Re:Safety by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There might be reasons to get rid of that law, but this reason is stupid.

      I'm certainly with you there. But to solve the problem, I think one has to look at the deeper causes and find out why it is that so many people become outsiders, who then end up hating the world and their society enough to want to kill indiscriminately. And I think it is necessary to have an open-minded discussion about *ALL* the issues, even gun ownership and -control, as well as issues like the increasing inequality, disenfranchisement and hopelessness that too many people feel trapped in. If people would talk to each other with an honest view to solve the problems, it would without a doubt be solved; what keeps this from happening must be nothing better than narrow, abysmal egotism. I think that is deeply shameful.

    55. Re:Safety by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...because they didn't already have laws about drugs and gang activity. That's not even getting into the metal detectors and school cops that such places already had. In other words, it's an entirely different world that gun crazed liberals have absolutely zero experience with.

      Again. That law is redundant.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    56. Re:Safety by jedidiah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > Yep. About time that second amendment was updated to reflect the modern military prowess of the United States, and the lack of the need for 'militias'.

      Then do it then. Stop with all of the foreplay and whining and do it already. Stop pussyfooting around.

      No liberal has the balls to introduce such an Amendment.

      Although with things like the ACA, they don't think they need to. They think that they can just ignore the law anyway or try to redefine it after the fact to suit them.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    57. Re: Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are arguing the 'america don't have a gun problem, it has a nigger problem' fallacy? Sorry, I mean inner city youth.

    58. Re:Safety by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I've heard that claimed lots of times, but no-one has given a sensible answer to it. Is it to allow the citizens to rise up against the government? If so, the armed forces are in the way, and no amount of weekend warriors with no support or decent training will overcome them. If the armed forces are not going to stand in the way, then there is no need for the guns in the first place. This "we need our guns to protect our rights!" logic is bizarre. Plus, with all the screaming from various parts of the electorate, why hasn't it happened yet? And what is the signal anyway? A bunch of strangers with guns, no training, no logistical support, no common aim, no close air support, aren't going to accomplish nothing, except make for a very easy turkey shoot for whoever's up against them. Now, on the other hand, if you'd said explosives were important and not guns, I'd have to agree with you, as those are a real threat to an army (just ask anyone back from Iraq or Afghanistan what was worse - AK47s or IEDs).

    59. Re:Safety by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority;

      Yes. But I can point to examples of people getting arrested for scolding other people's children in the here and now versus 30 years ago.

      There has been a real cultural shift against harsh discipline of any sort. This even extends to your own children. People will brag on Facebook about being willing to turn people into CPS for petty shit (like scolding).

      In the 70s, glorification of hoods was just cultural. Now it's the legal norm.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    60. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been saying "Kids these days" or something similar for over 2000 years.

    61. Re:Safety by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no evidence that arming the victims prevents mass shootings.

      What's your next guess? Read and learn.

      Besides Volokh's very informative research, I'll ask if you've ever hear of a country called "Israel"? There's a reason why the Palestinian terrorists gave up on trying to shoot up shopping malls and switched to half-assed rocketry.

      1 in 5 chance that a mass shooting will use weapons the killer didn't own but obtained from gun owners on site.

      Bullshit.

      Why is it that when you leftards pull a number out of your ass, you always go for 20%? That's just like the bogus claim that one in five women will get raped in college.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    62. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this sort of overly simplistic and exclusionary perspective, and glorifying of the past, which has lead directly to the problems of the present.

      It's amazing how all the people who think like this seem to think they are not the problem, that things have gotten out of hand despite them and not because of them, that they are somehow outside (and above) the culture around them. And the cycle continues.

    63. Re:Safety by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      When any sort of event occurs, people just use it as an excuse to push their current agenda. It doesn't matter if it has any relevance to the current event. There isn't any consideration given to that at all.

      That's my main problem with the usual knee jerk reactions crying "do something". That and the fact that they only react when it's white victims.

      No one seems interested in doing a root cause analysis. No one wants to actually really solve the problem. They just want to mindlessly apply the bag of tricks associated with their agenda whether they will work or not.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    64. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zoot suit riots. Good times...

    65. Re: Safety by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yup. This is why I no longer live in the white trash neighborhood that I grew up in. I don't want my children to feel so unsafe at school that they feel compelled to arm themselves (like I did).

      Despite the liberal gun hysteria, I feel VERY safe in my America despite the fact that it is also very well armed. My neighbors are not animals. I can't say that about the neighborhood I grew up in.

      If any blacks want to flee that crap, I will happily welcome them with open arms.

      The problems in the hood won't be fixed with a successful gun confiscation program. They will just be easier to ignore because liberals won't have gun murder statistics to fixate over anymore.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    66. Re:Safety by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Plenty of countries do, but not in the first world.

    67. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wow, you found 8 examples in the last 17 years of it happening and nearly all of them have "it's unclear if he would have killed more people if they'd not shot him".

      Maybe the problem is a cross between the availability of guns and the fact that men are continuously told that having a bigger gun means they are a bigger man? Nooooo, it must be that not enough people have guns.

      You sad little man.

    68. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The proof is you are the only first world country with this problem.

      Or, you know, keep your head in the sand. That might help.

    69. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kids did not talk back to teachers and were taught respect for their elders.

      And newspapers were full of stories where people complained the youth today are horrible brats who don't respect their elders like their grandparents did. And the newspapers of their grandparents' time complained that the youth today are horrible brats who don't respect their elders like their grandparents did.

      The good old days never were.

    70. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. He's pointing out the idiocy of those who believe that more laws of this kind are the solution to the problem.

    71. Re:Safety by KGIII · · Score: 2

      If the citizenry are attacking the government due to a true injustice then the citizen-filled military is quite likely to side with the citizenry. There have been military coups for just this sort of thing. Just because I was enlisted does not mean that I'd have been willing to fire at my fellow citizens because I was ordered to do so. I'd have, instead, fired at those giving the orders and I was not alone. I dare say this was a pretty common sentiment.

      Additionally, they're not going to use nuclear tactics against a rebellion. An armed group is able to remain active, albeit engaging in small battles that they select, quite easily and has been an issue since Sun Tsu's time. A more recent example would be Iraq. We could, if we wanted, start the process today. We're ruled by consent. I surmise, then, that the boundary of tolerance has yet been reached as we've not had a revolution in quite some time.

      Frankly, I'm quite welcoming of the idea that the citizens have the capacity to defend themselves against tyranny. I'm actually unable to comprehend the thought process of those who strive to dismantle it. I just don't understand what would make you reach those conclusions, what evidence you must seem to believe, or why you're willing to submit to being ruled against your will.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    72. Re:Safety by KGIII · · Score: 1

      A firearm is quite clearly a tool. It can also be used as a weapon - as can most anything, up to and including using your attached limbs. I use my firearms as a tool that enables me to throw small bits of metal at accuracies, distances, and speeds unable to be easily matched by other means in a similar format. I typically use those bits of metal to put holes in little pieces of paper that are so far distant that they are actually difficult to see. I also use those bits of metal to put holes in small furry woodland critters that are eventually cooked and eaten.

      All in all, it's a pretty damned well designed too for a very specific task - throwing bits of metal to quite a distance, accurately, quickly, and with decent reliability. In fact, some of them are quite exquisitely designed tools that perform their given tasks very well. Unless you want to change the definition of tool? Or somehow want to insinuate that something being capable of being used as a weapon is now inherently bad then I'm not able to see much logic in your reply at all.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    73. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of strangers with guns, no training, no logistical support, no common aim, no close air support, aren't going to accomplish nothing, except make for a very easy turkey shoot for whoever's up against them.

      Does the name Kunduz mean anything to you? It's the latest in the long string of such events.

      Winning a head-to-head battle with just small arms is improbable, true. Successfully occupying and extracting economic value from a territory with an armed and unfriendly populace, well, small arms are easily sufficient to prevent that.

      As an aside, I don't even support the 2nd amendment folks; I would like more firearms regulation in the US. I just wanted to laugh at your ignorance.

      (CAPTCHA: liberals How apropos.)

    74. Re:Safety by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      And now not only will the law be ignored by a criminal, but your dad (assuming he's honest and law-abiding) can't even pick you up from the school parking lot in your family car if he's got a pistol in it. If he were to see a criminal or a bat-shit crazy kid marching into the building with a shotgun, your dad couldnt even run in to help with a firearm without being in direct violation of the law that was wholly ignored by said bat-shit crazy kid.

      Gun free zones and laws dont prevent bat-shit crazy kids from doing horrible things. But they DO make it a crime to try to stop the bat-shit crazy kid by using a firearm unless you're "authorized".

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    75. Re: Safety by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      And on the topic of impulse control, these mass violence events are never, ever spawned by a responsible concealed carry or open carry adult. Ever. You dont hear any stories about the "intimidating redneck hillbilly back-woods jarhead nutjob" getting pissed and whipping out his firearm, because it doesnt happen. But people pass laws that both fail to stop a person who has plotted to do harm, and prevents law-abiding people from stopping them.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    76. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do we now ban guns cause *** a laughingly tiny percentage of *** today's society can't handle guns?"

      FTFY

    77. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not true. Unless WMDs are used, your "weekend warriors" out
      number boots-on-ground soldiers almost 10 to 1. George + Dick was in favor of
      using WMDs as a domestic solution, but the whole constitution thing got in the way.

    78. Re:Safety by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.

      What has been shown to reduce the chance of "fights escalating and becoming deadly" is training in the use of knives and guns, not bans on their possession. Children and young adults who have had such training have about the same rate of "delinquency" - but the "crimes" they commit are almost never violent. (They also know what they're dealing with and what to do about it if someone DOES start misusing a knife or gun.) Kids who learn about guns and knives only from entertainment media (where blood and agony are not shown) and other kids are the ones who commit the violence.

      On the other side of the world, I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension.

      On this side of the world young adults used to bring guns to school when they were going to the range or hunting after school (or had been hunting at dawn before school) with no perceptible problems - up to the latter half of the 20th century. Interestingly, that's when the child-rearing fads started "protecting them" from information about weapons.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    79. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, the armed forces are in the way, and no amount of weekend warriors with no support or decent training will overcome them.

      By any chance, did your great-great-grandfather give the same argument in the court of George III?

    80. Re:Safety by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The problem with taking your own life with a firearm is it is messy and can severely traumatize the people around it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    81. Re:Safety by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem with taking your own life with a firearm is it is messy and can severely traumatize the people around it.

      They're willing to make a mess, but they don't want to clean it up. Typical. You don't think suicide is on the rise because society is getting cuter and cuddlier, do you?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    82. Re:Safety by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "it's unclear if he would have killed more people if they'd not shot him".

      Nice quote. It's a reporter's quote and not necessarily false -- just misleading to take it for face value. Think it through. When do mass shooters stop shooting? When the (A) run out of ammo and/or (B) when confronted with an armed response. If the "armed response" happened BEFORE the police got there, then there's a pretty good logical path to "more deaths" UNTIL the police got there. Is it CERTAIN? No. You wouldn't get a "beyond reasonable doubt" on that (not implying any judicial meaning -- just quality of certainty). But if you were a betting man and this were Vegas, you'd bet any day of the week and three times on Sunday for more deaths until the police arrive -- it's almost a 'sure thing'.

    83. Re:Safety by xenotransplant · · Score: 1

      If you think mass murder is a recent phenomena, you really need to go back to middle-school and start learning world history.

    84. Re: Safety by xenotransplant · · Score: 1

      Here is one example of a "responsible gun owner" known by many people locally that shot and killed someone because of a parking lot incident. I have some more that have recently happened here in upstate ny. You can ask for them if you'd like to read more stories that poke holes in your "responsible gun owner" story. If you're angry and you're in a fight with someone and you have a gun on your waist, you're gonna grab it. Don't lie to yourself. This is exactly like the trained US Marshall that kept a loaded and primed shotgun aimed at a bystander during an arrest. One of the first things I learned about firearms: DONT POINT IT AT SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT GONNA SHOOT.

    85. Re: Safety by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      I did say "mass violence events" didnt I?

      But even ignoring the specific thing I mentioned, are there psychos out there that lose their shit and do horrible things to A person? Yes. Absolutely. And they use guns, and hammers, and bats, and cars, and ... and ... and ...

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    86. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, how about Nine Familial Exterminations?

    87. Re:Safety by TheSync · · Score: 1

      A firearm is quite clearly a tool.

      Indeed, Mr. Ice Cube once stated "AK-47 is the tool - Don't make me act the [MFing] fool."

    88. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. But I can point to examples of people getting arrested for scolding other people's children in the here and now versus 30 years ago.

      And 30 years ago, I can point to examples of people not even getting investigating for abusing other people's children, let alone their own.

      Or today. Or 300 years ago. And piracy, vikings, knights, and all sorts of nasty sorts have been much beloved for a long time too.

      I can also find examples of people snitching on their neighbors for wearing the wrong clothes, worshiping the wrong god, or not paying enough taxes.\

      Or not baptizing their children.

      You can think what you want, the world keeps on spinning.

    89. Re:Safety by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Well, one can hardly argue with the wisdom espoused by one Mr. Ice Cube, now can they? In the future they will be heralded as the bards and great philosophers of our time. As will Mr. T. "I pity the fool that tries to get me on an airplane!"

      I do, at certain times, conceal carry. Every time I opt to carry my firearm one of the things that does, indeed, rush to my mind is a hope that I needn't use it and a quiet thanks that I've never had to. I prefer to open carry at times simply because I am pretty sure it's calmed a number of situations down on its own. I really don't relish the idea of harming anyone and, most likely, would certainly give someone (like a mugger) my property rather than elect to harm them.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    90. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have laws against things which are inherently bad, such as murder. Having a gun on school grounds is not inherently wrong (police officer, legal concealed carry, rifle team, etc). If someone is intent on breaking the law of no murder, having an extra law of no guns allowed is completely inconsequential. Laws do not prevent crime. They merely state what bad things normal people are not supposed to do. They do not prevent crazy/evil people from doing crazy/evil things.

    91. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a lot of bad things were happening 50 years ago, arguably more than happen now even with mass shootings. We just didn't talk about it then, and tried to pretend things were like you describe.

      Ask someone, a white person if you like, who was a victim of sexual abuse by a priest 50 years ago how great things were then. There are lots of other examples.

    92. Re:Safety by ultranova · · Score: 1

      50+ years ago was a different world, and while it was unfair to a lot of people (mostly anyone who wasn't white), it was a world in which these mass shootings were not so common.

      It was also a world where you could spank other people's kids if they got out of line, kids could go out and play all day outside unsupervised, and so on...

      Of course, it had other issues... but in this specific case, we were better off...

      Ladies and gentlemen, a Conservative's "better world" in his own words: Master Race beating up kids.

      What the Hell is wrong with you people?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    93. Re:Safety by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      If anything the threat of being purged from existence might be best. You and your property will be burned, people will be asked no to speak of you by name, birth records destroyed, any remains that speak to you ever having existing will be buried deep in an unmarked undiscovered location. That might give some of them pause.

      That's an excellent follow on, but also needs this: When such an event occurs, no general publicity at all should be given to it. The police know, the courts know, any surviving victims and the families of the victims know, their friends know, and that is wholly sufficient as far as who actually needs to know. Stop giving these people their ten minutes of fame, their wiki page, their "book / movie / tv show / news report / editorial about the atrocity" publicity. Make sure that one thing they cannot get out of such an act is being splashed all over every headline and public informational venue in existence. That was never a good idea, and with the "fame is good, people who sympathize need to KNOW about my (ideas, problems, open source efforts, ability to juggle, cute ass, victimization, revenge, etc.)!" attitude that pervades our society now, broad publicity stands as a powerful motivating factor. Cut it off for these people. If Joe Smith on the other side of the country does Bad Thing, I don't need to know, and you don't need to know either. So quit it.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    94. Re:Safety by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The page you linked to does not support any assertion of the class "guns are the problem in the USA."

      That page shows that the actual problem is homicides per 100,000 population. And it shows that it is worse here than in other countries. It also shows that the problem comes to a head using guns -- pretty obviously because yes, we have guns. It does not show, in any way, that guns cause the problem. It does not show that taking guns away will solve the problem. It does not show that guns are the problem.

      The root of the homicide problem here is bullying, shaming, classing, physical and mental abuse of one individual or group by another individual or group. These things are rampant in our schools, in our government's approach to personal and consensual choice, and they are not the least uncommon in life after school without government cause, either.

