|

Despite safety emphasis, school shootings continue

WASHINGTON (AP) — There’s been no real reduction in the number of U.S. school shootings despite increased security put in place after the rampage at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

In Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Colorado and Tennessee, and elsewhere, gunfire has echoed through school hallways, and killed students or their teachers in some cases.

An Associated Press analysis finds that there have been at least 11 shootings this school year alone.

Experts say the rate of school shootings is statistically unchanged since the mid- to late-1990s, but still remains troubling.

KSKOLLoct
Commenting Disclaimer
  • Be respectful. 
  • Do not use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Do not make accusations or personal attacks
  • Comments considered to be 'trolling' or for the sole purpose of angering others will be removed.
  • A_citizen_patriot

    What security measures have been implemented besides putting up no gun stickers?

    • Denver Bronco

      School Resource Officers, Crisis Training, Crisis Plans, Crisis Drills, School Crisis Teams, Security Cameras, Student Tip Hotlines, Online Student Tip Links, Mental Health Collaboration With Schools, Collaboration With Law Enforcement, to name a few.

      • A_citizen_patriot

        A lot of that existed before.

    • Chief59

      Regardless of the measures in place, shootings in schools and public places will always happen. Always. However, if we can limit the ability of the batsh!t crazies that get their hands on guns so easily, it may be reduced. Even if it is a slight reduction, it is worth it. I know you’ll disagree with me, but eliminating personal sales of firearms would make an impact. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to sell your guns on your own, but that a background must be run on the person you are selling it to. Reducing magazine sizes could make a huge impact as well. That would not stop shootings, but it could limit the amount of people injured/killed during one. If someone has to reload after every eight shots, opposed to every 15-30, that could give an opportunity for victims to escape or subdue the shooter.

      More guns is not the answer. Vigilante justice is so rare, it is almost non-existent. Teachers with guns is not the answer. Make it harder for people who shouldn’t have guns to get them, without infringing on the sacred Second Amendment, and we could save a lot of lives. I don’t think you can find much to disagree with on that.

      • A_citizen_patriot

        Reducing magazine size wont help much. When columbine happened there were restrictions on high capacity magazine’s. So they just used multiple 10rd ones. Look at the texas belltower shooting ( I was not able to confirm this but I have read it some where) most of the victims where shot with a bolt action rifle. If you want to require a checks on private firearm sales then I would also demand that any one selling a car privately must do a check to ensure that the person has a valid driver liscense and isnt currently suspended for a dui violation. I am all for adding mental illness to the NIC check. Problem is they wont add it cause it violates the health records law. Vigilatne justice is not “rare”. It is out there just look for it. Thing is the news dosnt alawys report on it.

        • Chief59

          You are correct about Columbine, they just switched magazines. However, if mags were limited to eight, that is that many fewer shots they can get off before having to switch the mag. People can escape in the five to six seconds it takes to change the magazine.
          The bell tower shooter is different. He was isolated and protected. He could have had a muzzle-loader and killed many people.
          If requiring checks on private auto sales got background checks on private guns sales, I’d be all for it.
          Mental illness checks needs to be a requirement for purchasing a gun. However, if it was only one dealer sales, what would be the point? I could go on the classifieds today and buy as many guns as I could afford, with no limits or checks what-so-ever. That is wrong.
          As far as vigilante justice goes, it is rare. You have to search pretty hard to find cases of gun owners stopping crimes. It is not that common.

          • A_citizen_patriot
          • Chief59

            You could keep posting more, and I could respond with many times over incidents of gun owners having their own guns turned against them, shooting innocents, etc. However, my point was not about gun control, but reducing magazine sizes and mental health checks. I don’t see how any responsible gun owner can argue that.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            You made the point that gun owners so rarely stop crimes its almost nonexsistent.

          • Chief59

            By percentages, yeah, it pretty much is. We’ve argued enough on this for now though. We can go round for round all night (as we have many times before), and neither of us will change our minds.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            It takes a lot less then 6 seconds to reload.

          • Arthur Doyle

            Indeed. I can drop an empty magazine from a handgun and replace it with a full one from a mag pouch on my belt in under 2 seconds. On an AR it takes me about 2 and a half seconds. I have witnessed shooters more proficient than myself reload faster. I only hope to illustrate, with all due respect, that many in the anti-gun lobby are ignorant of firearms, their capabilities, and their limitations.

