Biden's gun control speech interrupted with news of school shooting

[MoFinz]

You want me to get psychological? There is a reason guns are the weapon of choice for violent crimes, especially among young men. It's the least personal way to kill someone. You need to get close enough to someone to see the life leaving their face to kill them with other methods. That's a level of intimacy most people are unable, or unwilling, to do. So no, without a gun, it's a VERY safe assumption that this victim is not assaulted.

I don't see what Obama or his family have to do with this, but the secret service has protected the first family for centuries. I don't see the relevance. They would have that armed detail with them wherever they go, whether that be school, church, the arcade, the park, or anywhere. You're sensationalizing. The fact is an armed police officer was unable to prevent this shooting. Since the Newport shooting, everyone's go to solution is having armed police officers on campus. Well here is a case study, and it didn't turn out the way the NRA says it would. So now what...?

He chose his victim. You're assuming his cowardice would have prevented the murder if he had not had access to a firearm. But you can't say definitely. Maybe he hated the other kid so much he wanted to see maximum carnage. Theres always a what if or a but, however, the fact is one kid wanted to kill another.

And I have no issue with SS protection for POTUS and his family, but isn't it convenient that the POTUS sends his kids to a school that already employed 11 armed guards BEFORE he sent his kids there.....so again, you're comparing one guard at a school, and i'm saying what happens when you multiply the armed guards? Want to bet the kid that shot the other kid in Cali might have rethought that strategy knowing there were more than one armed guard at the school? Whats and Buts.....

Don't be so quick to dismiss the case study until you've studied all the facets

[Locke]

He chose his victim. You're assuming his cowardice would have prevented the murder if he had not had access to a firearm. But you can't say definitely. Maybe he hated the other kid so much he wanted to see maximum carnage. Theres always a what if or a but, however, the fact is one kid wanted to kill another.

And I have no issue with SS protection for POTUS and his family, but isn't it convenient that the POTUS sends his kids to a school that already employed 11 armed guards BEFORE he sent his kids there.....so again, you're comparing one guard at a school, and i'm saying what happens when you multiply the armed guards? Want to bet the kid that shot the other kid in Cali might have rethought that strategy knowing there were more than one armed guard at the school? Whats and Buts.....

Don't be so quick to dismiss the case study until you've studied all the facets

I've got 4 years of undergrad and 4.5 years of graduate work experience in this field. I'm telling you, without a gun, most people don't have the testicular fortitude to kill someone. I can't say for sure with this kid, but the average person simply can't kill someone up close and personal. There is a world of difference between standing a dozen feet away and shooting someone and being forced to see/smell/hear the life leaving a human being. Soldiers are trained for years, and incrementally desensitized, in order to do it. Those who are able to do it without any issues are called psychopaths.

So now one armed guard obviously isn't enough, but MORE than that would do the trick? How is this going to be paid for? And what happens when despite having 5 armed guards, a poor kid gets shot anyways. Do we up to 50? Then 100? Then what? Does each student get an armed escort all day? More guns isn't the answer. Controlling who has the existing ones is. That's always been the answer, and everyone knows it. Most people just don't want to change their way of life...

[Bumpus]

Of all of the ridiculous arguments made by the gun nuts, this one is the most logically flawed. Its simply just plain stupid.

I'll speak slowly for you.


If you don't care about breaking the law, how are gun laws going to restrict you?

Answer: They aren't. Further restrictions on guns won't have the impact you think they will.

[GoFins!]

Those who are prepared to commit criminal acts don't care about laws in the first place. Further restrictions will only impact those of us who own firearms responsibly and care about the law.

Of all of the ridiculous arguments made by the gun nuts, this one is the most logically flawed. Its simply just plain stupid.

I would really appreciate an attempt on your part to support your assertion.

[MoFinz]

I've got 4 years of undergrad and 4.5 years of graduate work experience in this field. I'm telling you, without a gun, most people don't have the testicular fortitude to kill someone. I can't say for sure with this kid, but the average person simply can't kill someone up close and personal. There is a world of difference between standing a dozen feet away and shooting someone and being forced to see/smell/hear the life leaving a human being. Soldiers are trained for years, and incrementally desensitized, in order to do it. Those who are able to do it without any issues are called psychopaths.

So now one armed guard obviously isn't enough, but MORE than that would do the trick? How is this going to be paid for? And what happens when despite having 5 armed guards, a poor kid gets shot anyways. Do we up to 50? Then 100? Then what? Does each student get an armed escort all day? More guns isn't the answer. Controlling who has the existing ones is. That's always been the answer, and everyone knows it. Most people just don't want to change their way of life...

I appreciate your knowledge of the matter, and i wholeheartedly agree with most of your conclusion. However, without case knowledge of this kid, you can't attempt to put him under such a blanket statement, no matter how mostly true it it.

When i was in high school in the early 80's (STFU) there were several vehicles, including teachers, that had shotguns in racks in their vehicles from hunting excursions early in the morning in season. Not once was there a problem with a shotgun being used on campus. So, with such a proliferation of weapons easily accesable, why do you suppose not one gun related fatality ever happened? Was it entirely due to the mindset? We had fights, not as many as some schools i'd imagine, probably more than some others. Why was it never an issue that so many firearms were readily available?

As far as armed guards, they obviously arent the only answer, but they are a damned good start. How about one for every 50 students? Or every 100? Or one for every exterior door? I'll ask again, how can armed guards be dismissed when the POTUS sends his kids to school that had armed guards aside from the SS detail? Obviously a few people thought that was a good deterrent.

