Doesn't matter what the perp was "on" he's still entitled to carry isn't he?
This stuff is so commonplace it's barely newsworthy anymore. Sad as it is.
That news article is so sparse on info I dont really even see confirmation if it was a student, ex student, teacher, congressman.... or not. It didnt even say how the "gunman" died. But I doubt he had a carry license. Wanna place yer bets?
" A gunman shot and killed a student Tuesday shortly after classes started at a high school in a quiet Columbia River town in Oregon and was later found dead as police arrived, authorities said. ..Police also did not identify the gunman or say how he died. The first reports of shots fired came at 8 a.m. Students were eventually led from the school with hands on their heads. Parents and students were reunited in a supermarket parking lot."
Here's the infoplease one since it was the easiest to extract data from, with non-USA countries removed: 1996 - 1 # 1997 - 4 #### 1998 - 5 ##### 1999 - 4 #### 2000 - 4 #### 2001 - 6 ###### 2002 - 2 ## 2003 - 3 ### 2004 - 0 2005 - 2 ## 2006 - 4 #### 2007 - 4 #### 2008 - 5 ##### 2009 - 1 # 2010 - 3 ### 2011 - 5 ##### 2012 - 8 ######## 2013 - 2 ## 2014 - 4 #### so far (with the addition of today's)
It doesn't appear to be any real pattern (though 2009-2012 was setting a bad trend) in over 15 years of data. If indeed there are more now than before, what is the cause?
This stuff is so commonplace it's barely newsworthy anymore. Sad as it is.
Yup. And will definitely be the catalyst for stricter gun-control.
But weapons aren't the problem. They sit just fine on a shelf all by themselves, never causing a single problem. It when people interact with them that they go to work.....for good OR evil.
It all has to do with the way we (society; i.e. culture) are building adults. The problem is so complex that I hesitate to even attempt a solution. Do we force people to raise their kids a certain way? Do we force all forms of media to a specific game plan (TV, books, music, digital entertainment, etc.)? Do we put everyone through frequent psychoanalysis check-ups?
Or do we just say that this is the price we pay for the ability to retain the means to protect our freedoms?
People always have and always will have the ability to go faulty. It can happen at birth, at 16 years, 80 years, or anywhere in-between. Or not at all, ever.
And even if/when a person does go faulty, that is still no guarantee that they will hurt another person. Most probably just go get drunk and/or laid and tomorrow is a new day. Been doing it for years now.
Since it seems unlikely we will ever be able to predict what a human being will do at any given time throughout the course of his life, the answer must lie elsewhere. Do we mold a society in a way that promotes strict ideals about what we will and won't accept regarding behavior? I thought we already do that...
What is the answer?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 06-10-2014).]
Doesn't matter what the perp was "on" he's still entitled to carry isn't he?
Nope, but I wouldn't expect you to know U.S. gun laws. You're not allowed to commit murder. You're not allowed to carry guns on school property. You're not allowed to carry guns while impaired by any substance, legal or not. (that covers alcohol and drugs, both prescription and illicit, as well as any condition that impairs your cognitive ability) There are others, but those three should apply here. Possibly more.
Yup. And will definitely be the catalyst for stricter gun-control.
But weapons aren't the problem. They sit just fine on a shelf all by themselves, never causing a single problem. It when people interact with them that they go to work.....for good OR evil.
It all has to do with the way we (society; i.e. culture) are building adults. The problem is so complex that I hesitate to even attempt a solution. Do we force people to raise their kids a certain way? Do we force all forms of media to a specific game plan (TV, books, music, digital entertainment, etc.)? Do we put everyone through frequent psychoanalysis check-ups?
Or do we just say that this is the price we pay for the ability to retain the means to protect our freedoms?
People always have and always will have the ability to go faulty. It can happen at birth, at 16 years, 80 years, or anywhere in-between. Or not at all, ever.
And even if/when a person does go faulty, that is still no guarantee that they will hurt another person. Most probably just go get drunk and/or laid and tomorrow is a new day. Been doing it for years now.
Since it seems unlikely we will ever be able to predict what a human being will do at any given time throughout the course of his life, the answer must lie elsewhere. Do we mold a society in a way that promotes strict ideals about what we will and won't accept regarding behavior? I thought we already do that...