          • Chief59

            Two and a half seconds is still two and a half seconds. However, a shooter roaming the halls of a school is moving, trying to remove a spare clip from a bag or belt, and trying to kill. It is not a controlled environment where you are standing at a range going, “let’s see how fast I can reload”. That is how I came up with 5-6 seconds.

          • Arthur Doyle

            Hey Chief it’s your hypothetical active shooter scenario. Set the variables anyway you like. My point still stands. Many people with the best intentions of solving gun violence lack a basic and fundamental knowledge of firearms, firearm capabilities, and firearm limitations. This ignorance leaves even the most well intentioned individual to invoke “feel good” legislation that does little if nothing to quell gun violence.

          • Chief59

            I grew up around guns. I know how they work. My point was that speed loading in a controlled environment is not the same as a shooter roaming hallways trying to grab more clips and kill people. More often than not, the shooter is not some soldier proficient in reloading while taking out targets on the move.

          • Arthur Doyle

            My statement was not aimed as a slighted speculation of your personal depth of knowledge regarding the subject of firearms. My statement was a generalization, and should be regarded as such. If it is not applicable to you then dismiss it. As to reloading or speed loading I offer for your consideration to YouTube 3 gun competition and watch the ease and speed in which teenagers, adults, & the elderly reload under the duress of competition. I will grant you no one is firing back or trying to tackle them. Trying to reload during competition while one’s heart rate is elevated and adrenaline is pumping is not exactly a “controlled environment”, and yet these people are fairly adept at quickly reloading. A short watch of a couple videos will reveal that it does not require a soldier, law enforcement, mercenary type with nerves of steel to quickly reload.

          • Chief59

            To be fair, the people who compete practice continually, and many have done the competitions several times. Many mass shootings are spur of the moment. Yes, she maniacs train themselves and plan, but not to the extent of the people in these competitions. I’m not disregarding what you said, just pointing out it is different situations.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            2 seconds or 10 seconds does it really matter? If some one is shooting at me, the last thing I am going to do is think to my self ” i will just wait tell he reloads and rush him ” Trying to limit mag capacities in the hope that some one will be able to tackle the shooter is foolish and dangerous. Do you really want to risk your life on the notion that you can charge him before he reloads. and hope that he didnt leave one in the chamber?

          • Chief59

            As opposed to shooters being able to fire 15-30 rounds non-stop? Don’t you want that chance every right rounds, as opposed to 30? I don’t understand the position to mag limits? It in no way infringes on the second amendment. No way, no how.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Definition of infringe, limiting mags would be infringing
            to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

            : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)

          • Chief59

            “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

            I missed the part where it states unlimited magazine size is a guaranteed right. I did happen to notice the phrase well regulated though. I would venture to guess that limiting a magazine size, which our founders could not have foreseen, by the way, would be regulating.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Except in that sense well regulated meant trained and equiped.

          • Chief59

            Careful there patriot, you’re close to making the argument that the Second Amendment applies only to militia. Either that, or that you should be allowed to own and operate a firearm only after training.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Per the US justice dept. “the term Militia” as used in various provisions of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, referred to a body that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who “were expected to appear” for occasional training “bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,”

          • Chief59

            Just trying to get a rise out of you with the last comment! In all seriousness though, does the definition and use of militia really seem relevant to today?

          • A_citizen_patriot

            It is because the dems keep making it relevant. That is the excuse that they use against civilian gun ownership.

          • Chief59

            I have never made the case against civilian gun ownership, nor do I want to. I just want to limit the damage that can be done by one in the wrong hands. Home defense, hunting, sport shooting….I can’t think of a reason for more than eight rounds in a clip for those, with MAYBE the exception of home defense. Have larger ones for police officers if need be, but that’s it. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere.

          • Arthur Doyle

            Until the next maniac goes on a rampage and someone decides we would all be safer with a limit of six rounds. Then, a senator from California would follow the line of logic that a maximum of four rounds would be safer still. Do you see where this is going Chief? Right smack dab into the slippery slope fallacy that you dismiss as “bs”. Real world examples of government trying to legislate behavior are ubiquitously present. The ever expanding smoking bans, the ever decreasing blood alcohol content, minimum wage increases,TSA, and zero tolerance policies. All legislation passed for the good of us common folk who are too stoopid to make our own decisions. Each of these started as innocuous little bits of legislation that seemed reasonable enough. Then when the crusaders and lobbyists get done it becomes an industry of its own. I do not trust the machinations of bureaucracy.