And aren't all the gun control arguments based on "If we can save one kids life it's worth it?". Start cutting the budget till you have enough, hire ex-military and law enforcement and put a prescence out there. It will be a lot simpler and cheaper and less divisive than telling a law abiding citizen you're going to infringe on their guaranteed right.

[jared81]

I've got 4 years of undergrad and 4.5 years of graduate work experience in this field. I'm telling you, without a gun, most people don't have the testicular fortitude to kill someone. I can't say for sure with this kid, but the average person simply can't kill someone up close and personal. There is a world of difference between standing a dozen feet away and shooting someone and being forced to see/smell/hear the life leaving a human being. Soldiers are trained for years, and incrementally desensitized, in order to do it. Those who are able to do it without any issues are called psychopaths.

So now one armed guard obviously isn't enough, but MORE than that would do the trick? How is this going to be paid for? And what happens when despite having 5 armed guards, a poor kid gets shot anyways. Do we up to 50? Then 100? Then what? Does each student get an armed escort all day? More guns isn't the answer. Controlling who has the existing ones is. That's always been the answer, and everyone knows it. Most people just don't want to change their way of life...

i dont know if you feel my point is stupid and are not responding to it, but ill try again. no one is trying to say having armed guards will stop the school shootings. we cant stop them, they are apart of our life now. i think having a trained, armed officer at the school will lessen the collatoral damage. maybe a couple of people will still get shot, it is much better than 30 or 40.

[Locke]

i dont know if you feel my point is stupid and are not responding to it, but ill try again. no one is trying to say having armed guards will stop the school shootings. we cant stop them, they are apart of our life now. i think having a trained, armed officer at the school will lessen the collatoral damage. maybe a couple of people will still get shot, it is much better than 30 or 40.

I must have missed it, actually. My apologies.

There is a lot of merit to your argument, actually. But how often are there these mass shootings? Not very often, admittedly. How often is someone wounded from accidental discharge of a firearm? Or how often is someone injured from a crime of passion? It's substantially higher. The occurrence of injury from one of those two will undoubtedly outnumber the lives saved by taking down a mass shooter before he finishes what he was planning. If we're looking at it in strictly numbers, it would make sense to have as few guns on schools as possible. If deterrent is what we're going for, why not just have the local police departments add regular patrols in/around local schools to their daily schedule...?

[Locke]

I appreciate your knowledge of the matter, and i wholeheartedly agree with most of your conclusion. However, without case knowledge of this kid, you can't attempt to put him under such a blanket statement, no matter how mostly true it it.

When i was in high school in the early 80's (STFU) there were several vehicles, including teachers, that had shotguns in racks in their vehicles from hunting excursions early in the morning in season. Not once was there a problem with a shotgun being used on campus. So, with such a proliferation of weapons easily accesable, why do you suppose not one gun related fatality ever happened? Was it entirely due to the mindset? We had fights, not as many as some schools i'd imagine, probably more than some others. Why was it never an issue that so many firearms were readily available?

As far as armed guards, they obviously arent the only answer, but they are a damned good start. How about one for every 50 students? Or every 100? Or one for every exterior door? I'll ask again, how can armed guards be dismissed when the POTUS sends his kids to school that had armed guards aside from the SS detail? Obviously a few people thought that was a good deterrent.

And aren't all the gun control arguments based on "If we can save one kids life it's worth it?". Start cutting the budget till you have enough, hire ex-military and law enforcement and put a prescence out there. It will be a lot simpler and cheaper and less divisive than telling a law abiding citizen you're going to infringe on their guaranteed right.

That's a question people in my field work on vigorously. Here is what we know doesn't cause it: movies, TV shows, video games, and music. Europe has access to the exact same movies and TV shows we do, and they don't even come close to the edge of our numbers on gun crimes. It's the same with music. Germany listens to the same death metal junk that gets blamed for these attacks, yet they don't have the issue either. Video games, my personal favorite, is the latest target. Yet, Japan doubles, going on triples, the number of video games owned/played by their youth. And they have the lowest gun crime rate in the world. Every single game played in the US is also played in Europe and Australia, neither of which comes close to our gun crime rate.

We have no idea what it is yet. It's something cultural, but we can't seem to put our finger on it...

[jared81]

I must have missed it, actually. My apologies.

There is a lot of merit to your argument, actually. But how often are there these mass shootings? Not very often, admittedly. How often is someone wounded from accidental discharge of a firearm? Or how often is someone injured from a crime of passion? It's substantially higher. The occurrence of injury from one of those two will undoubtedly outnumber the lives saved by taking down a mass shooter before he finishes what he was planning. If we're looking at it in strictly numbers, it would make sense to have as few guns on schools as possible. If deterrent is what we're going for, why not just have the local police departments add regular patrols in/around local schools to their daily schedule...?

I know police officers, I have many in my family. Unless you put them in a specific location with an objective, they won't follow through. Most police forces are supposed to patrol school areas as is, it doesn't help. There needs to be a real presence. Arming teachers is not the answer (that's a dumb idea). But creating a bunch of stupid hurdles (Biden) won't help either.

[irish fin fan]

I'm so fed up with libs using these tragedies to push an agenda, it's really sad

Oh, sorry for you been fed up. People definitely need to be aware of your distaste for people WANTING TO TRY TO REDUCE THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT KIDS.