      Pretending the problem is guns is wrongheaded. Look at the relative homicides per capita compared to other countries that data shows right on that page. We kill more people per capita without guns than other countries kill. That should tell you exactly what the problem is. All guns are is the current tool of choice. It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool. And -- again really obviously -- there are plenty of other tools. Look at the chart and think about how many in the USA are already using those other tools, and that is with guns readily available. Take guns away, the next chart you see will be counting hammers, or kitchen knives, or vehicles, and/or anything that can poison anyone, etc. It's not that we have a "gun culture", it's that we have a "I_am/We_are going to abuse the fuck out of you" culture, and some people -- quite predictably, in fact -- react horribly to those abuses.

      And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.

      When you say that guns are the problem and get all concentrated on that, you are letting the real problem continue to fester, while you try to address something that simply will not help instead.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    95. Re:Safety by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      What the Hell is wrong with you people?

      The same could be directed back at you...

      Some of the "progressive" ideas being tossed around these days are just stupid, but you can't see it because they are "new and different".

      Some of the new stuff is good. Equal rights, respect for all humans, these are good things. But that doesn't mean all that is new is good.

      We have a whole generation of kids growing up with no respect for authority.

    96. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your [great-]+grandfather and his contemporaries had pistols, muskets, rifles, cannons, and guerilla tactics going up against soldiers with roughly the same armament and shitty tactics. WIN.

      You and your contemporaries are going to have whatever small arms you can scrounge together going up against tanks, rocket batteries, helicopter gunships, drones, and other things that can fry your bacon (along with the rest of the hill you're on) from well outside of your range. FAIL.

    97. Re:Safety by orlanz · · Score: 1

      ...the armed forces are in the way...

      Right, so Al Qaeda, ISIS, American revolution, French & Indian wars, Indian revolution, Peninsular War, Syrian rebels, etc. None should be able to fight because they are facing an official army using rag tag weapons.

      Maybe this is different in other countries, but in the US, there is quite a large percent of the population that is trained in basic arms. The right to bear arms was given the same level of respect by the founding fathers as the right to free speech.

      IEDs serve a different purpose than guns. IEDs rarely give you victory any more than bombs from airplanes. Guns give and secure victory. You don't need to fire a gun to maintain control. Just the fact you hold one and the conquered do not is enough to stop their resistance. IEDs may have scared the army, but its those AK47s that kept the population from revolting against the latest terror group for decades.

    98. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens can never hope to to defeat their own government through a war of attrition. However, citizens can kill the head of the snake.

    99. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?.

      I think what he's actually trying to cleverly imply is that if someone's willing to break a much more serious and harsh law, the lesser law won't slow them down. If the lesser law punishes something that isn't actually bad in itself, and it doesn't affect people breaking other laws, it should probably go away.

    100. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To use your own word: bullshit. Israel still suffers multiple terrorist attacks per year from Palestinians who are desperate enough to risk all that. Just one example out of many.

    101. Re:Safety by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?

      No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not. The laws are there so that there's a mechanism by which to punish people who do such things, should they be apprehended. The laws don't actually stop evil little shits from being evil little shits.

      Nine-tenths of any crime is opportunity.

      Put people in an environment that glorifies violence, has a strictly enforced hierarchy based on physical dominance and then give them ready access to guns and what do you expect is going to happen?

      The first and most effective step is to remove the ready access to firearms. Like it or not, this will stop the mass shootings that are prevalent in the United states but rare events in other western nations.

      However unless you also take steps to fix the causes (glorifying violence and strictly enforced hierarchy) you'll just be turning murder-suicides into plain old normal suicides.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    102. Re:Safety by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No one wants to actually really solve the problem. They just want to mindlessly apply the bag of tricks associated with their agenda whether they will work or not.

      I very much doubt that that's true. It would require most people to be actively dishonest, after all. No, what's happening is that the gridlock makes it impossible to push any agenda in a moderate, considered and conditional way, so when the opportunity comes - when there's a crisis of some sort - people use it to force things through. It's like locked continental plates violently shifting in an earthquake instead of constantly and gradually.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    103. Re:Safety by ultranova · · Score: 1

      A firearm is quite clearly a tool. It can also be used as a weapon - as can most anything, up to and including using your attached limbs. I use my firearms as a tool that enables me to throw small bits of metal at accuracies, distances, and speeds unable to be easily matched by other means in a similar format.

      A firearm is a tool in the same sense as heroin is a tool: no reasonable person would ever describe them in such terms unless they were trying to set up some particularly transparent bullshit fence.

      All in all, it's a pretty damned well designed too for a very specific task - throwing bits of metal to quite a distance, accurately, quickly, and with decent reliability.

      And the reason this is useful is that those fast-moving bits of metal project deadly force over distance. In other words, it's a well-designed weapon.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    104. Re:Safety by quenda · · Score: 1

      young adults used to bring guns to school when they were going to the range or hunting after school (or had been hunting at dawn before school) with no perceptible problems - up to the latter half of the 20th century. Interestingly, that's when the child-rearing fads started "protecting them" from information about weapons.

      In 1950's Australia, rural police would give free rifles to the local juvenile delinquent just for keeping out of trouble.
      As documented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Smiley Gets a Gun.)
      Of course that was a bolt-action .22, not a semi-auto or pistol.

      But how many kids were "accidentally" shot ("I thought it was unloaded") ?
      Child mortality from accidents was much higher in those days, and somehow more accepted. Stopping unsupervised access to firearms, along with other sensible improvements like car seatbelts and pool fences have saved the lives of thousands upon thousands of children.

    105. Re:Safety by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You don't just get to personally redefine the definitions of words you don't like. Also, I'd submit that heroin is an excellent method for pain control or for escaping reality for a time. I'd further submit that it could also probably be considered a tool. The 'no reasonable' person bit of your attempt at logic was amusing, so there's that. It was childlike but amusing. No, no reasonable person would attempt to redefine the word tool simply because they felt they had an inferior point and were unable to substantiate it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    106. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass murderer as in a single person killing a dozen peoples in order to die famous and get his 15 mins of glory on TV. Not mass murder like a bronze age warlord killing men and raping women across the region e.g.: The prophet Muhammad. Use context idiot.

      The kind of mass murder we are discussing here is recent history. Which is a good thing because it narrow down our culprit search to the few things that have changed in the last 100 years. For example; the media, anti-depressant or the deconstruction of society are good place to start investigate. Weapon on the other hand are not, they where present and carried by most since human first used stone tools.

      Try to reason instead of giving in to irrational fear for a change.

    107. Re:Safety by quenda · · Score: 1

      can't even pick you up from the school parking lot in your family car if he's got a pistol in it.

      Well thats a bit silly. I expect most people would ignore that rule. Its not dishonest. And that term "law-abiding" - its a funny one. Not something I hear except from very conservative Americans. Why it should be so politically loaded, I don't know. We, like you, have lots of dumb laws on the books that are dealt with by being universally ignored. Nobody here feels bad about breaking a law that is never enforced. So to be "law-abiding" might be considered unintelligent and inflexible.

    108. Re: Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If any blacks want to flee that crap, I will happily welcome them with open arms.

      Blacks don't want to flee that crap. That would be too white, uncle tom, or what ever. Look what happen to any black denouncing the nigger culture. They are ostracised to irrelevance.

      Also, be careful of who you welcome with open arms. They often flee the consequences, not the self destructing culture. You might end up importing evil instead. A good example of that are the refugee crisis, they flee to Europe but not all reject Islam which is the cause of their trouble and often disrespect the local European culture that made it such a desirable place to seek asylum in the first place. Sometime good intention only spread evil more.

    109. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same could be directed back at you...

      You are aware it has, right? To often tedious degrees.

      Some of the "progressive" ideas being tossed around these days are just stupid, but you can't see it because they are "new and different".

      Some of those "progressive" ideas being tossed around are distorted caricatures from "conservatives", but most of them can't see it because of them own biases as they believe the world was once a better place, they just have to go back to it. Somehow. Someway.

      Some of the new stuff is good. Equal rights, respect for all humans, these are good things.

      How kind of you to admit that, but these may be older than you think. Or perhaps the excuses for inequality are newer. They may seem to be the old way, but they actually had newer origins, or at least, justifications than most realize.

      But that doesn't mean all that is new is good.

      A platitude of no particular value, you might as well say that all that is old is not good for the same merit to it.

      We have a whole generation of kids growing up with no respect for authority.

      Sadly you have failed to assert why that's a bad thing. And it's not a new complaint. It's an old, old one. People in authority have been making that complaint for centuries, from Pharaohs to Caesars to Emperors of China.

      This has nothing to do with whatever you think is "progressive" but is a much older one, and while you may think having "no respect for authority" is a useful expression, it's really not particular helpful. It's not about "no respect" in most cases, the few exceptions are hardly meaningful contributors and more often just strawmen anyway.

      I can articulate the problems with respecting authority. It often leads to a failure to question, to challenge, to resist when wrong is being done, because, well, somebody in authority said so, so let's not speak out.

      That's the peril in your naive expression. I'm sure you mean well, I'm sure you are thinking that you have the right idea.

      But a "respect for authority" is rather scary in some other aspects. Perhaps spending a little more time doing that would be useful, and you should step away from the "no respect for authority" statement you made, to see the value in having some disrespect for authority.

      Sometimes the only way to do right is to reject whatever authority might exist.

      And yes, there are purported "progressive" authorities who should have not been respected too, just in case you're wondering.

      The most dangerous thing besides thinking you know something yourself? Thinking somebody else knows something.

    110. Re:Safety by rhazz · · Score: 1

      I love that at least two of the incidents linked on that page are examples of an argument escalating to shooting, which is the most obvious counter-argument to everybody toting guns around. I completely agree that everybody being armed would likely stop mass shootings, and this would probably save about 100 people every year who would otherwise have been mowed down by some psychotic. On the other hand, everyone having a gun on their person at all times would likely lead to a massive surge in gun-related deaths just from people acting irrationally for a few seconds in the heat of the moment.

    111. Re:Safety by minogully · · Score: 1

      It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool.

      Though I agree that you are technically correct, I don't think that addressing the actual cause of the problem is realistic.

      Take the following analogy:
      You could say that bike thefts are a direct result of the choice of the thief not because some bikes are poorly locked or aren't locked at all, and you would be absolutely correct. But this does not imply that we should ignore the very real solution of making it harder for a bike thief to steal a bike by using a good bike lock.

      Similarly, there is a very real solution of locking down the most convenient mass murder tool to make it much harder for the murderer to commit their crime. Does this solve the root cause? No. Is it effective? Well, look at the track record of any other country with a similar culture but restricted access to guns. (Canada, for example is inundated by American television so our cultures are about as different as the differences found between two states).

      Sure the root cause would still exist. But when a person attempts a mass murder with a knife because that's all they can get their hands on, the death toll will be much lower, if any at all. If a person attempts a mass murder with a home made bomb, they might just blow themselves up trying to make the thing before getting a chance to use it on anyone. And let's be honest, there's a certain level of knowledge that a person would need to get even that far. Basically, there is no tool that is as good for the job as a gun is for murdering.

      And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.

      And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse, nothing substantial is being done about the choice of tools being used by many.

      There FTFY

    112. Re: Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can attest to this as well, and being in a reserve artillery unit, we regularly fired more powerful weaponry than you can legally possess. Mortars, grenades, high explosives, 105mm and 155mm howitzers, not to mention the dangers of driving military vehicles around open fields.

      Worst injury I saw was electrical burns when someone was dared to pee on the ground wire of a jenny.

    113. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most recent shooting wasn't in a gun free zone. But whatever lies you can form for excuses that help you sleep at night with all that innocent blood on your hands...

    114. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      up to the latter half of the 20th century. Interestingly, that's when the child-rearing fads started "protecting them" from information about weapons.

      Yup, all the old people complaining now are the ones who started the problem with how they raised their children. The fault always lies with the previous generation, but the blame always lands on the next.

    115. Re:Safety by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Hey, check this out. 50 dead, 50 wounded.

      Tool of choice: Knives.

      We Must Ban All Knives!

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    116. Re:Safety by minogully · · Score: 1

      One example hardly proves anything, as you are well aware.

      Now, if you were to find a case study of a similar country to the States that has guns allowed and knives banned and also has a much lower incidence of mass murder, I'd be on your side with banning knives. But at this point there's no evidence suggesting that knives are typically an effective tool for mass killings.

      There IS, however, evidence showing that guns are an effective tool and there are examples of other countries with similar cultures who limit their accessibility that have many fewer mass killings.

    117. Re:Safety by jcr · · Score: 1

      You sad little man.

      I'm sad that idiots like you exist.

      The long and short of it is, when shit happens, it's better to be prepared than unprepared. Colin Ferguson was able to reload twice before people figured out that he wasn't going to stop and rushed him. One responsible person with a gun could have stopped him immediately. Anders Brevik killed 69 people, all disarmed and helpless.

      I truly hope you never have to face that situation, but if you do, I hope that someone who isn't as fucking irresponsible as you are is on hand to save your smug, stupid ass.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    118. Re:Safety by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      That Washington post stories is a series of anecdotes. Anyone could just as easily list the hundreds of shootings that were not prevented by armed civilians, or even made worse.

      I'm not saying your wrong, just that link proves nothing.

      And any perceived benefit of arming more civilians has to be weighted against the known statistics about increased suicide rates, accidental kid/home shootings, etc..

    119. Re:Safety by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      So then you agree that the no gun zone is stupid and should be ignored. Or should it only be ignored if you feel you are in the right? Like the dad in his car. Or should I ignore it when I feel I'm right? Like when I have a concealed carry permit, and I'm there for parent teacher conferences?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    120. Re:Safety by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, you found 8 examples in the last 17 years of it happening and nearly all of them have "it's unclear if he would have killed more people if they'd not shot him".

      If a civilian stops a mass shooting using a firearm then it is not a mass shooting and if a citizen does not, then they failed to stop a mass shooting. So there is no way that a civilian can ever stop a mass shooting.

  7. Why? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    Of all the different groups of people to direct your misguided anger at, why target defenseless school or college kids? I would have been expecting a higher value target, such as corrupt politicians.

    The only reason I can think of is this is the easymode way to be remembered in the history books.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As some stories have suggested its a way to get famous. Supposedly 29% of teens expect to be famous.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > why target defenseless school or college kids?

      You answered your own question with the word defenseless.

    3. Re:Why? by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      I will give this one to you for free. Ever heard of the term 'punk'?? Not like the 'punk' Clint Eastwood is referring to, but the 'punk' like skateboard punk. When you have a bad attitude and you hang out in the alleys and ditches and whatnot, you get a mentality against little fucks who have it made, so to speak. Now it has been a looong time since I may or may not have hung out with those types of n'er do wells, but we, err, they liked to break stuff and steal stuff and some of them may have beat up a few 'preps'. We now have the internet and encryption and ALL kinds of hidden groups into what ever you wanna be into .....legal or not. I'm sure there are a group of little fucks who think doing this type of thing is 'cool'. Mr. teacherman told me it was 'evolution' :/

    4. Re: Why? by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Informative

      By promoting that teachers should be armed to protect the children? Employment wise, it was wise of you to post AC. Hopefully, you don't write code with that kind of logic.

    5. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But either way it is a win for the NRA. They love to see children die because it is so profitable for them. They make money coming and going.

      No, you've got it backwards. It's the gun control lobby and the lefty nanny state types that love to see children die. Because that's just the sort of thing they leverage in order to get more power over you. "Never waste a good crists," remember? The control freaks LOVE this sort of thing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Why? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      1. There are a lot of people there
      2. You get on the news and the President mentions what you did
      3. Everyone went to school. It's a familiar place. Shooters probably don't have happy memories of school.
      4. Kids don't know how to fight back. Most of the staff are women. It's a gun free zone. If you do it there, you have the maximum relative power over everyone else.
      5. When something bad happens at a school, they go on lockdown and all your victims are stuck in the building. When someone shoots up a mall, everyone runs and soon the place is empty of victims and the only people left are threats to you.
      6. Politics reigns. There's a good chance the incident will be blamed on someone/something besides the shooter.
      7. It worked for the last school shooters, and the ones before that. Shooters are learning. The people who are supposed to protect the schools aren't.
      8. Why not? (Seriously. This is a challenge. Come up with a good answer that can't be countered with the grievance mixed with nihilism that US culture has become.)

      No other target is so soft or so well known to the shooters. Maybe someone should come up with a realistic security plan someday? You know, after the politicians get done playing it up for political advantage and fundraising.

    7. Re:Why? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      8. Why not?

      Just seems too effortless and easy in my opinion. No skill required, almost anybody could do it, not impressive whatsoever.

      I would like to think that if I were to completely snap that I would go after somebody who has done some seriously bad shit, not a bunch of defenseless stupid school bullies and randoms. Then again, I have no idea what it's like so my speculation is worthless.