          • Chief59

            All of the examples you gave (with the exception of minimum wage) are about the safety of others. Some people don’t make good decisions, and it adversely affects innocent people. Smoking bans and BAC laws are good examples of that.

            Laws to limit drunk driving, especially, ARE for the greater good. Does it imply we are too stupid to make our own decisions? Maybe. Are some of us too stupid to make our own decisions without endangering someone else? Definitely.

          • Arthur Doyle

            There in lies the crux of our basic phillosphical difference. Do not limit and restrict my freedoms based on the irresponsible actions of others. All of my examples were specifically chosen as examples of public opinion limiting personal freedoms. Which is precisely what proposed magazine capacity limitations are.

          • Chief59

            You may believe that getting into a car as sh1tfaced as you want and killing an innocent person is your personal freedom, but I do not. Laws are in place for a reason.

            I would much rather STOP something bad before it happens, even if it may ever so slightly maybe just a teeny tiny little bit encroach into what someone may perceive as limiting their personal freedom. It seems as though you are more for just punishing those responsible for something terrible after the fact.

          • Arthur Doyle

            Your first paragraph was a disingenuous embellishment with the intent of undermining my credibility. A cheap tactic I mistakenly thought beneath you. I do not advocate drunken driving. I do advocate responsible consumption and responsible driving. Studies have proven that operating a cell phone while driving impairs a driver’s ability beyond a .01 bac level, and yet I saw many people talking on their cell phones while driving in these conditions today. There is no consistency to the application of public safety laws as many public safety laws are based upon perception and emotions Not facts and logic.
            You seem intent on limiting personal choices and freedoms based on the actions of the incredibly stupid and willfully ignorant.

          • Chief59

            I’m sorry you took it as disingenuous, as it was not. I can see how you took it that way, as I used the word “you”, when describing a drunk driver, while not actually referring to yourself. It was a hypothetical generalization.

            You are 100% correct on the cell phone point. Again, their are laws that are supposed to curb that action, for the safety of others. I dislike that it is not enforced as hard as it should be. As I said above, laws are there for a reason. Many do not get enforced as hard as they should. Both cell phone use and the current gun laws fall into those categories.

            I am not for limiting freedoms. However, I do not consider things that are more of an inconvenience to be detrimental to our freedom. Seat belt use, smoking bans in public places, BAC limits, etc. are all there for protection. We don’t have to like it, but they really are there for a good reason. If freedom actually is infringed upon, I’ll be right there shouting about it with you. The NSA listening in on everything we do is a good example. However, I will not complain about something such as the examples above, as they are much more trivial when it comes to our freedom.

            Again, sorry for the perception of my previous post.I don’t come here to offend people, but to have good debates on the issues at hand. You are one of the more informed posters here, and I hope to continue to have solid debates with you. Maybe we’ll even agree on something some day.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            I think you are forgetting the reason the 2nd amendment was written. Had nothing to do with hunting and sport shooting.

          • Chief59

            You’re right, it was written at a time when we may very well have need every able bodied man to rise to the occasion and fight off a returning British force. It is now 2014, and our country has the strongest military the world has ever seen. We do not need to be able to rise up and fight off invading forces, and we do not need to keep weapons to rise up to the government, as even if we tried, it would be unsuccessful against the previously mentioned worlds strongest military.

            I do not believe the Second Amendment will ever change, nor do I want it to. However, adapting it to fit whatever reason we choose is nonsense. Guns in the hands of our people, great. No limits to the types of guns or what they are capable of, no. Again, I’m not for the Second Amendment going anywhere, but there already is a precedent for Amendments being repealed. Nothing is absolutely set in stone. That’s the biggest argument I have the the Second Amendment crowd.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            We dont need firearms to protect against the government? Yeah cause they would never throw American citizens in internment camp. Oh wait they already did that once.

          • Chief59

            You’re right, and most Americans at the time supported it.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Alot of Americans use to agree with slavery too. Didnt make either of them right.

