Arapahoe school shooting

Great Debates
61

Very good point. But what is a good solution? Involuntary commitment if a doctor determines that someone is a danger to themselves or others? And this does not include the whole bullying angle. If someone exhibits signs of stress and anxiety bordering on dangerousness due to being bullied, we can’t blame the victim of bullying. Being able to remove someone from that environment into one in which they flourish needs to be a part of the equation. Part of the issue may be the erosion of discipline in the public school system. Bullies seem to have become bolder, mainly because parents and teachers are no longer on the same team when it comes to discipline. If a teacher tries to discipline a student, they run the risk of the parent siding with the child.

Any way you look at it, the issue is far more complicated than a 10 second soundbite, yet no-one in charge seems to be willing to talk about the difficult things. One side starts the “gun-grabbing”, the other side gets reactionary, and no progress is made. I am glad that there is anecdotal evidence that armed resource officers in schools do some good, but to solve a problem you have to stop the causes, not the symptoms.

62

If that notion makes you sleep better at night feel free to believe it. It has no resemblance to reality however.

63

I’m sorry I was unclear. Frankly, I was hesitant to even mention it, because I figured there was a decent chance it would put your back up…which it clearly did, and I’m sorry.

As I said, I certainly don’t expect you to change your mind or your choice of words. I just want to make sure you understand how your repeatedly calling this shooter a “monster” comes across. It appears reactionary, soulless, and void of nuance. It additionally appears lacking in any understanding of the nature of mental illness. I don’t necessarily ascribe those to you personally; using reactionary language does not make one a reactionary.

If you wish to persuade, you should be aware of how you come across, that’s all.

That said, “doing monstrous things” is not the same thing as “monster.” Dehumanizing this kid does nothing constructive except perpetuate a precedent of dehumanization of those suffering from mental illness.
.

64

Do we know that he had a mental illness?

Sounds just like a few dopers I know. No wonder people are apologizing for him. Now Zimmerman on the other hand…

65

Apparently, he had bigger plans

66

Oh, are you arguing Zimmerman is mentally ill and needs to be locked up for the safety of others?

67

I’m arguing there is a double standard here.

Personally, I thought Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter myself, I don’t much care if he were mentally ill or not. Same with Pierson.

68

A monster commits monstrous acts. Works for me. This kid dehumanized himself when he chose to use violent means to achieve whatever goal he had in mind.

In this case it was bringing fire bombs and a shotgun to murder and maim as many people as possible. Given his background in debate, I assume he knows how to express himself thru the use of words. Apparently, words just didn’t/couldn’t get the job done - in his mind.

69

Why not? Some people seem to be ready to go to great expense to ban guns, why not go to a much more modest expense to certify some teachers (who already own and use guns) to possess a gun on school property?

As people have previously pointed out, we’re already tryign to put criminals in jail. Making guns illegal isn’t going to make them any easier to catch.

I don’t think I’ll ever need to fire a gun in self defense but if I did, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with a limit of 6 rounds per minute, especially not when the criminal might have 30 round magazines. Guns are not magical. Most bullets don’t hit anything in a gunfight, I’ve gone through obstacle courses where you have to fire at moving targets and my hit rate goes from 100% at the firing range to about under 25%.

Why can’t a pump action shotgun going to cause Newtownian level casualties?

So why doesn’t the party that hates guns take THEIR focus off of guns and adopt that approach?

70

We don’t. I wasn’t the one who brought it up.

No one here is apologizing for this kid, and I’d very much appreciate your withdrawing that accusation.

71

The odds of you ever getting into a gunfight are infinitesimal, and the criminal wouldn’t have 30 round magazines if we made their manufacture, importation, purchase, or possession illegal. Yes, I know the knee-jerk National Redneck Association response that criminals don’t obey laws. You’ve got to start somewhere, and if we only passed laws that criminals promised to obey we’d have no laws at all. The notion that we have to allow you to own something because of an eventuality that you can dream up but isn’t going to happen is silly to the extreme.

The Newtown dude wouldn’t have got off as many rounds with a shotgun.

72

Ok, thanks for providing your definition. I disagree. People commit monstrous acts.

Careful there. That’s a difficult standard to support.

Absolutely agree with your last sentence.

73

I realize you’re just echoing QuickSilver’s generalization about parties loving/hating guns, but frankly it’s a bullshit simplicity. There’s no party that “loves guns” any more than there is a party that “hates guns.” Yes, many Republicans support unfettered gun rights, and many Democrats support some restrictions. But a ton of Pubbies support some restrictions, and a ton of Donkeys love their guns.

