That doesn’t always work- see Columbine.
After Columbine they rewrote the book on procedures for shootings. At that time, the best practice was thought to be contain and wait. They no longer do that. This has already been pointed out in this thread.
“Going out in a BLAZE of glory”? That must be why this monster brought FIRE-BOMBS with him. This monster was mentally disturbed and I’m guessing there were clues about his mental instability in his recent past. Clues that were somehow ignored.
The BOMBERS at Columbine and Aurora should suggest to you that mentally disturbed monsters have other means to kill and maim. It’s obvious that Colorado police have changed their tactics in an attempt to deal with these situations. Maybe you should change your tactics and address the mental health issues also?
Sure we should address mental health issues. But I don’t support the notion that gun restrictions can’t be considered until all other means to commit murder have been eliminated.
Hahahaha. Where do “we” agree? You blame firearms. I blame the mentally disturbed bomber/shooter. If you were to somehow manage to gather enough votes to make your firearm-free utopia possible, you’re still left with mentally disturbed monsters who use whatever means is at their disposal to kill and maim others.
Don’t get all unhinged- I think we all agree that we need to do something about mental health in the US. Let’s work on that. Do we need to bring back the days of asylums? Maybe. But we can have this conversation without having guns get in the way.
Yes, we can have this discussion, once people on both sides stop parroting their side’s talking points, such as this:
If only Congress could do this. However, sticking to the party line gets you re-elected. Working with the other side gets you primaried out.
Hahahaha. Your idea of not “having guns get in the way” is to ban/confiscate them all. You don’t have the votes to do that and it doesn’t address the mental health issue failures at all.
One of the reasons conversations about guns, violence, and mental health are so goddamned difficult is the language people choose to use.
doorhinge, you consistently characterize this kid as a “monster” even as you acknowledge mental illness. That alone makes me completely dismiss everything you have to say.
I’m not suggesting you change it or anything, and I certainly don’t expect you to give much of a rat’s ass what I think. But it might be worth noting how you present yourself through your use of language.
.
It makes sense if the shooter wishes to commit suicide and does not want to risk getting shot and then captured.
This kid is a monster. But what point are you trying to make? That I didn’t meet your expectations of some ritualistic protocal that you require to join a discussion? How have you furthered this discussion?
Early, armed intervention.
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
For what it’s worth, I’m of the same mind as andros. Sick people need help, not dehumanization. I get where you’re going here – blame the shooter, not the weapon, but acknowledging that a person is sick and then calling them a monster in the same sentence strikes me as odd. Do we blame the shooter or the illness? If the latter, then the shooter isn’t a monster. I.e., if we discover that he had a brain tumor that was affecting his behavior, do you still call him a monster? Why would he be more of a monster than someone with a lung tumor?
(underline added for clarity)
Seriously? He brought fire bombs and a shotgun to kill and maim people he disagreed with or just didn’t like. That behavior is monsterous.
Do you know he had a brain/lung tumor? Or are you just assuming he must have had a physical illness? Or are you just trying to change the topic?
Is there any value to labeling this person a “monster”? Does it add anything informative to the discussion? I’m going to say…no.
And sometimes my kids act like brats, but I don’t label them as brats.
You seem to readily admit that he’s mentally ill, or at least very likely mentally ill. Since the brain is a physical object, it’s very likely that all mental illness is physical in some regard, either in brain construction or chemical balance. Do you really draw a distinction somewhere in there? Someone who’s mentally ill can be a monster, but not someone who’s physically ill? I’m just trying to get a sense of who you’re OK with dehumanizing.
The one school I’ve encountered that was on permanent lockdown and had a guard posted at the door (IDK if they were armed or not) was a K-3 school in a middle-class neighborhood in a small city in a rural area. This was the school attended by children that age who lived at the domestic violence shelter, and that’s why they had such high security. The guard was paid by the agency.
He is neither white or black or brown or yellow or red or green. He is neither Democrat or Republican. He is neither socialist or communist or capitalist. He is neither tall or short or fat or thin. He is someone who committed a monsterous act.