          • Chief59

            I didn’t mean to imply that I thought it was right. That is a dark, dark time for America. My point was that the internment of Japanese-Americans is a poor example nobody was about to rise up.

          • Arthur Doyle

            Many view magazine limits as a concession without end.

          • Chief59

            No slippery slope arguments, please. It’s the same as when people say allowing gay marriage leads to bestiality. It’s complete bs.

          • Arthur Doyle

            I believe the slippery slope argument is not only relevant but appropriate as it pertains to magazine restrictions.

          • Arthur Doyle

            You may believe the crusaders would be appeased by limiting magazine capacities, where as I believe they would be emboldened.

          • Chief59

            That is a possibility. However, do you really think it would ever progress further than that? I know guns are here to stay. I’m not really in favor of limiting guns, just the damage they can do.

          • Chief59

            Also, I DO think there is a huge difference between two and ten seconds. I’m not really talking about rushing the shooter here. If there is a 4-8 second window to run around a corner, behind a wall, etc., that is a chance that I would want.

  • Smokie

    I understand you patriot and you give very good explaining why what is preposed to try won’t work and I see your valaid point so since that being said then what do you suppose to do to fix the problem?

    • A_citizen_patriot

      I believe it was a school district in Michigan? They made the decision to have every school janitor receiver conceal carry training ( as well as additional training ) I think this is a good step. Why do cops carry guns, its to protect themselves and other around them. Why should it be any different for a civilian? There will never be a clear cut answer on how to stop school shootings. People will argue that guns in schools will lead to accidental shootings. People also argued that if kansas passes its conceal carry law that there will be bllod running in the streets. That has happened so why should we assume the prior? I believe that if you give people that ability to step up and prevent a crime that they will. A person in another article linked a site that shows how many murders were from CCW holders. There will always been lunatics out there just like there are murderous cops. But there are far less crazies with guns then sane people with them.

      • Smokie

        What I’m reading you want to put a gun into the hands of people that cleans up after your kids is that right? The people that has to clean up their bathrooms their puke and other crap that comes out of their bodies. Why on earth would you put defending you children you wouldn’t want to give guns to the. Nuty teacher no would you. So why would you give a gun to the person that is the cleaning people. Give ing them guns is like giving the postman guns. You don’t want or like what the left thinks and we do like what you propose. The guns that killed those children at sandy hook was from a member of the NRA you know the group the ones that are in the back pockets of the gun lobby. So your idea won’t fly and you don’t like mine then what do tell me is the answer that all sides can live with and first and for most protect our children.

        • A_citizen_patriot

          There isnt a answer that both sides can live with. I should have made my self more clear. Im not saying give a gun to the “janitors”. I was using that as a example. I wouldnt be opposed to giving it to a teacher either. I could be a card carrying peta member and abuse cats. Dosnt mean peta had anything to do with it. Please dont take this next part wrong, any death is a bad thing but everyone keeps talking about saving the children but no one seems to address the fact that there are more children killed every year by causes other then firearms. Yet no one seems to care about thoes. Poision kills more kids per year then firearms do. Yes a gun can be used for killing, but it can also be used for target shooting. What other use does poision have but to kill? Why dont we ban rat poision?

          • Smokie

            My answer is only let the police have the guns they are trained and are paid to do this giving guns to people that aren’t police people are just asking for trouble. Let teachers teach, janitors clean, and police police.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Just thrown away the 2nd amendment, yeah that will work.

        • A_citizen_patriot

          What is your solution since you dont like mine?

  • Chief59

    We made drugs illegal and now they are gone forever! Now we should make guns illegal! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    • Chief69

      You have made guns illegal in schools and gun free zones. That is where most mass shooting happen, where guns are illegal. What is wrong with this picture.
      My child was saved in a mass shooting incident by a legal CCW hero, who saved 200 lives. I’ve lived it and seen the other side where it does work to have a good guy with a gun deal with a bad buy with a gun. Remember 911 is just mintues away when seconds count.
      100,000,000 armed american shot NO ONE TODAY.
      Let’s get beyond “outlaw guns”. The 2nd amendment is not going away, and both sides need to deal with that FACT.

    • Chief59

      Not me.

      • Chief59

        Not me. Please delete mods.

  • BusinessChic

    That’s because guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Our society has been focusing on guns as the problem instead of looking for real solutions.