What is the answer?
Good description.
My comment about mind altering drugs is the extent that I believe we overdo it. Over prescribe, over advertise, over use. Drugs that you cant miss a dose without going off the chain, drugs that if you double dose you go off the deep end. Drugs that make you drive in your sleep for goodness sakes.
Many psychoactive drugs have possible side effects of violent episodes or psychotic behavior. It's a very small percentage... but how many people are taking the drugs? If 100,000 people are on a drug with a 0.1% rate of violent episodes, you can expect 100 people to go off their nut.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-10-2014).]
Many psychoactive drugs have possible side effects of violent episodes or psychotic behavior. It's a very small percentage... but how many people are taking the drugs? If 100,000 people are on a drug with a 0.1% rate of violent episodes, you can expect 100 people to go off their nut.
I believe it's driven by improved communications. There has always been frustration with some levels of society and the government. There is always someone that doesn't like something about someone else. In the past, venting and making themselves heard was extremely limited. It traveled by word of mouth, maybe some meeting, maybe a printed newsletter for like-minded people. You had to actively seek it out.
Today, anyone that feels slighted has a bazillion blogs and new reports to feed that frustration (true or not.) Throw in a marginal personality and we get these attacks and murders. People don't always stop and think if what they just heard or read is true.
Mass communication has tested the limits of human's ability to consume the stories of evil and unfairness in the world. It rings a bell in some people and they detonation. If their family life has been miserable, abusive or unsupportive they feel hopeless and look to act. Roll it all up ... I don't think it's about garnering fame at all. The idea of "fame" is only icing on the cake. It's about venting, frustration and revenge. Maybe occasional it's justified. Occasionally.
There is no solution in my opinion. I believe we have reached a point where mass communication is now driving everything and we can't (nor should we) go back. But now people can find any reason they need from around the world to justify their actions. Before you *might* find one other person to reinforce your thoughts unless you actively pursed a group with the same thinking. Even when we attempt to homogenize thinking we invariable need to silence people that steps out of bounds.
Maybe we can intercede and talk some sense into people but most of the time we surround ourselves with like-minded thinking and we certainly can't go inserting ourselves into every single potential problem. But if all of us would question just one person when they start spouting off stuff that seems to point in the direction of an outburst we might stop one event. Just one.
Add to this we are expected to have an emotional attachment to every horrible event around the world. We are human. We can't handle it. Look at OT here. It's filled with stories that 100 years ago we would have never heard about. It's a constant barrage of how bad the world is. Human's can't handle that. It shows day in and day out.
Guns? If we didn't have guns someone would invent them .. again. As said, they just sit there doing nothing most of the time. A human has to find a reason to do something with it. Well, I guess there are plenty of reasons out there.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 06-11-2014).]
At least the shooters dead too. Thats the only good that comes out of this stuff. Lots of people are doing away with school and doing the home schooling thing these days. Lock all school doors and windows when school is in session. Get rid of backpacks (I never had one). Hire enough guards for entrance doors to allow for patdowns on everyone coming in. Make the students parents bear their costs...they pay for sports in a lot of schools. Arm all the teachers that want to. Anyone else bringing a gun into the school gets an automatic 20 years in jail, even if hes 12 years old.
At least the shooters dead too. Thats the only good that comes out of this stuff. Lots of people are doing away with school and doing the home schooling thing these days. Lock all school doors and windows when school is in session. Get rid of backpacks (I never had one). Hire enough guards for entrance doors to allow for patdowns on everyone coming in. Make the students parents bear their costs...they pay for sports in a lot of schools. Arm all the teachers that want to. Anyone else bringing a gun into the school gets an automatic 20 years in jail, even if hes 12 years old.
The problem is that a 12 year old will have killed several people before you can write up the detention paperwork.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 06-11-2014).]
Nope, but I wouldn't expect you to know U.S. gun laws.
This is true in my state at least. Its a legal requirement to be a "proper person", which includes no malicious intent or impairment. If you are no longer a "proper person" your permit is no longer valid, in the eyes of the law and must relinquish it.
This is true in my state at least. Its a legal requirement to be a "proper person", which includes no malicious intent or impairment. If you are no longer a "proper person" your permit is no longer valid, in the eyes of the law and must relinquish it.
