Mass Shootings-Why Do We Insist On Thinking Anything Can Be Done?

How could a student with a gun get in? Also, you're not the guy in your pic are you?

 

My point is they don't have to "get in" a school to murder large numbers of students. You simply fire on them when they are concentrated near the entrances/exits. Remember the deadliest school shooting prior to Columbine? Jonesboro, AR. middle school. The two very young boys who murdered four girls and a teacher NEVER ENTERED the school with weapons. One went in, pulled the fire alarm then ran back out and joined his partner in firing on the crowd as they went outside.

My avatar picture is of my 88 year old dad. He died February 24th, 2017.

 

While there is a highly trained officer at each entrance/exit? Would the Jonesboro shooting have gone the same way?

 

States are starting to arm teachers. We will see if that prevents attacks.

Calling something gun free which had an armed guard is a bit silly. Saying that it was gun free because the gun was not used misses the point. It is just as likely that teachers who are not professional guards will fail as well or shoot someone by mistake.

 

It well could have. Remember an armed police officer exchanging fire with Eric Harris at the outset at Columbine did not stop the massacre

 

I realize this.
Which is irrelevant to stating that gun control works. For it does.
I said nothing about whether or not we will do that here in the USA.

One other poster keeps insisting gun controls don't work. They work in every country that adopted such measure.

 

Like the trained officer in Fl? Still not a guarantee.

 

Or be shot by law enforcement by mistake.
They are risking their lives, from both the criminal shooter and law enforcement.

 

What is the point about bringing up gun control if you don't have an opinion on whether or not we will do it here in the USA? Is your point to just say that taking away guns is good gun control? That's quite obvious. But isn't the point to talk about REAL solutions for the USA?

 

And I suppose a highly successful Pop Warner (Pee Wee) football coach (10-12 year olds) would obviously be a highly successful coach for the Steelers, Eagles, Patriots or Vikings?

After all, the rules are basically the same. It's only a difference in scale.

 

No. Because I can only visualize the real world. Fantasy worlds are great when you're reading Harry Potter. Not so much when debating policy. I don't know where you got this idea that mass shootings with assault weapons can only occur in schools. But a world in which people are allowed to buy assault weapons because they won't use them is less likely in the real world than a shooter attacking Hogwarts.

 

No.
Not entirely.
For it's a false statement, done on purpose, to state gun control doesn't work.

 

What is the fantasy world which you think I'm talking about?

I don't have that idea! I'm just making the point that when it comes to school safety, school security is more important than gun control, because gun control doesn't mean guaranteed control.

Who could ever buy a gun and say that they "won't use them?"

By "effective", I assume you don't mean that guns will not be able to fall into the wrong hands.

What claim?

 

Was this officer called to the scene in response or was he a school protective officer?

 

He was already on duty on the school grounds.

 

I had a look at that. He was in his patrol car at the time that the shooting began which is no use at all because by the time he responded, the killers were inside, leaving the officer with no chance to control the situation. The problem is, School Resource Officer's do not have the primary duty of preventing mass shootings. The idea of a national school safety initiative to prevent school shootings would be to have essentially 'Killer Killing Officers.' even if the officers have to be ruthless born killers themselves - ex-special forces types. And they wouldn't be chilling in patrol cars either, but rather stationed in strategic stationary positions and working in shifts which rotate between multiple officers.

 

We still have no idea what the hell happened in Parkland with regards to the inaction of the school deputy with rumours that he thought the gun fire was coming from outside.

 

When was the last mass shooting in Australia (FBI definition more than four dead)

When was the last mass shooting in the UK?

 

But would they not have more time to respond I’d the killer was not using a high powered rapid fire weapon?

 

Yes, but there wasn't 300,000,000 guns in the UK or Australia at the time that gun control laws were introduced. You're not comparing like with like - its apples and oranges I'm afraid.

Considering the gun culture in the USA, cultivated under the 2nd Amendment for generations, even under a full gun ban, the culture would simply live on via the black market. It really is that simple. Whereas there was never the same gun culture in the UK or Australia. The whole argument of comparing the United States of America to Australia and the UK always fails.

Gun violence has decreased at a faster rate in the US than Australia since the Port Arthur Massacre. Its just that the same can't be said about mass shootings.

Do you mean because it fires at a far faster rate than a handgun?

 

Research has shown that one of the more effective interventions with the firearm reforms was simply to mandate gun safes

Again you do have a difficulty with the US because having a gun is synonymous with self defence whereas here, the UK and many other parts of the world a gun is NOT considered part of self defence. Scalia apparently ruled that gun safes were unconstitutional

Pity because it would have allowed people to keep guns whilst at the same time reducing gun mortality. However all that aside there are not 300,000,000 high Velocity rapid fire weapons of the type mainly associated with the highest mass shooting numbers

 

I think its safe to say that safes will only significantly reduce kids shooting themselves or others at home. So I'm assuming that you're opening up the discussion beyond mass shootings.

That's why the US is the best! In the UK, pepper spray is not considered part of self-defense FFS! They are illegal. The only legal self-defense product? A rape alarm! In that joke of a country, you run the risk of prosecution if you defend yourself with an illegal item if the police find out that you used it to defend yourself!

Do you think that semi-autos have a far higher velocity than handguns?

 

There is some evidence that some suicides and particularly murder suicides are impulsive. It is these impulse murders that are prevented. Not foolproof but any improvement is better than none

The trouble with believing that self defence relies on something other than yourself is that you end up believing that you cannot defend yourself without some form of aid

 

Do you think that semi-autos have a far higher velocity than handguns?

 

This is ridiculous

To the gun control fanatics:

1) There are NOT 300,000,000 rapid fire high velocity weapons in the United States.
2) You can fire almost ANY firearm rapidly regardless of design with some imagination and practice. There are videos on youtube showing how to fire ten rounds from a SINGLE SHOT shotgun in one minute. You can even fire muzzle loading firearms (the modern equivalent of 19th century muskets) pretty rapidly. Years of usage by hunters have shown that.

To the arm the teachers fanatics:

1) You're not going to get a bunch of special forces types trained killers guarding hundreds of thousands of public schools in the U.S. Come on, regardless of whether you think its a good idea, it is not affordable. Schools that stress over hiring 50,000 dollar a year teachers are not going to be hiring 200,000 a year guards (that counts salary, training and equipping) for what is overall a minimal danger.

2) At best, most public schools would get a handful of MINIMALLY trained teachers or other personnel whose firearms safety training basically consists of how to load without shooting themselves. Do you really want that? Again for what is overall a minimal danger..

To the "restrict access to schools" fanatics:

1) As I've pointed out, that isn't doable and hasn't even worked in the past (Jonesboro AR. middle school shootings).

2) You want to have all public school students in the U.S. home schooled? You must because that is the only way to prevent schools being a "target rich environment" for murderers.

Conclusions:
Doing "something" is worse than simply doing "nothing" and this country is better off simply sucking it up and accepting that some things can't be changed?