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."
I come here for geek/tech news. I read stuff like this on real news sites.
Really. Fuck this site.
Also, how is this news for nerds?
We should get updates on cat videos and honey boo boo.
> why target defenseless school or college kids?
You answered your own question with the word defenseless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
"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'.
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.
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.
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
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
Murder laws don't prevent people from saving lives. Anti-gun laws do.
"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.
must have been non-muslim kids... if it were angry and mentally unstable muslim kids, this would be a terrorist attack averted.
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.
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."
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
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.