I guess that's where I see the disconnect. Many seem to want to fight any legislation that would regulate such things.
I guess that's where I see the disconnect. Many seem to want to fight any legislation that would regulate such things.
Its *already* regulated was my point. I was simply stating what has been the law in my state longer than i have been alive, not some proposal. ( and i'm sure most every state of the union has similar laws )
Its *already* regulated was my point. I was simply stating what has been the law in my state longer than i have been alive, not some proposal. ( and i'm sure most every state of the union has similar laws )
And that is the part that I have difficulty understanding. Why there is such blowback at the suggestion that regulation be enforced or updated. More stringent background checks for example.
And that is the part that I have difficulty understanding. Why there is such blowback at the suggestion that regulation be enforced or updated. More stringent background checks for example.
I dont think anyone is arguing against enforcement of existing laws. What we are against is expanding the laws, when the existing laws are already overreaching.
However, that said, even if the current laws were enforced to the T, it wont stop incidents like this. Regardless of what some people think, laws dont stop people with intent to do harm. Laws really do 2 things: They restrict the honest, and hand out penalties for the dishonest.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 06-10-2014).]
Do we know the age of the one who did the shooting yet? Sorry I thought my wife said he was 14, but that was the victim. All I can find is "a teen gunman". That's pretty vague covering from 13-19 of which you can only legally purchase and own a long gun for 2 of those ages, 18 and 19. If he was under 18 he couldn't legally own a firearm let alone purchase one. If he used a hand gun, well then he was in illegal possession of that as you have to be 21 to purchase a hand gun.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 06-10-2014).]
I dont think anyone is arguing against enforcement of existing laws. What we are against is expanding the laws, when the existing laws are already overreaching.
However, that said, even if the current laws were enforced to the T, it wont stop incidents like this. Regardless of what some people think, laws dont stop people with intent to do harm. Laws really do 2 things: They restrict the honest, and hand out penalties for the dishonest.
Considering they are withholding the shooters identity until his family is notified, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume he was still a minor.
That being said, and considering the age restrictions on the purchase of firearms,
Newf, how is more stringent background checks going to help when a lot of these school shootings are carried out by minors who are not legally allowed to purchase or own a firearm?
Seems to be working fine. No need for it to be revised or updated???
A change in wording will have less effect than reliably enforcing the existing laws across the board. But that takes effort and doesn't give you the campaign sound bites. It sounds much better to say that you passed "new strong laws - FOR THE CHIDREN!" rather than "yeah, we finally got around to enforcing the laws we should have been enforcing all along."
Maybe they could change the laws to read: "Guns are REALLY not allowed on school property" and "Murder is TOTALLY against the law." That should help.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-11-2014).]
Will parents allow a strangers hands all over their kids outside the parents presence?
Should everyone be patted down everywhere before entering buildings? Some people are not going to like that...
Its not against the law to lock doors as long as they open normally from inside only. You only need to keep gunmen out. I know of many exit doors that are locked 24/7 but easily open from inside.
This is the world now. If you want you kids lives protected, you have to give up something. Women to check out the girls line, men to check out the boys line. I dont see a problem if it was protecting my kids. If you dont do anything, you cant complain when theyre killed. Im only talking about schools btw. Other buildings your on your own. Government offices usually have metal detectors, so they dont pat you down...at least ones Ive gone into.
Mass communication has tested the limits of human's ability to consume the stories of evil and unfairness in the world.
I believe we have reached a point where mass communication is now driving everything and we can't (nor should we) go back. But now people can find any reason they need from around the world to justify their actions. Before you *might* find one other person to reinforce your thoughts unless you actively pursed a group with the same thinking. Even when we attempt to homogenize thinking we invariable need to silence people that steps out of bounds.
Add to this we are expected to have an emotional attachment to every horrible event around the world. We are human. We can't handle it. Look at OT here. It's filled with stories that 100 years ago we would have never heard about. It's a constant barrage of how bad the world is. Human's can't handle that. It shows day in and day out.
.
Another good description. Probably why some people want to uncheck politics and never read about them.
Doesn't matter what the perp was "on" he's still entitled to carry isn't he?
This stuff is seemingly so commonplace in the last week or so it's barely newsworthy anymore. Sad as it is.