    8. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh please stop being a sheep and think for yourself, both of the extreme sides (which is what you are referring to, again stop and think buddy) are wrong. More guns isn't the magical answer, no guns isn't the magical answer. Get your head out of the comic book fantasy reality where evil and good are black and white and every issue has a single answer and being to engage your mind to consider the complexity of any issue. YOU ARE THE REAL PROBLEM OF THIS WORLD.

    9. Re: Why? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Because the "defenseless" bullies have been humiliating you and attacking you for the past 5 years whereas politicians are just a bunch of boring old men.

    10. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Right, the Left is the problem.

      We have murder rates and mass shootings far beyond that of any other Western nation. The Left (and many moderates to give due credit) say "maybe we should do more to reign back these problems" and suggest a variety of possible solutions. Meanwhile the NRA backing portion of the Right suggests flooding even more and more powerfull guns onto the market in the hopes that even more guns will reverse the trend of gun violence in this country.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    11. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they were right. If we pick on you losers there's a reason.

    12. Re: Why? by vivian · · Score: 1

      Boo hoo - the bullys are being mean to me.
      I grew up with a lot of bullying and it sucked - but I never thought it'd be a great idea to go all stabby stabby (no guns here in Aus) on someone to deal with it. I learnt the best weapon was to not give a shit about what they thought or the names they called me. Some one calls you some name - haha - is that really the best you can do? Come on you have to have a better imagination than that... They usually used the same old tired nickname I got in grade 1 for supposedly having an egg shaped head - not much you can do about that. After a while, they look pretty stupid carrying on and making a big deal about calling you names you don't care about. I didn't respect them or seek their approval as peers, so why would it bother me what they call me? Admittedly it did take until about grade 8 (middle school in the US?) before I came to this enlightened outlook.

      As for physical attacks - I never really had to deal with any - but then I went to a school where that'd be a pretty quick suspension or expulsion if it came to blows. Perhaps that's not the case elsewhere.

    13. Re:Why? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      2. You get on the news and the President mentions what you did

      This is a big, big part of it. These guys are small men in the making who've realized they'll never be the kind of people who make the papers for something good. And they desperately want to force everyone to hear their primal scream. Just like suicide clusters, the more it happens the more unbalanced people think about it and start to think it might be a good idea. It's a price we pay for a free press. I'd bet any amount of money if these things just weren't reported they wouldn't happen nearly as often.

    14. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, you privileged cunt. I have PTSD with severe social anxiety from being bullied at school. Yes in Australia. That's real damage which will last for a lifetime. If I had killed some of those bullies it would have been self-defense.

    15. Re:Why? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Or when the kids turn on the TV or their video games, violence is glorified as a way of solving whatever "problems" the little bastards think they have.

    16. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The Left (and many moderates to give due credit) say "maybe we should do more to reign back these problems" and suggest a variety of possible solutions."

      No, actually, they don't.
      The changes they are proposing would, in no way, prevent the issues we are facing as a Nation. All they are proposing is violating the Rights of law-abiding citizens and placing them in a position where they cannot defend themselves and their loved ones, cannot enjoy the traditions and past-times they grew up with, and, for some, reduce their ability to provide food for their families.

      When drunk driving became such a problem in this Country, groups were formed to try to educate the public on the dangers of driving under the influence. Other groups were formed to help people overcome addictions. Penalties for driving under the influence were increased, and new penalties/laws were created to try to address the problem.
      But they did not try to ban cars. they did, briefly, try to ban alcohol, and we all know what a waste of time and money THAT turned out to be.

      If you want to reduce "gun violence", start by addressing the causes that make people pick up a gun and do violence with it. Give the students who have been abused by their peers (you know; bullying) somewhere they can go to get the help they need to deal with the emotional turmoil caused by that abuse. increase the penalties for bullying. Have teachers that actually CARE about the students they are supposed to be taking care of.
      Design programs to help kids get out of the gang life. Give them something to do instead of "hanging out" all the time.
      And, of course, the number one cause of "gun violence" (how can it be violence if perpetrated on yourself I'll never know), reinstate and fund the various suicide help organizations! When someone feels so bad they are willing to take their own life they need help. Give them a place where they can get that help without feeling like they are being persecuted!

      But stomping on the Rights of law-abiding citizens is SO much easier. It makes you feel good, without actually accomplishing anything except further dividing this Country.
      Grow up, become a responsible adult, and start coming up with REAL workable solutions, not these knee-jerk stupid "ideas", and then we can talk.

    17. Re: Why? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "the trend of gun violence in this country."

      The only "trend" in this country is the trend of media sensationalism, mass marketing of fear and public ignorance. The truth is that firearms-related homicide is on a twenty year downward trend. Thanks to the media however, you and millions of others live in a false reality where things are getting worse.

      http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

    18. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      We have murder rates and mass shootings far beyond that of any other Western nation.

      And if you were to remove from those stats the four municipalities in the US that have the most gang-related crime, the US murder rate would be fourth from the BOTTOM of the stats pile. And the four municipalities where all of that mayhem takes place? Some of the tightest gun control laws in the country, and the places are run by Democrats and have been for decades. Not to trouble you with facts or anything.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a moment. If I said the US had more heart attacks than any other Western nation, we would talk about access to unhealthy food. We would also talk about how poverty influences food choice. How poverty influences food preparation. How we don't do health care like any Western nation. How our culture of diet is different than other Western nations. All sorts of great progressive talking points. You talk about gun violence and the progressives become single minded idiots. They will refuse to talk data. They will fight tooth and nail PROGRESSIVE alternative solutions to focus on taking away firearm access.

    20. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man the fuck up. The irony of you calling them a cunt is thick. You have PTSD and social anxiety because you're a bitch not because you were bullied. You'd have been a bitch regardless and that is why you were bullied.

    21. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the Gun Control Lobby understands, unlike you, that letting a fraction of a percentage of gun owners dictate policy / punishment for everyone else is ridiculous. If we applied your logic to everything else, no one would be allowed to drive, eat or drink anything except approved foods, watch television, movies or read anything without pre-screened approval, etc. etc.

      Is it tragic that people continue to lose their lives ? Absolutely. However, blaming the tool ( in this case the gun ) as the reason for all the carnage ranks pretty high on the list of " Dumbest ideas / theories in history. "

      This cartoon sums things up pretty nicely about just how stupid it sounds when folks blame the gun:

      http://images.dailykos.com/images/126558/large/gun-control-cartoon-club-knife.jpg?1422574552

    22. Re: Why? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      I'm not making a comment on yours but simply adding all "gun crime" statistics include suicide, which makes up better than 50% of all gun deaths. This makes all gun crime statistics essentially worthless.

    23. Re: Why? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Strangely if you scale US demographics so that they are inline with european demographics, you get levels of violence that are slightly higher than european rates of violence instead of notably larger.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    24. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u r a disgrace to ur country

    25. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just allowing teachers and staff to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, if they want to?

    26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a number of commentators who have taken to not using the names of mass killers after the first day of reporting. I'd really like to see this become a wider trend.

    27. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So if we cherry pick our data then we're awesome? That's not very insitefull.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    28. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      How about addressing the root problem of our excessive gun violence, there's too many guns!

      People are going to do violent things. Other Western nations dohave very comparible violent crime rates. We have such a higher homicide rate because we are literally awash in guns. When criminal elements or the mentally unstable types commit violent acts (which happens everywhere) they are so much more likely to do it with a gun here because guns are everywhere in this country. This then ends with far more death then you would see otherwise because firearms are so effective at what they do. Kill people.

      As for "violating the rights" of US citizens, we restrict ownership on all sorts of dangerous items. Is the US government oppressing us because we cant legally own an AA gun? It's a form of arms isnt it?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    29. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of the downward trend of violent crime happening in the West, thankyou very much. That does nothing to change the fact that we have a homicide rate 4 times that of any other Western nation. Some third world countries have better homicide rates then us.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    30. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So suicide is alright then?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    31. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Is that true of homicide rates? Violent crime rates are very comparible between the US and the rest of the West. Homicide rates on the other hand are through the roof because it's so much easier to kill some one with a gun.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    32. Re:Why? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Of all the different groups of people to direct your misguided anger at, why target defenseless school or college kids? I would have been expecting a higher value target, such as corrupt politicians.

      Yeah, it's almost like crazy people were irrational.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    33. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Including information from striking outliers IS a way of cherry picking, in order to distort the big picture. Just like including suicides and calling it "gun violence." Pointing out that a very small cross section of the country - geographically and demographically - is responsible for a huge portion of what's reported as if it were nation-wide... that's NOT cherry picking. It's called context.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    34. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So talking about guns when we're talking about gun violence is strictly forbidden?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    35. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You cant cut out some of our largest population centers and leave other countries ones in and not call that cherry picking. ALL countries have more violent regions then others.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    36. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You cant cut out some of our largest population centers and leave other countries ones in and not call that cherry picking. ALL countries have more violent regions then others.

      You're still not getting it. The point is that there are places in the country that are far, far more violent than others. But gun ownership is high across the entire country (and very high in some places) ... where that level of violence simply doesn't occur. Do I need to explain it in more detail? It's not the guns, or the pattern would be the same everywhere there are guns. It's the local cultures. Further, the places where it's the worst are the places that have the tightest restrictions on guns. Chicago is a great example.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    37. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, you're not getting it. There are places in EVERY country that are "far far more violent". Generally speaking they are called "major urban areas". Not only is a major urban area not a statistical outlier virtually by deffinition but AGAIN, you can't cut data out of one country's statistics and not others when comparing countries. It's literally the very deffinition of the phrase "cherry picking".

      Also, to address your side issue, regional gun laws (particularly in the case of individual cities) in the US are worthless.The guns just come in from outside the region.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    38. Re:Why? by G-forze · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but they should emphasise what a loser and a coward the shooter was, and thus make anyone hoping to make the news in a similar fashion think twice about it. "Do I really want to be called pathetic and spineless on national television?"

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    39. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's a straw man argument. When talking about gun violence, progressives do talk about data, for example, they show statistics from nations with gun control verses the USA. They do continue to talk about how poverty and education affects behaviour, but because it's a more generic argument and not pushing the "take away the guns" button you only focus on the part of the discussion that is about gun control itself.

    40. Re: Why? by vivian · · Score: 0

      Hey AC, see this big tear in my eye? that's me being all broke up about what some AC thinks. Not. Why don't you use your crappy experiences in school to try and improve others lives instead of trying to tear others down? Leave that crappy past and the losers that were part of it behind you, and build your life based on positive future goals instead of dwelling on a past you can't change.

    41. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      There are places in EVERY country that are "far far more violent". Generally speaking they are called "major urban areas".

      That's exactly the point you're missing. Chicago (for example) is far, far more violent than most every other urban area in the US. And certain vastly more violent than, say, Geneva, Switzerland. Do you really think that places like Seattle, or Houston, or Annapolis, or Des Moines, or San Francisco, or Miami even hold a candle to the sort of gang-related thuggery that's spiking in Chicago and Baltimore? Those ARE outliers, and distort the national numbers significantly. If the guns caused the crime (are you really that wrong-headed) then why aren't the guns causing crime everywhere else where there are MORE OF THEM, and they are EASIER TO GET AND OWN? Hint: because guns don't cause shootings any more than knives cause stabbings or spoons make you fat. If the presence or availability of guns drove crime, we wouldn't see places like Chicago as exceptions.

      I mentioned Miami, above. Not cirme-free, to be sure. But they USED to be Chicago, and had a real problem with street-level criminal violence. They finally passed a concealed carry law and made it easier for people to own guns. That type of violent crime dropped immediately and precipitously and has been down ever since. Murders in general across the board nation-wide are at their lowest level since the 1950's, and murders using guns have - despite the ever-growing number of firearms privately owned - been going steadily down, nation-wide, for decades. That further exposes the exceptional local culture problems in places like Chicago and Baltimore. Do you really think that Baltimore's recent spike in street killings is tied in any way to a change in the availability of guns over the last year? Nothing has changed there except local human behavior. If gun availability caused it, why hasn't the exact same thing happened in all of the surrounding communities? Be specific.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    42. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How about addressing the root problem of our excessive gun violence, there's too many guns!

      Then why is there more violence in the places where gun laws are the most restrictive, and LESS violence in places where guns are readily available and very commonly owned?

      When criminal elements or the mentally unstable types commit violent acts (which happens everywhere) they are so much more likely to do it with a gun here because guns are everywhere in this country.

      Except reality doesn't agree with your assertion. Yes, guns are (more or less) everywhere. But violence crime (a la Chicago or Baltimore) is NOT everywhere. In fact it's easier to get guns outside of those places. And those places also have much higher rates of beatings, stabbings, etc. If you remove the four municipalities with the highest overall crime rates from the national statistics, the rate of murders for the country drops nearly to the bottom of the modern world's stats. Why? Because we have a few cities with major localized cultural problems and an inexplicable tolerance for persistent criminal populations. Take those out of the equation and there's almost nothing to talk bout here.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    43. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      That does nothing to change the fact that we have a homicide rate 4 times that of any other Western nation.

      In real terms, no we don't. We have three or four specific cities with highly localized cultural problems and an inexplicable political tolerance for persistent criminal activity that account for the lion's share of those numbers. If you remove places like Chicago and Baltimore from the numbers, the US drops to almost the bottom of the "Western nation" murder rate list. Talking in nation-wide generalities about what is essentially a severe cultural problem in a handful of neighborhoods is completely disingenuous.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    44. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Homicide rates on the other hand are through the roof because it's so much easier to kill some one with a gun.

      Except the FBI reports that the number of people killed with beatings by bats, pipes, and bare hands wildly eclipses the murders committed by any sort of rifle, shotgun, or other "long gun" (including things that look like military assault rifles). And yet every time the media talks about such things, they flash up pictures of scary looking rifles with black plastic parts on them, and focus on politicians who call for "assault weapon" bans. We've had multiple murders in our area just in the last couple of weeks. Stabbings, all of them.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    45. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why is there more violence in the places where gun laws are the most restrictive, and LESS violence in places where guns are readily available and very commonly owned?

      You're comparing two different things there, you first have to establish that the places where gun laws are most restrictive, do in fact, have fewer guns, as well as that guns are not readily available. In other words, the effectiveness of those laws in reducing the presence of firearms.

      Except reality doesn't agree with your assertion.

      You didn't even reply to the assertion, which was that it was more likely to be with guns due to the guns being everywhere. To counter that, you have to establish that the use of firearms is not more prevalent in those instances of violence, since you have already agreed with the premise that guns are everywhere. Arguing that the violence isn't everywhere doesn't actually rebut that.

    46. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're comparing two different things there, you first have to establish that the places where gun laws are most restrictive, do in fact, have fewer guns

      No, we're establishing the fact that criminals really don't care about gun laws, and the problem is crime, not guns. In those areas with the high murder rates, reducing the overall level of crime down to what it is elsewhere (where guns are plenty available, but aren't being used in as many crimes ... because there AREN'T AS MANY CRIMES) solves the problem. The problem being crime, not the tools that criminals use (because as mentioned, they're also very happy to slit your throat or beat you to death ... the number of stabbings, for example, are also very high in the same places where the number of shootings are high).

      You didn't even reply to the assertion, which was that it was more likely to be with guns due to the guns being everywhere.

      That one, again, doesn't rally merit a response. Guns are available across the US. But criminal use of them is highly localized, statistically. It's as simple as the conduct of the people in those locations, period.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    47. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you check, the people involved in campaigns against gun violence consider the "assault weapons" to be only part of the issue, and many of them, such as the Brady campaign or Everytown, generally support background checks as a whole, rather than particular gun bans. And some think the way those "assault weapons" bans are written is a joke, a way to pander to the arms industry by letting them wriggle around regulation/

      And if you want groups that seek to reduce violence overall, they also exist, from gang and domestic violence, to any number of others.

    48. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we're establishing the fact that criminals really don't care about gun laws, and the problem is crime, not guns.

      To establish that fact, you'd have to engage in a psychological examination of the criminals. I don't see you actually making the effort to do that myself, and if so, then you'll also want to talk about the 10-20-Life campaigns, or the other anti-crime initiatives. Quite a bit of work, really.

      But even if you did establish the criminals don't care about the gun laws, that's not the whole point of them anyway, what you have to prove is that the laws were effective at reducing the supply of guns but had no impact upon the criminals, or that the criminal's lack of concern was a driving factor in their ability to acquire guns.

      That the gun laws are, by your own words, not eliminating guns, across the whole country, means you cannot assume that the local gun laws if effectively enforced, would have no impact.

      In those areas with the high murder rates, reducing the overall level of crime down to what it is elsewhere (where guns are plenty available, but aren't being used in as many crimes ... because there AREN'T AS MANY CRIMES) solves the problem.

      This sentence, your basically saying solving the problem solves the problem.

      Did you leave something out? Even your later sentence doesn't contribute much in the way of information to ascertain a real meaning to it.