Everyone supports some restrictions–we all agree that individuals probably don’t get to have tacnukes. After that the entire gun control debate is arguing about where to draw the line.

That said, however, you’re right: there needs to be more attention paid to mental health issues in general in the US, and it would certainly in my mind be better for everyone to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

And whadayaknow? We are. It’s a start, at any rate.

74

There was no one in a position to prevent the Newtown monster from firing as many rounds as he could. The Newtown monster killed himself before police arrived. That school was, by law, a gun free zone.

FYI - “you” don’t allow anyone to own something because of an eventuality that you’ve dreamed up. There are millions of firearm owners who don’t commit criminal acts but and your previously mentioned Democrats intend to disarm everyone in the eventuality that they might.

75

Do you really think any human effort, up to and including an occupation by a totalitarian secret police, could ever rid the streets of contraband? “We’ve got to start somewhere” is another version of “We’ve got to do something!”- which is idiocy when there’s no realistic hope of accomplishing your goal. We’ve tried for over a hundred years to stamp out illicit narcotics, and we can’t even say for sure whether the effort isn’t actually counterproductive rather than merely useless. Magazine limitations are especially imbecilic because they’re a much easier item to illegally modify than a complete working firearm. It isn’t just that criminals break the law, it’s that enough of them get away with it for long enough to make it worth it. You’re never going to drive possession of illegal guns below that threshold.

I dunno; pump-action shotguns were effective enough trench storming weapons that Germany tried to complain that they were a violation of the Geneva Convention.

76

I agree its small but who are you to tell me what sort of risks I have to take with my life and my family’s life?

I disagree and you probably know its bullshit too.

Its not kneejerk so much as it is rational. The problem here is that you are passing a law that gives criminals an advantage. Laws against rape and murder don’t give criminals an advantage.

Crime isn’t an eventuality I have to dream up.

Why not? It doesn’t really take that long to reload a magazine when noone is shooting back at you.

I agree. I was just parroting his generalization. I’m a registered Democrat and agree with the standard liberal position on most issues but I’m not a kneejerk liberal.

77

The person who’s life your wild shooting would endanger? Pro-gun people think they operate in a vacuum, its just them and the attacker. Having a plethora of available guns everywhere endangers everyone, not just the person who thinks they’ll be Rambo and defend their house and family from invaders.

And there’s also the often ignored stat that having a gun puts you and your family in more danger. If you want to be safe, don’t have a gun

78

Who are you to risk my life by having such weapons.

I’m sure you disagree but I don’t think it’s bullshit.

Somehow we’ve kept machine guns off the street.

The idea that you are going to ever get involved in a shootout is simply ridiculous.

But you have to carry the extra magazines and the few seconds you spend reloading could allow your victims time to get away.

79

Guns aren’t going anywhere, end of discussion. I don’t know why people don’t just acknowledge this and work these things from other angles.

Police officers often prompt the ending of these spree shootings, so having one in every school actually probably serves a good chance of preventing them and limiting their carnage once they start.

While it may not be typical where you live, a large percentage of all schools already have an assigned, armed, police officer and have for years pre-Newtown. So the incremental expense of taking that from “a large percentage” to “all” is actually pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

I’m somewhat surprised this made national news, because it appears this wasn’t a spree shooting but a student there to murder a staff member he disliked. That kind of thing has been going on forever and usually isn’t national news.

Four or five years ahead of me in school, there was a kid who was brutally bullied pretty much constantly. He was in 8th grade at the time. The junior high gym had doors that went from the locker room to the outside (it made sense, you would change in the gym then exit those doors to go down to the football field to do outdoor activities), back in this era there were no safety fears with having an unlocked back entrance to a school.

One day the kid who had been bullied skipped school. He got his dad’s shot gun out of the closet and, when he knew his tormentor would be changing in the locker room he went in through the back door and went straight to his locker. Didn’t say a word, calmly pointed the shot gun point blank at his chest and fired–bully died essentially on the spot.

I remember it at the time, it was big news in a small, rural Virginia town. But the reaction was more “I just can’t imagine how sick or insane a kid would have to be to do something like this.” It was handled as a “kid has a psychological problem” thing, the kid went to a hospital for some years and eventually was released.

It also wasn’t national news, I just tried and could not find any reference in any national paper to the incident. I’d probably have to go to my home town’s library and access newspaper archives to find an article on it. So it was simple not a major news event…and is very similar to this shooting.

80

Umm, he shot a 17 year old girl in the face with a shotgun and you took offense at him being called a monster and went on about understanding mental illness. I call that apologizing.