"Including Tuesday's incident at a high school in Troutdale, Oregon, 74 school shootings have taken place in the approximately 18 months since the Dec. 14, 2012, Newtown shooting. The average school year typically lasts about 180 days, which means there have been roughly 270 school days, or 54 weeks, of class since the shooting at Newtown. With 74 total incidents over that period, the nation is averaging well over a shooting per school week.
The data maintained by Everytown for Gun Safety also shows that these shootings have occurred throughout the country. In all, 31 states have had an incident of gun violence at a school. Georgia has witnessed far more incidents than others, with 10 happening at schools there since Sandy Hook. There have been seven school shootings in Florida, five in Tennessee, four in North Carolina and four in California.
The majority of the school shootings, 39, have taken place at K-12 schools. The remainder of them have happened at colleges or universities."
Is it too much to ask that murder be illegal? Or that those convicted of murderous action actually be punished, instead of given three squares, a roof, and medical? Many bad apples are released with just a scratch at their sentence. Never serving the actual time given. I am not pertaining to an eye for an eye scenario. But allow for a sentencing fitting of the crime.
I tend to agree with TK's assessment of mass media. We are compounded with others bad deeds. The constant brain pounding is too much for some.
Is it too much to ask that murder be illegal? Or that those convicted of murderous action actually be punished, instead of given three squares, a roof, and medical? Many bad apples are released with just a scratch at their sentence. Never serving the actual time given.
And you are in NC as well, with restrictions. (must have a CCH, and it must remain locked in your car) But this happened in Troutdale, Ore. Most state still prohibit it, so I'm going with the safest assumption. Either way, murder is still illegal. I mean, it's really illegal.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-11-2014).]
"Including Tuesday's incident at a high school in Troutdale, Oregon, 74 school shootings have taken place in the approximately 18 months since the Dec. 14, 2012, Newtown shooting. The average school year typically lasts about 180 days, which means there have been roughly 270 school days, or 54 weeks, of class since the shooting at Newtown. With 74 total incidents over that period, the nation is averaging well over a shooting per school week.
The data maintained by Everytown for Gun Safety also shows that these shootings have occurred throughout the country. In all, 31 states have had an incident of gun violence at a school. Georgia has witnessed far more incidents than others, with 10 happening at schools there since Sandy Hook. There have been seven school shootings in Florida, five in Tennessee, four in North Carolina and four in California.
The majority of the school shootings, 39, have taken place at K-12 schools. The remainder of them have happened at colleges or universities."
Trust Michael Bloomberg. He knows what's best for you. Let's see - 1 shooting per week in the nation. There's approximately 139,000 schools in the U.S. Source: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 There's a 0.0007% change of a shooting at your school each week!!! Ok, maybe a little higher in NC and GA, so round it up to 0.001% to be safe. It's only a matter of time before there's a shooting at every school in the nation. Somwhere between 1000 and 2000 years or so. (not counting time off for Summer)
Interesting how the same data can be presented in such different ways.
By comparison, there were 506 homicides in Chicago in 2012. With a population of 2.7 Million, that means you have a 0.019% change of being killed in Chicago each year. Or about 0.0036% change of being killed each week for just being in Chicago.
We must do something about Chicago! It's For The Children™.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-11-2014).]
I was just going to bring up Chicago but you beat me to it, Formula.
I wonder what the statistics are for 17-younger (children) murder victims and what they are in the city of Chicago where is ILLEGAL for you to carry a firearm as a private citizen?
Seems to me that the criminals have no problem possessing and carrying firearms in places where it is banned. (To be totally honest, if you look at whole countries where possession of guns is completely banned, the criminal element is still somehow able to possess them).
I also remember reading an FBI report not too long ago about the alarming severe lack of firearm related prosecutions that are actually pursued in Chicago. It just seems as though the people in charge of that great city simply don't care about the law-abiding populous and their safety. If they did care, they would be throwing the book at the offenders and would be doing everything they could to keep them off the street.
But that's not the liberal way. They don't want to upset their base, so they have a reputation for being extremely lenient on crime and criminals. Instead, they would rather just cut them loose on the public and then restrict the law-abiding citizen's right and ability to defend themselves. Am I wrong?