      The problem being crime, not the tools that criminals use (because as mentioned, they're also very happy to slit your throat or beat you to death ... the number of stabbings, for example, are also very high in the same places where the number of shootings are high).

      And yet that is a contention that hasn't been proven, actually.

      And unfortunately, with Congress failing to fund any studies on the impact of gun violence, or even to effectively collect nation-wide data on crime (the UCR is woefully inadequate, it doesn't even have complete participation), the available data is rather limited. It's like trying to treat a disease when you can't even use a thermometer.

      That one, again, doesn't rally merit a response.

      You should respond to what people say, rather than what you think they are saying.

      A response with a wrong interpretation merely serves to sow confusion and misunderstanding, and then effort has to be spent to correct it.

      Guns are available across the US. But criminal use of them is highly localized, statistically. It's as simple as the conduct of the people in those locations, period.

      Yes, you agree guns are available across the US. That's something you have asserted an agreement with already. That's why you can't make any assertions about local gun laws, as the effect of local gun laws on the availability of guns has not been demonstrated.

      First you have to reduce the supply of guns, then you can see what impact it has on the crime levels.

      And again, you have not shown that because criminals simply don't care, is why the local gun laws are ineffective.

    49. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Homicides, violent crime, and gun violence all happen disproportionally in major urban areas. For the life of me i dont understand how you think cutting out four of them is cutting out outliers (and not even adjusting other country's data) when major cities are exactly where these sorts of problems happen. So other countries major urban areas dont have hyper violent cities like we do? The whole point of a country by country comparison of homicide rates is to see that. If you cut out the worst of the urban areas in one and only one country then the statistic is worthless.

      Cutting out outliers would be cutting out a town of 20 people where 10 people were murdered in a year. Half the population of that town was killed! That is an outlier. Cutting out 4 of Americas largest urban areas out of a statistic and then claiming the resulting statistic relevent to anything is rediculous.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    50. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Except the FBI reports that the number of people killed with beatings by bats, pipes, and bare hands wildly eclipses the murders committed by any sort of rifle, shotgun, or other "long gun" (including things that look like military assault rifles)."

      I'm going to have to ask you to site your source as when I did a quick search on US gun homicides i came across this on a wikipedia page on the topic

      "In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm."

      "We've had multiple murders in our area just in the last couple of weeks. Stabbings, all of them."

      Anecdotal data. Irrelevant.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    51. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're not understanding the difference between long guns and pistols. Which is why I mentioned rifles, and specifically talked about the constantly pointless gun control focus on "assault weapons" (which aren't actually assault rifles, but look scary to people who don't understand that replacing wood with plastic doesn't change the way a semi-auto gun works).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    52. Re: Why? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      To establish that fact, you'd have to engage in a psychological examination of the criminals.

      No, you would not. Because the evidence is simple. The vast majority of the types of murders we're talking about are conducted by people illegally owning guns, most of which are stolen or otherwise illegally in possession of the person doing the deed. If criminals cared about illegally possessing guns, that simple fact wouldn't be true. There's no need for hand-wringing psychoanalysis ... just open your eyes.

      This sentence, your basically saying solving the problem solves the problem.

      No, I'm saying that solving the crime problem happens to solve the CRIME WITH GUNS problem. But the gun control think (or pretend to) that guns CAUSE the crime. I'm pointing out that they're being completely disingenuous, because they know that the problem is crime, not guns. They don't want to confront the human behavior part, because that means being judgmental about other people (and statistically, being judgmental especially about poor people and minorities) that are involved in most of that crime. Because that's the third rail of political correctness, they lazily pretend that controlling the guns that non-criminals might purchase will make crime go away so they don't have to confront the real problem: local culture.

      And yet that is a contention that hasn't been proven, actually.

      That's why you can't make any assertions about local gun laws, as the effect of local gun laws on the availability of guns has not been demonstrated.

      It doesn't NEED to be. Unless you're suggesting that gun control laws make guns MORE available in the areas where they are used frequently in crimes. Is that really your contention? Otherwise guns are uniformly available across the country, but at least somewhat less so in areas like Chicago because of the draconian laws (which is why people who wanted to own them for self defense in their homes there had to take the matter to court).

      First you have to reduce the supply of guns, then you can see what impact it has on the crime levels.

      Why? We already see that crime level are much, much lower in most areas where guns are readily available. Guns are harder to legally purchase in Chicago, where they have a huge crime problem. Guns are readily available in other cities, where they do not have that problem. What if Chicago's laws have NO impact on gun ownership levels. So what? Let's say it is has zero effect, and that guns are just as available there as the are in, say, San Diego or Hartford. So what? The differential in crime is enormous. If you're really going to pretend that can't grasp that, then there's little point in continuing the conversation, because you're not fooling anybody.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    53. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, I completely understand what a long gun is versus a handgun. I, however, am talking about gun violence, not "long gun violence".

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    54. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you would not. Because the evidence is simple. The vast majority of the types of murders we're talking about are conducted by people illegally owning guns, most of which are stolen or otherwise illegally in possession of the person doing the deed. If criminals cared about illegally possessing guns, that simple fact wouldn't be true. There's no need for hand-wringing psychoanalysis ... just open your eyes.

      From my perspective, you're the one closing your eyes, and declaring you have the answer right in front of you, because it's so simple, anyone can see it.

      Take the time to prove it, to examine it, and see, rather than so baldly claim you already have the answer, so there's no need to look.

      Because ultimately, if we're going the simple route you suggest, we might as well say that no punishment deters crime, since it is evident criminals do them anyway. As I said, it's not gun control laws you have to concern yourself with, you have to look at the 3-strikes system and any number of anti-crime activities. Plenty of such actions going on.

      Good luck with that work. Or stick to your insistence that you have the simple and correct answer, there is no other possibility.

      This sentence, your basically saying solving the problem solves the problem.

      No, I'm saying that solving the crime problem happens to solve the CRIME WITH GUNS problem.

      Ok, I think you could have expressed yourself better, but then you're back to worrying about things like the already mentioned 3 strikes and other anti-crime initiatives.

      Even if we accept that your contention that they don't care is eventually proven, you'll still want to look into why they don't care. Why they feel the way they do.

      Go ahead, open your eyes and start looking. Or you can just declare you hate all that psycho-analysis and its hand-wringing.

      No, when properly done, it lets you put your hands to work once you know where you can go with it.

      But the gun control think (or pretend to) that guns CAUSE the crime.

      Think that guns cause crime?

      No, not as a whole they don't. In my experience, people who want gun control think that guns add an element to acts of violence that should be deterred.

      I'm pointing out that they're being completely disingenuous, because they know that the problem is crime, not guns.

      As I said to somebody else today, I think you should work at understanding people better. You're ascribing a mentality that is not present, at least among the more thoughtful persons.. There may be some persons who are poor at articulating their ideas or those who naively believe as you describe, however, these persons do not represent the informed opinion, but a mere segment among them that you should not overly concern yourself with. (And as a segment, they can be found across the spectrum, in case you're wondering.) I would suggest you open your ears and start listening a bit more to what more reasoned and nuanced people are actually saying.

      They don't want to confront the human behavior part, because that means being judgmental about other people (and statistically, being judgmental especially about poor people and minorities) that are involved in most of that crime. Because that's the third rail of political correctness, they lazily pretend that controlling the guns that non-criminals might purchase will make crime go away so they don't have to confront the real problem: local culture.

      I think you're a person who has fallen into the trap of blaming "political correctness" for a problem, but you're not seeing that plenty of effort is made on all sides to shape people's behavior, and educate them, of all kinds. This, however, has to be combined with the recognition that ascribing an attitude or mindset to a given culture is fraught with peril. History is filled with examples where

    55. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My contention is that you need to establish that gun control laws actually make a meaningful reduction in the availability of guns.

      Ooh, let me clarify this a bit though.

      In particular, I was talking about local gun control laws, as in this country, a city's laws can have little effective impact in reduction of guns in a given place.

      This if why we are to look at the gun control laws in general, we have to consider the reasons for their ineffectiveness. It may be quite complicated.

      I think that's clear enough from reading the whole post, but on reflection, I am troubled by that isolated sentence being misinterpreted. I should have looked at it better.

    56. Re: Why? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Severe cultural problem" Like a hang up on guns?

      How do you not see that "three of four major cities" having a problem does not mean we have a national problem? We're literally talking about major portions of our population. When you judge a city's murder rate do you only judge the parts that are doing well or do you judge the whole city? When we measure civilian casualities in Iraq do we only measure the south east where the IS has minimal presence? Why not? Those are the "normal" zones. No, we measure the whole country because otherwise the data would only fulfill wishfull delusion

      All you want to do is cut major pieces of data out so the data magically becomes what you so want it to be. Four major urban areas with gun violence so severe they sku our national statistics is a major NATIONAL problem. How do you now see that?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    57. Re: Why? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      We have murder rates and mass shootings far beyond that of any other Western nation.

      And if you were to remove from those stats the four municipalities in the US that have the most gang-related crime, the US murder rate would be fourth from the BOTTOM of the stats pile. And the four municipalities where all of that mayhem takes place? Some of the tightest gun control laws in the country, and the places are run by Democrats and have been for decades. Not to trouble you with facts or anything.

      Fourth from the bottom of what pile? And who is telling you this?
      The average US murder rate (4.7/10000) is higher than that of any country in Europe except Greenland, Russia, and a couple of the other former USSR states (and higher than most of the former USSR states). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's higher than most Asian countries and almost all of Oceania. It does look better than most of the African countries, and most of the Latin/South American countries. Of course, the original poster did say "Western" nations, so if you call Colombia a Western nation and Australia not.....
      But you say the overall murder rate is hiding the details; that most of the murders are in 4 big cities. OK, let's break it down by state; you can leave out any state that might have one of those cities; unnamed but I assume you might know who they are. (spoiler alert) Here are the states with murder rates higher than the US average:
      Louisiana 10.8
      Alabama 7.2
      Mississippi 6.5
      Maryland 6.4
      Michigan 6.4
      South Carolina 6.2
      Missouri 6.1
      New Mexico 6.0
      Nevada 5.8
      Georgia 5.6
      Illinois 5.5
      Arizona 5.4
      Arkansas 5.4
      Indiana 5.4
      Oklahoma 5.1
      Florida 5.0
      Tennessee 5.0
      North Carolina 4.8
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate
      Firstly, if they are higher than the US average rate, then they are going to do worse by comparison with the other countries than the US does. Second, most of these don't seem to be Democrat controlled with tight gun laws, in general.
      You also might want to check on the homicide rates per municipality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , which don't do much to bolster your statement re "the four municipalities where all of that mayhem takes place? Some of the tightest gun control laws in the country, and the places are run by Democrats and have been for decades."
      I repeat; where are you getting this stuff from? The Big Book of RightWing Facts?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  8. Looks like a success for ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looks like a success for "see something, say something."

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  9. They Were Helping People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to make a joke about how since it's Summerville High they were probably only targeting vampires, but then I doubled checked and that school is Sunnydale High. Oh well. I'll waste your time anyway.

  10. Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 to 1 this turns out to be blown waaaay out of proportion because of the Oregon shooter.

    The number of school shootings with more than one shooter is single digits, maybe even just singular - Columbine. That's because all of the school shootings were the shooters were enrolled at the school, and nearly all of the of "active shooter" cases outside of schools, are suicides. The shooter's goal is to make sure everybody knows their psychic pain before they die - like a really evil suicide note.

    A 4-way suicide pact is super rare - mostly a Jim Jones kind of thing. The chances of 4 kids going through with something like this is practically zero. Much more likely they had no weapons, their 'plans' were completely unworkable fantasy and the list of victims was just a shit list of people they were angry at. This will turn out to be healthy teenage venting and if the authorities are humane they will recognize that and back-off, if they are publicity hounds they will prosecute these poor guys and ruin their lives.

    1. Re:Media Hype by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      I came in assuming this as well, but it looks like they confessed.

      "The investigation has so far been based on interviews with the suspects, during which they gave a detailed confession, Sheriff Mele said."

    2. Re:Media Hype by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I came in assuming this as well, but it looks like they confessed.

      "The investigation has so far been based on interviews with the suspects, during which they gave a detailed confession, Sheriff Mele said."

      Yeah, but why were they being interviewed by police? Because somebody overheard something and told the cops. Exactly a see/say situation.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I came in assuming this as well, but it looks like they confessed.

      Scared shitless by the cops, probably interviewed without their parents. Hell, their parents would probably be scared shitless too - they get influenced by all the media hype too. Without hearing tapes of the interrogation we really have no idea how legit it is.

      If a confession under duress is all they've got then, frankly that sounds even more like a publicity-seeking sherrif to me.

    4. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You apparently didn't bother to read any of the news on this and are compensating by pulling stupid comments from your ass.

    5. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was arrested once in school for a bomb threat I didn't make. It's easier to agree with whatever they say than stand your ground and tell them they're wrong. The pressure they put on you is massive and they use sales tricks to limit your view to only the scenarios they create, don't they? "Yes, I don't normally leave in the middle of class to take a piss." "Yes I carry around markers." "Yes one of them is black." "Yes I've used it." etc...

    6. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You apparently didn't bother to read any of the news on this and are compensating by pulling stupid comments from your ass.

      Like what exactly? That the only evidence is a confession that we haven't heard? That the parents are intimidated by the media hype and are cooperating with the cops rather than getting lawyers to protect their kids? That there are no weapons? That the cops haven't even looked at the messaging on the kids' phones?

      Yeah, I don't see anything inconsistent with over-reaction. Perhaps you could explain it. But probably not.

    7. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what exactly? That the only evidence is a confession that we haven't heard?

      Yes, that is one piece of BS.

      If a confession under duress is all they've got then...

      Two more pieces of BS. ("duress" and "all they've got")

      That the parents are intimidated by the media hype ...

      More BS. Intimidated? Really? Do you understand what that means?

      That the cops haven't even looked at the messaging on the kids' phones?

      And you know this how?

      Tuolumne County sheriff offers details into arrest of four in Summerville High shooting plot

      Mele said the plan was uncovered when students overheard the suspects talking about it at school and alerted staff Wednesday afternoon. Evidence was later found included paperwork with statements and a list of potential victims including “several students and/or staff” who would be targets at an upcoming event on campus. Three of the students were taken out of school immediately on Wednesday and as the investigation continued the fourth was taken out of school on Friday morning.

      No weapons were found, but Mele said the students were in the process of trying to obtain some to carry out the attack.

      -----

      Yeah, I don't see anything inconsistent with over-reaction. Perhaps you could explain it. But probably not.

      The explanation here is simple: you don't know what you are talking about.

    8. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the cops haven't even looked at the messaging on the kids' phones?

      And you know this how?

      From TFA.
      The police executed two search warrants and seized the suspectsâ(TM) electronic devices, he said, but have not yet analyzed their contents.
      For someone yelling his head off about not knowing what's been reported, you're doing a good job of not knowing what's been reported.

      More BS. Intimidated? Really? Do you understand what that means?

      Do you?

      The explanation here is simple: you don't know what you are talking about.

      It is interesting that the two news stories dated AFTER the story you cited don't agree with your source. Maybe when the experienced reporters saw the claim about "paperwork with statements" and figured that's waaaay too vague to take seriously.

    9. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is interesting that the two news stories dated AFTER the story you cited don't agree with your source. Maybe when the experienced reporters saw the claim about "paperwork with statements" and figured that's waaaay too vague to take seriously.

      LOL. Right, because nobody uses paper any more (where would you even get it?), and omiting details isn't "disagreement." Vague? Hardly. You're grasping at straws.

      For someone yelling his head off about not knowing what's been reported, you're doing a good job of not knowing what's been reported.

      I like it, you just set yourself up for yet another contradiction:

      FTA:

      The parents of students whose names appeared on a list of targets have not yet been notified, Sheriff Mele said.

      You skipped over the kill lists the investigators found. Why? That doesn't exactly seem "vague".

      What about the statements from the other students?

      You're pushing a bad position and to do so you're making nonsense claims.

      Hey, since names of the arrested students haven't been released, shouldn't you be claiming that this all imaginary or something?

    10. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > because nobody uses paper any more (where would you even get it?)

      Your assumption is that when they said paperwork they meant the electronic devices that they said they hadn't examined yet? Srsly?

      > You skipped over the kill lists the investigators found. Why? That doesn't exactly seem "vague".

      Yeah, it is actually pretty freakin vague. There are no details about the context for that list of names. You are so willing to fill in the blanks with the worst possible version. You are just waaaay too credulous, I'm guessing you are barely into your 20s and haven't figured out how people lie by omission yet, especially how politically motivated people like by omission. Missed all the NSA non-denials too, eh?

    11. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assumption is that when they said paperwork they meant the electronic devices that they said they hadn't examined yet? Srsly?

      No, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of ignoring the found documents. Good grief. (Do you really think paper is hard to find?)

      Yeah, it is actually pretty freakin vague. There are no details about the context for that list of names.

      You mean other than it listed students and staff to kill, when and where?

      You are so willing to fill in the blanks with the worst possible version.

      You are so willing to simply ignore any inconvenient facts, and invent others.

      I'm guessing you are barely into your 20s and haven't figured out how people lie by omission yet, especially how politically motivated people like by omission.

      On the contrary, I caught on to your game early on: omit, minimize, invent, distort, disparage. Your tactics are timeless. It is pretty unlikely you are in your 20s.

    12. Re:Media Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local kid where I live had something similar happen to him last year. He was "planning to shoot up the school". He was basically convicted by a couple of cheerleaders who didn't like him and who had a history of lying. They searched his home and everything and could find no evidence of any kind, but they expelled him anyway. They illegally questioned him as at the time he was a minor and they didn't allow him to contact his parents to be present during the questioning. Yeah, he's suing them now.

    13. Re:Media Hype by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Isn't this where the FBI steps in and offers them guns. And then in 6 months take them down and chalk up a anti-terrorist win?

  11. Re: Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia: Professional shitposters

  12. So a Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they committed the crime of thought conspiracy? Is that why they haven't been charged yet because they cannot figure out how to charge them?

    1. Re:So a Thought Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they were preparing for a real crime. The investigation probably isn't complete yet so they haven't been charged yet. Is that simple enough for you?

  13. Re: Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems like it fits perfectly here, as the chemical and munition industry is philosophically united with techno libertarians who want the freedom to develop weapons but not the responsibility of having to deal with the world they've created. The geeky fascination with war and destruction needs to change.

  14. Bullying by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And shortsightedness of youth. It's hard to see past your immediate problems. You not only see no future for yourself but you also can't see our comprehend the socio-economic causes for your misery. Only the most obvious ones are apparent to most folks, and that leaves the bullies. People love picking on nerds. Even teachers do it. We didn't stop bullies until the nerds started packing heat...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Bullying by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I remember those days (they were not too long ago) but it just seems so batshit crazy. I reserved keyloggers and remote access for fucking with bullies and guns for removing coyote scum looking to eat my pets.

    2. Re:Bullying by khasim · · Score: 1

      People love picking on nerds.

      Maybe. But if they were nerds they were pretty pathetic. I'd have expected plans on how to handle the bullies that did NOT end on the evening news with the statement "before turning the weapon on himself".

      And talking about it where other students can hear? Not smart.

    3. Re:Bullying by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's not forget that much of public education (or culture for that matter) has become a cesspool of incompetence, questionable agendas, and dehumanization. Even if kids lack the emotional maturity to name exactly what is being done to them, they are certainly aware the authority over them is lacking in mutual respect.

      Add in a surge of hormones, and you've got a wicked circumstance.

      "When inward life dries up, when feeling decreases and apathy increases, when one cannot affect or even genuinely touch another person, violence flares up as a daimonic necessity for contact, a mad drive forcing touch in the most direct way possible." -Rollo May

    4. Re:Bullying by gtall · · Score: 1

      Schools do bear some of the blame. But let's not forget the sainted American people who have no problem letting Johnny do whatever the hell he pleases until he gets caught by the police. Or the parents who are busy praising Johnny no matter what trouble he gets into because they don't want to cause self-esteem issues. Or the parents that are too busy with their own lives to bother paying attention to their sprogs. Or parents who figure it is the schools' job to raise and discipline their sprogs so they can take no responsibility themselves.

    5. Re:Bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. This isn't 1984. Critical thinking skills such as historiographical analysis are commonly taught in most western democracies these days. Most teachers go into teaching for altruistic reasons, not to raise cannon fodder.

    6. Re:Bullying by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      And shortsightedness of youth. It's hard to see past your immediate problems.

      There's no particular reason for them to see past the people actually abusing them. Take them out and people will notice. The people who trained them to be shitheels, mostly their parents, will notice. It's sad for the kids who get shot, only the parents really deserve punishment since raising decent people is their job #1.

      People love picking on nerds. Even teachers do it. We didn't stop bullies until the nerds started packing heat...

      Yep. I was horribly depressed in high school, I was I think literally the lowest scum on the totem pole. And so I was dysfunctional in class. But rather than try to find out what my problem was the teachers almost universally mocked me in class, which showed the students that they could abuse me without repercussions. I didn't even know the names of the people who picked on me, so when I would complain the administration would say "we cannot do anything". Well, that's true, you can't do anything while sitting in your plush chair in the administration offices enjoying your protected union job while kids get the shit beat out of them outside.

      On one hand, school shootings are very sad. On the other hand, if I'd had access to a gun as a kid, I might have engaged in one myself. I felt like my whole life was shit and like it would never improve. What was my motivation to care about anyone or anything? I didn't have any.

      School bullying has predictable outputs. Violence begets violence. The one time I got in a fight with just one kid (because bullies are pussies and they won't attack when they don't have backup) I blacked both his eyes and they expelled me. They didn't ever do so much as punish any of the jocks who attacked me, but I win one fight and I get kicked out.

      I am prejudiced against school administrators especially, and against teachers as well, because they are the ones who maintain the culture of abuse. Until they do whatever it takes to stop it, they are complicit in creating the environment in which abuse occurs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Bullying by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I suspect a big part of the problem is teenagers should not spend quite so much time with other teenagers. Teens certainly need some time with each other but I really think they should be spending a larger part of their day surrounded principally but adults, in a more vocational context. That isn't 30 of their peers and 1 grown up in the room, with long periods like lunch with little to no adult interaction. Put a bunch of immature people together with no one to emulate but each other and its no surprise we get really strange emergent behavior.

      Adolescents need to be working with watching and learning to emulate how adults behave, and interact with one another solve problems etc. A couple hundred years ago if you were 14 you'd have been working on your fathers farm with him or in the kitchen around your mother and the other ladies. You'd spend your Sunday interacting at church etc again where there would be more adults around most of the time than other children. I think as a society we should look at teaching higher maths and reading levels sooner, it works in other parts of the world. If we could push algebra etc down to the Junior high level and wrap up primary and secondary education by 14 we could then send kids out into the workforce for awhile during their formative years. Maybe make it a normal thing to assist your parent at their job etc. When kids get to be 18, 19 etc then they go back to higher education if that is their path.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:Bullying by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Just over the past few generations, we've seen a shift in the doctrine of child raising move from beating the hell out of your kids to institutionalizing them for fairly typical teenage rebelliousness to "expert" recommendations that unwanted behaviors stem from a lack of self-esteem (and of course the best way to build self-esteem is to patronize kids instead of letting them have a chance at real accomplishment/failure) to it being a mental condition to not to want to sit for 8 hours a day without respite, requiring medication.

      You can also expect a chance at a sex offender registry for typical sexual exploration, and "zero tolerance" policies towards the inherent violence in taking the wrong tone with your speech that at the same time seems oblivious to the hazing other kids go through.

      I don't think it is really a case of parents letting the kids do whatever they want when letting them walk down the street unescorted results in threat from child protective services to place the kids in state custody.

      Add to that the dissolution of the nuclear and extended family, stagnant wages requiring both parents to work even longer hours than a few generations before, and parents who aren't religious fanatics somberly considering the logistics of home-schooling.

      Are parents really the most culpable parties to this?

      Far from running wild in the streets, we have bubble children who are perhaps the most psychically isolated in history, mostly from gullible parents trusting the guidance of "experts".

    9. Re:Bullying by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Adolescents need to be working with watching and learning to emulate how adults behave, and interact with one another solve problems etc.

      You mean by carrying guns, pulling them out for disagreements and going on shooting sprees? Seriously the schools get all the attention but there are far more shooting sprees caused by adults, and in my company someone drew a gun on a co-worker over a disagreement.

      So when you show me some responsible adults then we can talk about our kids spending some time with them.

    10. Re:Bullying by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That is sorta my point though. My unsupported theory is we have a lot of mal adjusted adults, especially young adults because when they were adolescents forming behaviors, developing coping skills, learning empathy etc, they spent all their time around other people who like them had not yet developed those skills.

      People seem to not even know how they are supposed to feel anymore. Practically ever 20 something I meet thinks if they don't feel 'happy' every moment of their day they are depressed. They then conclude they either need to be on medication or the world is against them or something equally crazy. They have no ability to 'talk' themselves up or down.

      It takes a profound lack of empathy to commit mass murder. I am really what have those people does to you that is so bad you feel entitled to deny them another sunrise, another cup a tea? That is deeply messed up thinking to be able to justify such an act. If there is one thing we know about adolescents its empathy isn't a strong suit yet. Its developing but its not there, I suspect its partly learned behavior. Adolescents not being made to conform to a world run by adults but instead allowed to raise themselves in these little lord of flies micro societies we call schools, i think leads to a lot of the narcissism we see out there.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  15. Let's keep publicising these sorts of things... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    It really seems to help them self-propagate.

    In fact, I'd rather have less TSA security at the airport and more stringent laws about reporting on mass shootings (and drug commercials too)!

    1. Re:Let's keep publicising these sorts of things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask your doctor if cyn1c77 is right for you!

  16. Turn that front upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since birthrates decline with wealth, you should be sending us all your money to get rid of us even faster.

  17. Don't be sad that it's over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be happy that it happened.

  18. Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Laws are a good thing when they punish the guilty and don't target the innocent. A law against murder only causes problems for murderers, and therefore isn't very controversial.

    A law against owning certain types of firearms (a victimless crime) does not only target future killers, but also the 99% of owners who would never misuse them. You are talking tens of millions of people.

    Additionally - if you are going to ignore the rule against murder, why would you care about firearms restrictions?

    A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law.

    I hope this explains the argument in more detail. 14/88, RaHoWa.

    1. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law.

      That's all true. Most of the other stuff you wrote also all seems true, but it doesn't really form a cogent argument about anything. No one said if someone ignores the rule about murder they would care about firearm restrictions. I'm not sure anyone has ever said that ever, let alone in this conversation. I don't think anyone who passed the law banning guns in schools said that. That's what I don't get about gun control debates. One side can't get past this notion that it's only about this theoretical criminal in their minds, and that if it doesn't stop these villains, the law is no good.

      I apologize, silly facts and historical context are about to get in the way of the ideology of the moment.

      Those "signs" that are being debated here have nothing to do with stopping school shootings of the kind being discussed here. The ban on guns in schools comes from "The Gun Free Schools Act" a law first passed way back in 1990. The idea was not that signs would stop people determined to come in and shoot up a school. That was barely even a concept at the time. The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools.

    2. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      Are you deliberately being obtuse?

      The no gun zone is supposed to keep guns out. We agree, yes?
      The no gun zone will be ignored by a criminal who wishes to do harm. We agree, yes?
      The no gun zone will prevent law-abiding, educated and responsible adults from bringing means to protect innocent people into that zone. We agree, yes?


      So the law first accomplishes nothing in it's intent to prevent a criminal from committing violence, while also preventing the means by which to defend against said criminal. The law both fails to prevent harm to innocent's, and also removes their best defense. THAT makes it a bad law, and directly puts innocent people at greater risk.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    3. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The law was intended to keep gang activity away from schools not stop spree shooters. Your painting it as a failure against something it wasn't designed for, thats the text book definition of a strawman. While it doesn't by itself keep schools gang free it does provide a tool for LEOs to bust an other wise "law-abiding" gang member who's carrying a piece near a school when they shouldn't be.

    4. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Jhon · · Score: 2

      You say: "The idea was not that signs would stop people determined to come in and shoot up a school. That was barely even a concept at the time. The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools."

      Ok. But you also agree that THIS is true: "A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law."

      Does it matter what the sign was for if the results are the same? That a "criminal will probably ignore and wont care about in the least" being a bad law if it only "(puts) law-abiding people in jail"?

    5. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the law was intended to make someone already guilty of breaking the law also guilty of breaking another law. It doesn't take a genius to see the inherently flawed logic there. If the criminal didnt particularly give a shit about the first, why would they give a shit about the second? It doesn't prevent there being crime at or near a school. It just makes the punishment for getting caught greater. Or do you mean to say you need an excuse to bust gang members who weren't actually caught doing something criminal?

      In the meantime you have criminalized not only a legal act, but more importantly a Constitutionally protected right.

      The law solves nothing while taking rights from people not guilty of anything.

      It adds more harsh punishment to existing criminal activity, yes. But the very same people trumpeting the fact that gun free schools laws are great are also trumpeting the unfairness and racism inherent in the judicial system which puts 1000's of minority and underprivileged young people in prison at a starkly incongruous rate to others.

      So which is it? Is it incumbent upon us to more harshly punish these gang members and make it more easy to imprison then and for longer? Or is the judicial system unfairly attacking and too harshly punishing them?

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    6. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no plans, and have never been any plans, to put law abiding gun owners in jail. That is the DUMBEST argument by a pro-gun nutter I've seen in a while.

    7. Re:Perhaps I can explain by xenotransplant · · Score: 1

      The reason they are criminals is because they break and ignore laws. Therefore, in order to prevent more people from becoming criminals, all laws must be removed. I can logic too.

    8. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Jhon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " I can logic too."

      Just not very well. Owning, carrying and handling a gun in ways that are against the law are victimless crimes -- unless of course, those guns are used to commit OTHER crimes which are not victimless (like murder or theft).

      People, for the most part, will obey gun laws -- except the burglars and killers. Really, the only people who will obey the limits on ownership and carry are the ones who would never use a gun in such a way.

      So, when the original poster noted that it's a bad law because it puts otherwise law-abiding people in jail he was right. And by you trying to equivocate his statement to removing "all laws" actually suggests you can't "logic" very well.

    9. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the point is that the laws do not actually make any place safer by their existence. Criminals do not obey laws. this is why they are called "criminals." Passing a law will not stop them or deter them in any way, especially when the desired end is a large body-count and a self inflicted gunshot wound. The problem is that the laws are causing grief to law abiding gun owners and getting in the way of the general citizenry and NOT actually having any effect on safety as they are being purported to be doing.

    10. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the 1990 law explicitly excludes those who live in the area (with certain conditions) or have a State issued permit (CHL, whatever) from the firearms proscription.

    11. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know reading even these short posts is hard, but it doesn't solve nothing. That's why it was specific to schools. The goal wasn't to stop people from doing what they're already doing (carrying guns while doing other illegal activities) but to give them incentive to do it elsewhere. I believe the law is largely considered a success in that regard. As others have pointed out, your insistence on ignoring this, and holding it only to your own theoretical standard, is the very definition of a straw man argument. It's weak and your persistence in doing it makes you look like an idiot.

      To break down the crappy argument you laid out, the problem is that while all of those things are true, it can still drive criminals who don't actively intend to do harm elsewhere, making your argument, even though perhaps valid, unsound in its conclusion that the law accomplishes nothing. Logic'd.

    12. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're creating a false dichotomy. There is no "so which is it?" It can be both, or neither. Two, pointing out that the logic is flawed visa via this ban being ineffective because they don't stop a certain crime they weren't intended to, is not trumpeting that the laws are great, merely that the first point is unsound.

      Also, I know oversimplified platitudes are a fun way to make yourself feel smart, but no, the law was not "intended to make someone already guilty of breaking the law also guilty of breaking another law." At least not so simply. It was intended to give people already participating in certain activities incentives to take those activities elsewhere.

      The logic here is just so poor and requires such willful ignorance it blows my mind. It would be like concluding that since seat belts were intended to make you safer in a car, but don't make you safer if you get stabbed in the car, we should have no seat belts.

      Has it maybe criminalized a legitimate activity? Maybe. Does that mean the initial argument is sound? Absolutely not.

    13. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you also agree that THIS is true: "A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law."

      Does it matter what the sign was for if the results are the same? That a "criminal will probably ignore and wont care about in the least" being a bad law if it only "(puts) law-abiding people in jail"?

      I would agree with that, but as written it is an oversimplification as applied to this case. The premise that criminals will probably ignore it is not settled. In fact, history seems to say they don't, the law is generally credited with driving gun activity that is not mass shooting away from schools. That's something it does beside put law-abiding people in jail, which I don't accept that it does. Is there even one case? That seems much easier to prove than that the law drives gun crime down, so at least prove it.

      To your restatement: yes it matters what the sign is for if the results are the same. The fact that it didn't prevent the thing you're concerned with doesn't mean it's useless. For example, let's say we vaccinate a kid against a deadly disease they are likely to get. If later in that person's life they die of another deadly disease that we didn't know about at the time, would we say the vaccine was a useless exercise? I really hope the answer there is "of course not."

      Your argument is like arguing that 1) seat belts are meant to save lives in cars. 2) They don't save lives in all cases though, sometimes people still die in cars. 3) In some very theoretical edge cases, they even make it more likely that you'll die in a car. 4) Therefore, cars should not have seat belts.

      The fact that it doesn't deter all gun violence in no way indicates that it doesn't deter some from happening at schools, which seems to be your overall position.

    14. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools.

      How's that working out?

    15. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      People, for the most part, will obey gun laws -- except the burglars and killers.

      Of all the possible crimes, you picked burglary? Burglars are violent only 7% of the time (plus or minus a point or two depending on the year). Of those violent burglars, only 12% of them had a gun at the time. (Just possession, not necessarily brandished or fired.) So burglars with guns? 0.8% of all burglaries.

      You can take that to mean that the heightened penalties for armed burglary vs unarmed burglary have successfully dissuaded nearly all burglars from carrying guns.

      Or you can just admit that burglary is a really bad example of a gun crime. Burglars are overwhelmingly non-confrontational criminals.

      Try "rapists and killers" next time.

    16. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you make the possession of a type of item illegal, along with its manufacture, then it becomes that much harder to acquire. Obviously criminals dont care about the law (that's how we define criminal) but making something harder for them to posses is the right approach.

      No one needs an uzi, M-16, AR-15, or other such weapons. Sure, they are damn fun to use, but no one is going to die of hunger if they don't have them.

      If you want to use such weapons, then join a militia, since that's what the 2nd amendment was all about anyways.

      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      It is implied that the people are keeping and bearing arms as PART of a well regulated militia. If you are NOT a member of a militia, then why do you need the arms? You aren't going hunting with an M-16. The founders never intended for people to own cannon, or bombs, or grenades. In fact, you could make the argument that if it's not single-shot flint lock, then sorry, it's not covered under that amendment. After all, what does 'arms' mean? Can I possess crew manned weapons? Can I possess a tank? Jetfighter fully armed with sidewinders? How about WMD? Nothing in there says I can't have a nuke. Clearly a line must be draw. The argument is where that line is.

    17. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Addendum: And if you think your paltry supply of weaponry is going to stop the government from banging your door down, you've got another thing coming. Just look at Waco to see what happens when crazies think they can stop the man.

      The government is, and always will be from now on, more armed and armored than any civilian militia could ever be, so the 2nd amendment is frankly a hold-over from a by-gone era where an armed militia actually could overthrow the goverment. Those days are gone.

    18. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Or you can just admit that burglary is a really bad example of a gun crime. Burglars are overwhelmingly non-confrontational criminals."

      I think you are reading far too much in to what I said. I used burglary where a gun is used is *NOT* a victimless crime. And it is not. And somehow, you read that to mean that I was trying to say burglaries were typically violent.

      Or you can just admit that burglary is a perfectly good example for my purposes.

      "You can take that to mean that the heightened penalties for armed burglary vs unarmed burglary have successfully dissuaded nearly all burglars from carrying guns."

      That really wasn't even close to the argument I was making. Maybe you should re-read it. Because with your response it APPEARS you read that keeping guns away from school will keep killers away from schools -- which is the exact opposite of the argument I made. It will keep law-abiding folk from carrying guns on or near schools. That is all.

    19. Re:Perhaps I can explain by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's all part of the Republican War on Drugs (started by Nixon, most escalated under Reagan).. The gun free zones were designed to give the police extra powers, back when we still pretended there were limits on the police.

    20. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

      It would be like concluding that since seat belts were intended to make you safer in a car, but don't make you safer if you get stabbed in the car, we should have no seat belts.

      No, applying your logic it would be like concluding that because seat belts might trap you in a burning vehicle if used improperly we should ban seat belts.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    21. Re:Perhaps I can explain by Agripa · · Score: 1

      hose "signs" that are being debated here have nothing to do with stopping school shootings of the kind being discussed here. The ban on guns in schools comes from "The Gun Free Schools Act" a law first passed way back in 1990. The idea was not that signs would stop people determined to come in and shoot up a school. That was barely even a concept at the time. The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools.

      Another benefit is that the law makes it unlawful for a someone *not* specifically licensed by the state they are in to carry a firearm concealed or not which prevents legal state to state reciprocity of concealed carry licenses and prevents states from having legal concealed or open carry without a license.

      http://www.handgunlaw.us/docum...

  19. NRA OUTRAGED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kids could not get their weapons! They were denied their 2nd Amendment Rights!

  20. Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0

    I think a sensible requirement for gun ownership would be that you can't live with your parents and you can't have an adolescent child living with you where you keep a gun. Because teens are idiots. If you're paying rent then you're responsible enough to have a gun, otherwise tough luck.

    1. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think a sensible requirement for gun ownership would be that you can't live with your parents and you can't have an adolescent child living with you where you keep a gun. Because teens are idiots. If you're paying rent then you're responsible enough to have a gun, otherwise tough luck.

      So you'd obviously be in favor of adults not being allowed to own cars if they have teenagers in the house, right? Because teenagers kill WAY more people with cars than they do with weapons of any kind.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a sensible requirement for gun ownership would be that you can't live with your parents and you can't have an adolescent child living with you where you keep a gun. Because teens are idiots. If you're paying rent then you're responsible enough to have a gun, otherwise tough luck.

      So you'd obviously be in favor of adults not being allowed to own cars if they have teenagers in the house, right? Because teenagers kill WAY more people with cars than they do with weapons of any kind.

      Do you have something wrong with your brain?

    3. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you have something wrong with your brain?

      No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy he sure does if they expose logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy supporting something he believes in...

    5. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have something wrong with your brain?

      No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?

      Cars are often necessary to life; guns aren't. Get a new brain.

    6. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      No but I'd be in favor of raising the age to legally drive and there are already penalties for driving without a license. If teens started planning mass vehicular homicides I might have to revise my thinking.

    7. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Really? Do you think that cars are as useful for self-defense as guns are?

      Stories That Happened In MI

      There are many people that harvest wild game to eat. Cars don't work well for that. Guns on the other hand ....

      It seems to me that you might be hasty in suggesting someone else get a new brain. Maybe you should start closer to home.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      That's not a terribly strong comparison because

      A) Teenagers use their parents cars at far greater rates then they use their guns so gross number comparisons are irrelevant
      B) Cars are tools whose intended purpose is to move people about. Guns, aside from hunting rifles, are tools designed first and foremost for killing people. Sure, cars can and do kill people but so can just about anything. Guns are singled out because they dont have any other use and they do it so much better then anything else.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    9. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I owned guns since age 4. Killed my first deer at age 5, with a high powered rifle (30-06.) In Montana, of course, where people aren't expected to be pansies and we actually learn about guns. We know they're like any other power tool, you can hurt yourself or others. Lack of exposure UNTIL crazy teenage years is the problem in plenty of cases. To us, they were tools and food providers, not scary toys to menace bullies with.

    10. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people live where guns are necessary for protection from animals. Carrying a pistol when hiking or working among bear and mountain lions isn't a bad idea even if you're not hunting. Just because the majority of slashdotters are from urban areas doesn't mean everyone is.

    11. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Guns, aside from hunting rifles, are tools designed first and foremost for killing people."

      So .01 of Americans have a side use for them. What's your point?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    12. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life isn't fair. The gross numbers are what actually happens and are a completely fair comparison.

    13. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Almir43 · · Score: 2

      When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.

    14. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cars can and do kill people but so can just about anything. Guns are singled out because they dont have any other use

      Some people live where guns are necessary for protection from animals.

      Americans have a side use for them. What's your point?

      Your argument has been refuted and you agree on the reasoning, therefore the rest of your view which is based on that reasoning does not hold.

    15. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now tools are "good" and "evil"? Not so tech-savvy after all. Btw guns are terrible at killing people. Firebombs and poison gas on the other hand...

    16. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.

      You want to look up the percentage of gun-owners whose gun has killed people and the percentage of car owners whose car has killed people. When less than a fraction of a percent of gun-owners are irresponsible one has to be clinically insane to suggest that we remove the guns from the rest.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    17. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Parents' discretion. If the kids are disciplined, it doesn't matter if they're idiots. From age 5 onward I knew better than to fool around with firearms. Even the antique shotgun on the wall was off-limits.
      I received my first .22 rifle at age ten and by age 15, I had a shotgun and deer rifle and was allowed to shoot alone and unsupervised. I've never shot anyone or had a firearms-related accident.
      Parents should be held responsible for recklessness and negligence which results in their kids causing injury or death. To hell with cookie-cutter solutions tailored to the least common denominator in our society.

    18. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Firearms are used by individual citizens hundreds of thousands of times each year in self defense, typically without a shot being fired. Law enforcement agents carry firearms based on the rationale that they might need to engage violent criminals. Why are cars any more "necessary to life" than the tools you might need to defend your life?

      Driving yourself to the hospital might be a matter of life and death (although most places have ambulance services). Otherwise, your life being dependent on access to an automobile is a direct result of your lifestyle choice.

    19. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Almir43 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't necessarily reply to my comment though. My point was about purposefully planning/executing mass killings by car vs. by gun. I am certain some crazies will try and do it, but the majority won't when they can simply use a gun.

      Mind you, I didn't mention removing guns from the majority as I honestly don't know if this would solve the problem. It might or might not, I really don't know, but I do know that something, somewhere has got to give.

    20. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't tell me you believe that made up statistic about self defense.

      It's as bad as the commercials where somebody in a ninja costume is walking around in a backyard. Reality? It is more likely to be some Alzheimer's patient than a robber.

    21. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have personally used a firearm (happily, through brandishing, not having to actually shoot) to spare my wife and I from the ongoing actions of a very large, very crazy guy beating down our back door with a metal pipe. You would prefer that we fight him hand to hand and wait the 20 minutes it took for the police to show up. Why? Because you've never dealt with such a situation, lucky you.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Cars are often necessary to life; guns aren't. Get a new brain.

      So you don't think any police should be armed, because they never encounter a situation where the use of lethal force (or the deterrent power of its possibility) is ever necessary? You've obviously never actually seen someone being stabbed or beaten, or been alone and come across a group of people who would very happily kill you for the possessions you're carrying. Or been a woman alone in a parking garage being approached by three guys each twice her size and telling her they're going to rape her. Or live on the same street as three houses run by MS-13 gang members. Lucky you, you live such a charmed life.

      Or DO you have such issues, but you also have a police officer that follow you everywhere so that you don't personally have to deal with preserving your own life? Cops are great - they will head into situations that the rest of us run from. But they are always minutes away when you have seconds to deal with someone violent. Guns are used for self defense many thousands of times a year more than they are used by criminals to kill people. You want to take that self defense away. Why? Are you prepared to make up for it in some other way? Who's going to pay for whatever solution you have in mind?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    23. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have something wrong with your brain? You sound retarded.

    24. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Do you think that cars are as useful for self-defense as guns are?

      Cars are utilized for a rather different purpose, and in case you didn't know, the average person in the civilized world is far far far far more exposed to automobiles in use than they are exposed to firearms of any kind.

      If you took away 25% of the guns in active use the world, it'd make little difference to most people's lives. 25% of the cars? Big changes.

      There are many people that harvest wild game to eat. Cars don't work well for that. Guns on the other hand ....

      In reality, there are very few people these days that harvest wild game to eat, there are probably more vegetarians in this world than people who derive a major portion of their sustenance from consumption of hunted animals, with most people just being dabblers pretending they are actually doing something in the pure way. It's not zero, there are still some remaining, both in uncontacted tribes and the rare individual in exceptional circumstances, but for most people? It's the supermarket.

      It seems to me that you might be hasty in suggesting someone else get a new brain. Maybe you should start closer to home.

      You don't live in my house, and while I can't say you aren't, I sure hope you're not one of my neighbors. Not that you're terribly unlike them, as you're just another thoughtless person who thinks they can go "Dur-hur, look at all the people killed by cars" and somehow that will destroy the arguments of those on the other side.

      That will work for some, I grant you, as such blustering can astound many people. But there has been more than enough time for others to give thought and consideration to your rhetoric and rebut it. You should learn some new lines or get up earlier in the morning.

      Sorry, but the reality is that much effort goes into keeping automobiles in line, and reducing the harm they cause society. And you could make an argument for even more reform. But not as a facetious defense of firearms. That might get you imaginary approval from your fantasized friends, but nobody else buys the bullshit.

      Why don't you come back when you have something meaningful to contribute to the conversation?

    25. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably just don't have sufficient processing capacity to comprehend the comment.

    26. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      There are many people that harvest wild game to eat. Cars don't work well for that.

      I totally agree with you, but, well, funny story (kind of). I knew a poor family back in Indiana who lived way out in the boondocks. The father welded a formidable 2-inch pipe "bumper" on front of the old pickup that he drove just for "hunting". He averaged 3 deer/year with that thing. If a deer ran out in front of him - he swerved *toward* it.

    27. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The progressive side of the argument here is that no one deserves to have any chance of death except for the innocent victims?

    28. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Poor reading comprehension there, I made no statement about my preferences, what I pointed out was that the statistic regarding "self-defense" was not legitimate (even leaving aside it being an unsourced aside), and that the depiction of ninja-costume clad persons in commercials was a farce, and that more likely it was going to be an Alzheimer's patient than a robber.

      This doesn't mean other instances don't happen, but that they are less common.

      Was this hard for you to comprehend because of your focus on one personal anecdote? Why not about the person who shot somebody thinking they were trying to break in, and maybe they were, but they were a senior citizen who probably thought it was their own home.

      Which if you want to talk about, has happened to people. In fact, I've had people banging on my door in the middle of the night too. You know what the last time was? A guy's house was on fire. Needed me to call 911. The most useful tool there was a phone, and possibly a hose.

      Look, if you want means to protect yourself, great, but don't expect me to not point out the price of using lethal force, or the way it is oversold as somehow necessary in a manner that is a mix of frightening and comical. If you genuinely have such a regular need for use of a firearm, it's most likely you need much larger fixes to your situation. Fortunately for all us, it's more likely you don't.

    29. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, there's more than one person who buys a shitty used car for the express purpose of getting a deer or a moose. I can't say that I'd do so myself but it's not unheard of. I have no idea of the success rates but there are probably fewer nights that I could not see an animal than there are nights where I could see an animal. I don't go 'moose spotting' when I'm home. Instead, I practice 'moose avoidance.' There are plenty who hit them by accident. It seems like it would be fairly trivial to do so on purpose.

      Deer are more nimble and more intelligent than the majestic moose. The meese are stupid and will sit there and giggle at you while you're waiting for them to meander out of the roadway. Sometimes they'll attack your car just to show you who the boss is and to stop you from checking out their womenfolk. Other times they get infected with a brain worm that makes them do stupider things like jump off a cliff onto a car, jump up and down on the car (killing the lady and her child) and then jump off the next cliff, plummeting to their death in the Wyman pond area just above the Bingham corners.

      Stupid meese...

      Anyhow, you could (and some do) certainly paste them with your car and I understand there's a technique to it. (Aim for a rear leg or use the handbrake to slide sideways into them - use a car as a truck is higher and will result in more meat spoilage.) I can't say that I've ever felt the urge to engage in it.

      Next week we'll learn about 'heater hunting.'

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    30. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By side use do you mean murder? That number is 0.00004 (assuming a unique firearm for every firearm homicide). Unless you are suggesting that their primary use is homicide and they are only effective 1 out of every 25000. But don't let statistics actual get in the way of a good emotional argument.

    31. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the argument in my post above is that the claim of hundreds of thousands is made up and not to be believed, and that it's as bad as those commercials with a guy in a ninja costume, when it's more likely to be somebody with Alzheimer's who you should avoid shooting. And yes, they would certainly be someone who does not deserve to die because of their mental competence, but it makes no exclusionary or expansive statements to it, merely gives them as an example, not a definitive one at that.

      Did you fail to parse it properly? Was it expressed in a manner that was unclear to you? What did you fail to understand?

    32. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False analogy. We're not talking vehicular homicide. It's ridiculous to compare deaths from car accidents to firearm homicide which of course would well exceed accidental gun deaths given it's, uh, nature.

    33. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Faust6 · · Score: 1

      False analogy. It's ridiculous to compare car accident fatalities to firearm homicide which, of course, would well exceed accidental gun deaths given its nature.

    34. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, I'd like to say that I'm not sure that you and I operate with the same definition of argument. I personally see a couple of opinions in your post. Secondly, I suppose that since you don't seem to carry the same definition of argument as I do, you might be confused by my attempt to extend your "argument" to further consequences of making policy based on that stance.

    35. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My definition of argument as applicable to this situation is offering an opposing view to the one preceding it by moeinvt. If this meaning is unknown, or unfamiliar to you, I am quite perplexed, but perhaps you can explain how your own differs in a meaningful way?

      If not, well, you asked a question in my reply to my post, hopefully I answered in a sufficiently informative manner for you.

    36. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moeinvt didn't do much better, but you said a commonly bantered statistic is a complete fabrication without any sort of justification or references. Sorry gun nut, you are wrong those statistics are a complete fabrication because an AC on slashdot said so.

    37. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never seen somebody shot by a cop, who couldn't tell they had a pistol in their hands, rather than a taser? You've never seen somebody shot while running from a cop, having committed no crime other than being behind on child support? You've never seen somebody shot by a cop who was mentally ill and asking for help, but not getting it? Lucky you, it's on video.

      I'd rather the cops need their guns less, if you please. Where can we get that solution?

      Because paying for the first one has been rather expensive.

    38. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Was this hard for you to comprehend because of your focus on one personal anecdote?

      No, I understand perfectly that you're trying to wish away self-defense use of firearms for your own political or ideological reasons. The problem is that such use has been substantially documented in well known academic studies, and even if you want to say that the numbers of uses found in those studies are off (too high) by an order of magnitude, the number of such uses still completely eclipses the number of deaths caused by criminals that happen to be using guns.

      I get it. You live someplace where you don't have home invasions, you don't have entire departments of the local police agencies that exist just to deal with well organized gangs like MS-13, and you don't have problems with carjackings, robberies, and women getting accosted as they walk in public. You're probably in a nice gated community somewhere. That's lovely for you. And you think it's dangerous for you if I own a firearm. Why you think that, I can't imagine - considering you're much more likely to get by somebody driving a car while drunk. So am I. But whatever the odds are of my becoming a victim of violence where I live and work, the actual statistics for my family so far are over 100%, as it's happened to me and mine more than once - and not just some purse snatching or a shove from some punk on the sidewalk. We're talking serious assault, home break-ins, smashing of car windows, repeated threats from gang members, the works.

      We've had to make a second pot of coffee for the number of cops we had in our house more than once, over local thugs doing violent crap in our neighborhood, and me being one of the few people who will actually name names to the police, pick out mug shots, and stand up to these ass-hats. For which I've had my life threatened, my property destroyed and stolen, and more. Neighbors have had their kids beaten up for not doing what the local gang enforcers demand, and we've watched a local pimp slash the tires of three cars just so he could be sure he got the one belonging to someone who made a call about him roughing up a woman in our parking lot.

      Yeah, to you - these are just rare anecdotes, right? You need to get out more. Career thugs spend very little time locked up for doing stuff like this. They have no problem - especially the MS-13 types - intimidating people with machetes, torching cars, and throwing just-killed family pets through kitchen windows to make a point. I don't need a larger fix for "my" situation, we're talking about a problem that is culture-wide in some places. In our case, it's because our county considers itself a sanctuary for illegals, and so we're now a franchise operation for Salvadoran and Nicaraguan gangs. The really funny thing is we have it EASY compared to places like Chicago.

      Please carry on with your untroubled life. But stop pontificating about the frequency with which other, less fortunate people find themselves unable to wait 30 minutes for the police to show up and deal with something that's going to happen in the next 30 seconds.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    39. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I understand perfectly that you're trying to wish away self-defense use of firearms for your own political or ideological reasons.

      Au contraire, that shows you do not understand, and what's worse, you are so convinced of your understanding that you believe it to be perfect. That's quite a bit of hubris, perhaps I'm wrong though, and you don't want to come across as arrogant? I could be mistaken. But it does indicate to me that you're trying to believe that there's no exaggeration in the continued claims of self-defense and such. Stop trying.

      It is real. People want to exploit fear, and make you dance to their strings, and yes, that includes those who make money from selling firearms.

      For most people, such fears are entirely misplaced.

      And if you genuinely live in a place where home invasions or other such actions are a problem, you need larger scale fixes than a mere firearm will offer. Though it seems that your police department isn't working too well on those gangs. So perhaps you could consider some solution to deal with them as well. Firearms don't tend to work well though, as many have learned to their detriment. Or even just a cellphone with a camera on it.

      Scary, no?

      And actually, a culture-wide problem, if you believe that is the case(and I do believe it is one for the police in many places), is one that does require a larger scale fix. It's almost so obvious that I wonder why you'd claim otherwise. I don't know why you're so averse to the idea. Is it so repellent an idea to you, that protecting yourself with a firearm is simply not enough?

      It certainly doesn't seem to be working well, given your complaints, assuming they are true.

      Meanwhile, I'm still very certain you don't see those guys clad as ninjas prancing around your yard, making you so fearful that why, you must have a gun.

      That's what we've got here. I don't know who thought that commercial was a good idea.

    40. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns are tools designed first and foremost for putting holes in things at a distance.

      FTFY

    41. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moeinvt didn't do much better, but you said a commonly bantered statistic is a complete fabrication without any sort of justification or references. Sorry gun nut, you are wrong those statistics are a complete fabrication because an AC on slashdot said so.

      I spent no effort in denying it, that's true, as anybody that wants to search for it can do so, I didn't even choose to belabor moeinvt over the source, as I am familiar enough with the existing claims and their dubious nature. I see no reason to repeat their debunking either.

      Feel free to look it up yourself, it's not a new topic in these discussions. Or ask moeinvt to substantiate their own claim. Start at the beginning, if you consider yourself interested.

    42. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm still very certain you don't see those guys clad as ninjas prancing around your yard

      Why do you keep saying that? What reference have I made that makes any reference to any such thing?

      It's almost so obvious that I wonder why you'd claim otherwise

      I didn't claim otherwise. Rampant crime, and the tolerance of things like violent gangs populated almost entirely by illegal aliens, is certainly a cultural problem. Our culture is far, far too tolerant of violent criminals, and allows too many of them to rotate right back onto the street. Yes, that's a cultural problem.

      People want to exploit fear, and make you dance to their strings,

      Yup, just like you're doing right now. Trying to make people irrationally fear millions and millions of people who own firearms. You're completely unpersuasive.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    43. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      but I do know that something, somewhere has got to give

      Kind of like it already has? The use of guns in violent crimes has been going down steadily for decades. If you remove from the stats the four cities that host the worst of the country's intra-gang violence, the rate plummets. We have less murder per capita now than we have since the 1950's.

      Alas, we've had mulitple murders right near us in the last few weeks. Of course, they were stabbings. When you say "something has got to give," you're talking about human behavior, right? Not which inanimate object some killer decides to use? Not whether they use a pressure cooker to shred dozens of people, but that they want to do so?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    44. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Do you have something wrong with your brain?

      No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?

      Not at all.

      And I'd like to start by pointing out that your comparison of vehicles to firearms is completely logically fallacious and the above quoted statement is extremely hypocritical.

      First off, a vehicle is a method of transportation, not a weapon. It is designed for the duty of conveying people from point to point faster than they can walk, not intended to do bodily harm and just because it can be used for that purpose does not mean that it is any way equivalent to a firearm which is expressly designed to do bodily harm. It would be like saying a gun is a can opener because it can be used to open a can, it is utterly incorrect that it is a can opener because that is not the purpose it was designed for nor is it particularly good for that purpose, which leads me to my second point.

      Secondly, cars are terrible at killing people. Seriously, every feature on a modern car is designed to minimise harm to the occupants an the people they hit. They make terrible killing devices just like a gun makes a terrible can opener.

      Thirdly, there are far more cars than guns. Going by deaths per 100,000 vehicles to deaths per 100,000 guns the car is a positive haven of safety even in the hands of terrible drivers.

      Forth point, cars are used far more than guns. So we add add frequency of usage to deaths per vehicle, the risk of cars compared to firearms is minuscule.

      Fifth point, We dont let people near cars who 1) aren't trained to operate them or; 2) have demonstrated they will operate them in an unsafe manner. We license drivers, register and test cars, we charge and even imprison drivers who break laws and make themselves a danger to other road users, drivers who are dangerous have their licenses taken off them. Considering that guns are more dangerous than cars, why aren't the same measures taken with firearms?

      Finally, if you want to improve road safety, there's plenty you can do. Begin by becoming a motor vehicle instructor. Start teaching people how to use the manual transmission (this teaches novice drivers how the car works and forces them to start thinking ahead of what they're doing) start teaching defensive driving. Stop speeding, learn what an indicator does, don't drink and drive, stay off the phone when in the car. I can give you a million suggestions and yes, I'm a licensed MVDIL (Motor Vehicle Driver Instructor License) in Western Australia, so I find your comparison laughable and your hypocrisy insufferable.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    45. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, all you've done is pointed out some outlier information. If somebody uses meth to treat a low energy medical condition it doesnt all of a sudden make meth a constructive substance

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    46. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So it's an "emotional arguement" when i point out we have 4 times the homicide rate of other Western countries and a gun violence rate that's through the roof? Shoot, all your statistc does is point out just how awash we are in guns and coupled with mine clearly details how guns are making us less safe, not more.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    47. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You dont understand how numbers work, do you?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    48. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      When did I apply good or evil identifiers to anything? Those are your words, not mine.

      And guns, while not the best, are quite good at killing people. That's why militaries use them. At close range they are essentially point and click devices.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    49. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      False analogy. It's ridiculous to compare car accident fatalities to firearm homicide which, of course, would well exceed accidental gun deaths given its nature.

      Why are they not comparable? If you claim that something is a killer and is a large enough and severe enough problem to enforce a ban on that something, then it better be a bigger problem than other common killers.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    50. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you keep saying that? What reference have I made that makes any reference to any such thing?

      I don't believe I've attributed that commercial to you, as I've been the one making the reference to that commercial, my reference to you is to indicate that none of your description indicates any such concern on your part having been demonstrated that resembles the depiction as I related it. I can't say you were uninvolved in making that commercial, but I would find it most unlikely that you were. My point by referencing it is to show the problem with such advertising.

      It's really terrible way to try to appeal to people. I haven't seen anything that egregiously bad outside of political campaigns, and that IS counting the creepy Burger King commercials and the new KFC Colonel.

      Or do you worry about somebody dressed up like a ninja yourself? I know I don't. Not even on Halloween.

      It's really shameless. And that's not even mentioning how the woman holds her shotgun under one arm while picking up the phone in another. Uh, no, you tell your kids who you just put in the safe room to call the police. Or hit the house alarm in that room.

      You don't distract yourself by using the phone while improperly trying to train your weapon on a burglar in a ninja outfit. What if he has secret Ninja fighting techniques?

      (And the lighting was really bad, but I can attribute that to a production value, it's not like they had Roger Deakins working on it.)

      I didn't claim otherwise.

      Now this, this is a case where I was actually attributing something to you.

      But here's your words "I don't need a larger fix for "my" situation, we're talking about a problem that is culture-wide in some places." which is quite present in your post above. You said you don't need it. Quite clearly. But your example? Shows the contrary, I think it's obvious that you do need such larger fixes. You even blamed your county's attitudes towards immigration. Ok, then maybe you need to change your county's attitudes instead. That would be a larger fix. Though for that, it might need to go even further than the county, to the state, or the country.

      Yup, just like you're doing right now. Trying to make people irrationally fear millions and millions of people who own firearms. You're completely unpersuasive.

      So you want to believe. Quite stridently.

      Or perhaps you're completely obstinate due to your own irrational attitudes? Trying to ignore how the exaggerated hysteria which many people try to use in order to induce others to act in a way that benefits them applies very much to the firearms industry.. Maybe you need some rational and proper fear of being exploited and subjected to propaganda of more than one kind? Or would you prefer to remain willfully in denial?

      Then you're a perfect target for the makers of that ninja-clad commercial. Next up? They'll get you to pay for the Bear Patrol! To hunt down Witches! To go after people who wear glasses and thus know how to read!

      But we don't need to worry, your understanding is perfect!

      Or so you claim.

      Yeah, I shall stand by what I said, I think a larger fix is needed if your situation is as you describe.

    51. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Faust6 · · Score: 1

      To be precise, drunk, distracted and reckless driving are killers. Which is why police enforce ticketing and fatalities have dropped significantly since the 20th century. The next phase in mitigating car-related danger would be self-driving vehicles, obviously. Civilian gun use doesn't have the level of utility vehicles do, which the world at large overwhelmingly relies on - it's an accepted risk, by everyone driving. Aside from hunting which allowable in most developed countries, guns are toys, or murder instruments. A mere statistic doesn't mean much on its own - people in droves aren't jumping out of their seats to ban greasy foods in order to prevent heart-disease. Likewise vehicular deaths are in vast majority of cases not intentional. But by no metric should schools be acceptably a dangerous environment - there have been 45 school shootings in the U.S. this year, and more than one mass shooting. Frequent mass murders shake people up, as does the fact that rate of firearm homicide is far worse than any other developed country. It is utterly shameful and disgraceful.

    52. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Faust6 · · Score: 1

      Basically if you can't understand why ease and frequency of murder is a greater problem to the public consciousness than accidental death (within reason), I can't help you. In most cases those involved in vehicular accidents are at fault - they fucked up. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger isn't a mistake.

    53. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assertion would be better if there was no effort made to reduce the deaths related to automobiles.

      That is, of course, patently untrue. A considerable amount of effort is spent on that.

      And the circumstances of automobile deaths are very different from firearms death, thus the solutions are quite different.

      Hence the reason the analogy is false is due to the ridiculous nature of it.

    54. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns, aside from hunting rifles, are tools designed first and foremost for killing people.

      Tell that to the guns. Any given car is more likely to kill someone, in America, than a gun. Let that sink in for a second.

      So what are all those hundreds of millions of American guns doing? Shooting targets and clay pigeons, sitting on walls or in safes. Sitting in drawers in case they must be called upon to defend their owners' lives. They aren't killing people as fast as cars are.

      Fuck, if everyone was as stupid as you, we'd all have to burn every copy of the Declaration of Independence because those are solely designed, created, and used for instigating wars, treasons, and mass dissension from a union!

    55. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huhr duhr western countries! I am a retard!

      None of those other countries are in a fucking drug war with the rest of their combined continents. 2/3rds of all "gun violence" in America are suicides. 95% of the rest are drug-related. The suicide rates are the same in those other countries, but idiots in America use guns to kill themselves instead of razors, overdoses, jumping in front of trains, etc so it's a "gun problem" instead of a personal problem. As gun ownership rates and concealed carry rates have drastically risen, violent crime, overall, has dropped nearly 40% in just the last few years. Eat shit. Within the country, as studies should be done about such things, higher gun ownership = less violent crime. The media just likes to fudge THOSE numbers with suicide rates.

      More people are killed, in America, with hammers than with rifles.
      More people are killed, in America, be getting punched/kicked to death than with rifles.

      Does America have a hammer problem? Does it have a punch-to-death problem? The only "emotional argument" is your blubbery vagina screaming that guns r scary and bad because the man on the news said so without any meaningful statistics to back it up.

    56. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the study funded by the Brady folks shows that guns are used defensively *at least* 50,000 times per year. That's 5 *times* as often as guns are used in homicides each year.) That Brady study is a statistical outlier (on the low side) compared to *every* other study out there, and an independent review of the data indicates that if the Brady people had just been consistent with their definitions, their own data shows that the number is *four* times the 50k figure they published (that's 200k/year, just in case you can't multiply).

      So, the data from an anti-gun poster child group actually makes the point you're complaining is inaccurate. If you don't believe the experts, and you don't believe the pro-gun folks, and you don't believe the anti-gun folks, who *would* you believe?

    57. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Huhr duhr western countries! I am a retard!

      None of those other countries are in a fucking drug war..."

      Hahahaha. Am i debating a child here?

      one of those other countries are in a fucking drug war with the rest of their combined continents. 2/3rds of all "gun violence"
      "95% of the rest are drug-related.

      So gun violence doesnt count when it involves drugs? That's preposterous.

      "More people are killed, in America, with hammers than with rifles.
      More people are killed, in America, be getting punched/kicked to death than with rifles."

      We're talking about gun violence not rifle violence. You might as well compare statistics to specific models of gun and get even more imoressive statisitcs. "More people in America are killed by kangaroos each year then they are by WW2 era German Lugars! Guns are safe!"

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    58. Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by skam240 · · Score: 1

      If you actually read my whole post rather then just a single sentence i literally address the car issue. It was literally the primary point of the post. Comparing car deaths and gun deaths is rediculous. Not only are 99.9% of car deaths accidents but cars see infinitly more day to day use then firearms.

      Yeah, I'm the stupid one...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    59. Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns in society are never the answer. So guns helped you that day, but how many times have guns been use to kill people. That same crazy guy could have come with a gun and you might not be here today.

      What kind of idiot thinks that only good people have guns and they always win ?

      The only people in the world with the same level of guns are the religious nutters in the middle east who love to kill each other. So why are you copying their example of peace and defence ?

  21. You see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surveillance saves lives. Delation saves lives. It's everybody's duty to inform the Authorities of suspicious behavior. We need complete surveillance and ban cryptography. Security >>> privacy.

    1. Re:You see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you: security >>> privacy !

      _BUT_ surveillance is way more dangerous than privacy, so no surveillance & good cryptography means more security!

    2. Re: You see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a terrorist?

  22. Re:Mass killings is for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mehhhhhhhh!!!

  23. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You tried to do your blame Obama bit, whose trying to make it political? You are!

    Part of the screwed up world is you and your gun obsession. It *IS* the NRAs fault that guns are so widely available, and you are part of the problem.

    Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political and defend your gun and your right to shoot people.

  24. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You tried to do your blame Obama bit

    No, I'm not blaming Obama for what these kids wanted to do. I'm pointing out that his speech blaming the NRA for it was completely off base.

    Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political

    You obviously didn't watch his speech. He came right out and said he thought the issue should be made political. His words. On the same day the students were killed. Try to get your rant at least aligned with current events and Obama's own words, OK?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  25. Re:Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Slashdot used to subtitle the site "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." If this isn't "stuff that matters", nothing is.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  26. Obligatory. by o_ferguson · · Score: 1
    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  27. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

    Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political and defend your gun and your right to shoot people.

    Wrong. They arrested the plotters before anyone was killed. (How hard was it to get even that minimal part of the story right??) People have a right to self-defense, or do you deny that? The rest of your post is equally valid. You and your screwed up views are part of the problem, and leads to innocent people being left defenseless, assaulted, raped, or killed.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  28. Re:Mass killings is for cows. by penguinoid · · Score: 0

    A cow's destiny is to become steaks and hamburgers, so you got that right.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  29. Ah, the new slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing but trendy news stories and marijuana advocacy day after day after day.

  30. What's the rationalization? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.

    While keeping knives and guns out of schools *might* reduce the chances of fights becoming deadly, it increases the number of fights overall.

    Bullying happens. Subject certain kids to constant harassment with no recourse and no way out, and you get Columbine.

    1. Re:What's the rationalization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.

      While keeping knives and guns out of schools *might* reduce the chances of fights becoming deadly, it increases the number of fights overall.

      Bullying happens. Subject certain kids to constant harassment with no recourse and no way out, and you get Columbine.

      What are you proposing, teenager open carry in school to deter bullying?

    2. Re:What's the rationalization? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

      The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.

      While keeping knives and guns out of schools *might* reduce the chances of fights becoming deadly, it increases the number of fights overall.

      Bullying happens. Subject certain kids to constant harassment with no recourse and no way out, and you get Columbine.

      What are you proposing, teenager open carry in school to deter bullying?

      Obviously, because that's the smart person's conclusion.

      I would never consider addressing bullying by other means.

      In comparison to letting teens carry weapons, all the other options seem kind of... silly?

      (And for the record, why do I have to propose a solution anyway? Don't social scientists and psychologists read this board?)

    3. Re:What's the rationalization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While keeping knives and guns out of schools *might* reduce the chances of fights becoming deadly, it increases the number of fights overall.

      Nice lie. Next time, try stating facts.

  31. Sounds like a nice plan for a computer-game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. so maybe we should now arrest every comic-author, game-inventor and movie-producer as all of those 'plan' really really cruel things .. (not to forget about military, which is probably the worst in these kinds of plans .. )

  32. Cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meowwwwwwwww!!!

    1. Re:Cats by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Meowwwwwwwww!!!

      No, that's for Chinese Restaurants.

  33. I'll lay money by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'll lay money that these four students follow the "religion pf peace"

  34. Re:Systemd is responsible for the cow comments. by Barsteward · · Score: 0

    you just wasted 6 weeks of your life putting that post together.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  35. Re:I'll lay money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll lay money that these four students follow the "religion pf peace"

    In which case it will turn out that they were all keen on drama and practicing a play. Everyone will have to apologize and they will be given a trip to the white house.

  36. Re:Sad by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    you are just as bad assuming it was a "euro"

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  37. Re:I'll lay money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll lay money that you've never actually talked with any real people of that religion, and only have your conception of them based on what you see in the media.

  38. Re:I'll lay money by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    I'll lay money that you've never actually talked with any real people of that religion, and only have your conception of them based on what you see in the media.

    Wrong

  39. Re:Systemd is responsible for the cow comments. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi Lennart--thanks for sharing!

  40. Re:I'll lay money by Almir43 · · Score: 1

    An interesting bet. How many of the high-school / college mass killings in USA were done by the religion of peace, do you reckon?

  41. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by gtall · · Score: 1

    Nice wookie defense, straw men all. The problem is the American he-boy is taught that he's got a big dick if he has a big gun.

  42. Re:I'll lay money by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Troll

    An interesting bet. How many of the high-school / college mass killings in USA were done by the religion of peace, do you reckon?

    Not many, but this one is a conspiracy of four. While its possible that four lone loonies found each-other it is much more likely that they were all muslim, and that way knowing that they would at least not get reported for telling each other their plans.

  43. Time will tell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm getting a bit of a vibe that this story is massively overblown, it seems clear that they didn't have any weapons and the only "proof" are confessions by several high school students. It's possible that the police caught several severely disturbed individuals planning a mass killing, and if they did they have my thanks. But its also possible that this is another case of overreaching law enforcement taking a few loud mouthed idiots ranting as a massive criminal conspiracy and rolling in with SWAT teams, armored vehicles and heavy handed interrogation tactics, if that's the case some of these officers need to spend time behind bars themselves.

  44. Re:I'll lay money by Almir43 · · Score: 1

    I understand, but how many is not many? 5 or 10 or 50? I can't remember a single one off the top of my head to be honest.

  45. must have been by Necroloth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    must have been non-muslim kids... if it were angry and mentally unstable muslim kids, this would be a terrorist attack averted.

  46. Re:I'll lay money by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    As far as I know the recent Oklahoma college killing. We'll see about this one shortly I'm sure

  47. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well much of the rest of the world is apparently defenceless by your terms but also actually less likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed given how disturbingly high the figures are for those things in the US.

    But maybe that's because we're not all so weak and fat that we believe the only form of self defence is a gun. Seriously, when did you become such a nation of pussies?

  48. Re:I'll lay money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, those Christians, so violent, and responsible for most the deaths in the United States. Despite having "Thou shalt not murder" (or kill, depending on translation) as one of their commandments. Such hypocrites!

  49. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political

    You know how to find out if some situation has political ramifications? If it contains any plurality of people, there will be politics.

    You know who "turned the situation political" first? Obama. Because he made the first public political statement, right? From a politician?

    Or maybe, just maybe, nobody made the situation political, because it was already political.

    Maybe someday you'll have an idea worth associating with an identity, and on that day you'll log in and share it with us. Until then, your use of the AC account proves that you know you're talking shit.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  50. Understanding what is reality and what is fiction by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

    Apparently females can tell reality from fiction a lot better than males. And maybe even minority males can, as well?

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
  51. I remember... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    a time before the thought police arrested people for having an imagination...

  52. POLITICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure some politician will use it as an excuse to say "see, the California gun laws prevented them from doing this". CNN will be all over it, as will Obama. You watch and see.

  53. Re:LOGICIANS OUTRAGED/Strawman! by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    How about backing up your claim by providing proof that the NRA advocates that people under 18 should have access to firearms? Their website has a detailed description of their stance on the issue and there are plenty of YouTube vids of NRA spokespeople.

    Otherwise, refrain from posting your strawman BS.

  54. Re:I'll lay money by rhazz · · Score: 1

    it is much more likely that they were all muslim

    Based on today's media standards, the mere fact that the race/religion of the kids is not mentioned suggests that they are white. But you just go on gobbling up all the fear-mongering about those dangerous muslims.

  55. Re: I'll lay money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Oregon, not Oklahoma. I'm sure it is easy to confuse the two.

  56. Did they have a clock? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

    In this society, that is the important question.

  57. Re:I'll lay money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fairness pretty much all religions preach peace out the front door.

  58. Re:I'll lay money by dave420 · · Score: 0

    You disgusting, lazy human being. Whatever society shat out your flaccid intellect should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. You just made a generalisation of over 1.6 billion people and didn't even blink. You need help.

  59. How do the cops know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do the cops know that these kids weren't just working on the plot for a school play about mass killings? Given how many have happened, this is not an unlikely scenario. Kids are scared, and need to explore how this shit happens. I wrote a short story about heroin addiction, but that doesn't mean I ever had anything to do with it!

  60. Re:I'll lay money by gsslay · · Score: 1

    Christianity? Well chances are they are.

    For God is not a God of disorder but of peace - Corinthians 14:33

  61. Re:I'll lay money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which one is that? Christianity? Anti-semitism? White supremacism?

  62. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a moron with some sort of dick jealousy. I've never understood your stupid ass shit about some dick things when it comes to weapons and cars. What the fuck is your major malfunction? Sounds like you are just a selfish fuck, that wouldn't allow things you don't care for for others either.

    Signed
    Not from america

  63. To those who think banning guns are the answer by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In your mind, guns ARE the problem. Removing them from society, even though 99% of owners have never done anything wrong, is your magic fix for the problem.

    The rest of us try to make you all see reason in that guns, like anything else humans have used to kill each other over our entire existence, are nothing more than tools. How they're used is solely up to the wielder of said tool. However, you seem to ignore this fact every single time some bat-shit-crazy individual goes out and shoots up a bus full of Nuns, or a schoolyard, a workplace, or whatever. It's the GUNS fault. Each and every time.

    Yet ( and this is where your hypocrisy really shines ) anytime the shooting starts, what is the very first thing you do ?

    You dial 911.

    Which you know will do what ?

    IT BRINGS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WITH GUNS TO THE SCENE. The relevant part of that sentence being " WITH GUNS ".
    Don't even go down the path of " Well they're properly trained to use them " because we're not talking about the wielder are we ? We're talking about the tool. Remember, to you all, it's the gun. Not the person behind it.

    So to all of you who seem to think guns are the problem and not the people wielding them, how do you justify calling the police for help ? Knowing they're going to be bringing lots of guns with them. Remember, to you all, it's not the people, it's without a doubt the GUN that's the problem which is why you want them all banned.

    So, I have to ask. Which is it ?

    Are guns really the problem or do you think it might just be guns in the hands of the wrong type of person that might be our issue here ? Because if you think it's ok to call the police ( who will be bringing lots of guns with them ) then you can't possibly deny that, in the hands of the right people, guns can actually save lives.

    Afterthought: This will probably nuke my karma into oblivion but I don't really care. The folks who think banning something like a firearm will magically make everyone get along and the killings will stop just makes absolutely no sense to me. Mankind has been killing each other en masse since the dawn of time for various reasons using various tools. I don't see us stopping that behavior anytime soon unless we nuke each other into sub-atomic particles. The bright side of nuking everything would be the majority of your gun violence would stop :D

    1. Re:To those who think banning guns are the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd asked the same people 3 to 6 months ago whether police should have access to firearms then I'm not sure the answer would have been yes. In their utopia, citizens aren't armed so police don't have to be either.

    2. Re:To those who think banning guns are the answer by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Because the police are the GOVERNMENT duh! Everybody knows that the government only does things for the common good. And police would never lie.

    3. Re:To those who think banning guns are the answer by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You are talking to straw men. No remotely sensible person is saying guns anywhere is a problem. WIDE , EASY availability of guns causes THIS kind of violence. Removing such availability will reduce such violence, but Americans will have to figure out whether it will reduce overall violence at an acceptable cost.

      How does it reduce this kind of violence? If guns are easily available outside an area X, banned inside that area X, and border of X is not guarded by better guns/ much better trained and motivated people/ tanks - this causes the guns to be easily carried inside area X. To fix this, you could either make guns available / "carryable" easily inside area X e.g. a coffee shop in Florida, OR make guns difficult to obtain outside area X e.g. Canada schools.

      Border between USA and Canada is protected by much stronger protection than can be beaten by typical amateurs, so you don't have to worry that much about guns from USA carried inside Canada schools.

      On the other hand, it is dangerous for typical amateurs to start shooting in a Florida coffee shop, because you can get shot by any other customer.

      You insist on only the latter kind of protection, but former also works against THIS kind of violence.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  64. idjits by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    Is shooting up your school this year's version of the "27 club" fad?

  65. The whole issue is being approached the wrong way by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Here's the thing.

    Conspiracy to commit murder is pretty much 99.highNines% a "bad thing" and so if people do that, we have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that some assholes will do this is true; the fact that we want to then isolate them from everyone is also true. This, then, is a good law, because it does not interfere with everyone else's legitimate goings-on, and it can actually protect us from those assholes -- it's just about a perfect guarantee that if people are engaged in conspiracy to commit murder, it'd be much, much better for everyone else if they are stopped.

    Carrying a gun is pretty much a 99.highNines% okay thing, as in, no one is going to get hurt by that, and so if people do that, we do not have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that very, very rarely, some assholes with bad intent will carry guns is not a good reason to tell everyone else they cannot carry guns. Further, as anything these assholes do that is actually asshole-ish already has a law against it (including conspiracy to commit murder, as above), we already have somewhat working tools to address, punish the actuality of, and in some cases even prevent, the problem. Do we need more tools? Yes, we do, because the problem continues to arise -- we have not solved it.

    So, as to appropriate and effective tools: I think it's fair to say that most young who are in a state of mind of "I want to [kill|maim] [person|list]" have been pretty severely mistreated in one way or another. Classing, bullying, shaming, beatings and so on. Reducing that is where the effort should be applied by society. Not only because those things are bad, as they certainly are, but because they are known to be significantly contributing or primarily causal factors in this kind of acting out. Which, by the way, guns are not. The act of keeping and carrying arms is not what makes a person want to use it on other people. It's the wrong behavioral target. The problem is not arms. The problem is our defective culture, specifically in how our people, most definitely including our young people, treat each other due to perceived differences. Schools pretty much ignore this stuff. I remember all of it going on at a pretty good clip in my high school, and also in the high school my kids went to decades later. When they were bullied and shamed and I went in to talk about it with the powers that be at the school, I was told the kids "just have to work it out", which is, in my opinion, the root of the problem. No, the kids don't have to work it out on their own. The authorities should be eliminating the problem in every way possible, root, stem and branch. The entire competitive landscape in schools is wrongheaded, from academia to sports to any other means of holding up A as "better" than B. That's a whole different discussion, but that does provide a good overview of the problem.

    Restricting arms won't solve the problem. Two reasons: One, it isn't the problem, and two, once someone is in the state of mind that says "I'm gonna [maim|kill] alla these fuckerz", they're already well past obeying laws, and well past caring about how it is done. So say there are magically no more guns. Does that clear the deck of easy ways to [maim|kill]? No, of course it doesn't. A little sword work, some mace swinging, a well-timed exercise of driving a vehicle into a crowd, home-made explosives, any number of poisoning mechanisms, sabotaging a bus, a well-set fire... it's just not that difficult to create huge amounts of mayhem, specifically or generally, by any number of easy means, even if all guns were magicked away. That is the core matter -- not how the mayhem is created. Guns are simply the preferred tool right now. Take them out of the equation, and it is a certainty that something else will become the preferred tool. Because all such a restriction does is take away that one tool. It doesn't take away either the motivation for mayhem, or

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  66. If guns are banned... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

    ... what's to prevent more guns being imported disguised as routine cocaine shipments?

  67. Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like the pre-crime unit has been busy....

  68. Billy Joel Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know the good ole days weren't always good
    And tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems

  69. My hosts file can't stop that... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject - there's one for you that it can't stop... happy now (see result article).

    * :)

    (It's not that good, & neither am I - & I wasn't there or aware of it...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Now, IF I was & was aware of it - never would've happened @ all - as I'd have stopped it, as only I can (lol, let's see Duke Nukem do better in his NEW book "Why I'm so great!"...)

    ... apk

  70. Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Much of the rest of the world actually is more violent than the US. Many countries in Europe have higher rates of violence than the US for crimes such as rape, battery, and others.

    Why don't you let me know how resisting rapists and thugs works out for you when you get old, sick, handicapped, or outnumbered? In the US people can still have a decent chance of defending themselves. In your sad world, not so much. You know what is going to happen to you in this situation? You'll probably be beaten, robbed, raped, and killed. The US isn't a nation of "pussies," you're just not bright enough to understand the facts of life and make provision for the future.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  71. Re:I'll lay money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course not. He doesn't believe 'the media'. That's for rubes.

  72. had not however been able yet to obtain the weapon by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    "had not however been able yet to obtain the weapons they wanted"
    well, clearly they're not real Americans then.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.