Florida High School Shooting

[realibrad]

All that planning, and the perp is scoping out the scene of his premeditated rampage, because he(or maybe even she) goes there....daily. knows the layout, knows the game plan, could even know when the people's breaks are, when they take a dump, etc....

Alternatively, we can take mental health more seriously, and be proactive and less reactive.

Don't discount the fact that they look for soft targets. They are usually looking for power and not a fight. It would not stop all, but it would stop the majority.

As for the other part, I can only hope. This usually devolves into muh guns vs muh guns ban.

 

[jackstar7]

I would bet that you too believe there are things we could do that would protect far more kids than gun bans, yet you are likely not willing to do. That is probably because you weigh the costs vs benefit to not be in the right balance.

Nah. At this point a gun ban is where I'm at for cost-benefit where cost is zero and benefit is more people alive. Like the general welfare as a concept would be improved.

 

[jackstar7]

Don't discount the fact that they look for soft targets. They are usually looking for power and not a fight. It would not stop all, but it would stop the majority.

Aren't the primary perpetrators of these events students/former students at the same school?

Also, more generally, what are you basing your profile of these people upon? Your generalizations aren't passing the smell test for me. But I could certainly be ignorant of the profiling that's been completed on these people and their shared motives and choices.

 

[Younigue]

No, I think his Avatar was a tiger or something. I could be wrong.

Now, in terms of avatars I happen to like yours the most so far. You're crazy, but your Avatar taste is exquisite.

Indeed! Crazy like a fox.

I can't remember what his avatar was/is either. You are correct, my avatar is the best.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

If we do not arm teachers, of course there wouldn't be negative statistics about armed teachers. Not having negative statistics where they couldn't exist doesn't support an argument to do something.

We DO arm teachers. There are many armed teachers, more than you probably realize? What negative stats do you have about them? What reason to disarm them or disallow others?

My point is that law enforcement officers have notoriously bad accuracy in high pressure situations. Even certified and trained teachers will undoubtedly have less experience and training than police officers which would rationally suggest that they would respond with even less reliability.

You know what, unarmed teachers have literally sacrificed their lives by throwing their bodies in between bullets and students. This story is repeated over and over in school shooting incidents. I wish they could shoot back. Law enforcement officers repeatedly wait outside the school because they are trained to be scared and to protect their own selves above all others. You have undoubtedly read about 100% rates of armed law enforcement refusing to enter the building and confront the bad guy in Florida. They also did this in Sandy Hook and in Columbine and in many other places. The teachers are the ones who seem most interested in protecting kids, to the point of giving their lives to do so. Please do not compare scared cops to hero teachers.

Training to shoot a target and reliably shooting a target is not the same as training to respond to a live fire threat, especially when it's something one will rarely, if ever, encounter.

Yes, everyone knows this. Everyone also knows that shooting at a bad guy is better than blocking his bullets with your dying body.

There just isn't enough training that could exist to prepare a teacher for such a situation.

Literally millions of people in history have protected themselves and others from bad guys by using weapons. Most of them with less training than a teacher. You seem to be fine with a teacher blocking bullets with their bodies but not attempting to put a bullet in the bad guy. Why is the best strategy to do nothing against bad guys when it goes against our entire history?

 

[jackstar7]

We DO arm teachers. There are many armed teachers, more than you probably realize? What negative stats do you have about them? What reason to disarm them or disallow others?

You know what, unarmed teachers have literally sacrificed their lives by throwing their bodies in between bullets and students. This story is repeated over and over in school shooting incidents. I wish they could shoot back. Law enforcement officers repeatedly wait outside the school because they are trained to be scared and to protect their own selves above all others. You have undoubtedly read about 100% rates of armed law enforcement refusing to enter the building and confront the bad guy in Florida. They also did this in Sandy Hook and in Columbine and in many other places. The teachers are the ones who seem most interested in protecting kids, to the point of giving their lives to do so. Please do not compare scared cops to hero teachers.

Yes, everyone knows this. Everyone also knows that shooting at a bad guy is better than blocking his bullets with your dying body.

Literally millions of people in history have protected themselves and others from bad guys by using weapons. Most of them with less training than a teacher. You seem to be fine with a teacher blocking bullets with their bodies but not attempting to put a bullet in the bad guy. Why is the best strategy to do nothing against bad guys when it goes against our entire history?

a) What is "many"? Is that like "people are saying"?

b) You have to stop framing it in terms of bad guys and implied good guys. It's dangerous and unhelpful. It means you're looking out for potential bad guys and not troubled human beings who might need help, not need to be put down.

c) Shooting at a bad guy when there are 20+ panicked/traumatized kids around is a dangerous thing, especially depending on the strength of the building you are in. You need to stop advocating for more bullets flying around children. That's faulty logic and you keep pushing it seemingly without reflection or reconsideration.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Trucks kill people too, plus those kinder eggs they just ok’d to sell here. They kill kids.

Can't say that I've ever had to dodge a truck in a school hallway before.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Can't say that I've ever had to dodge a truck in a school hallway before.

You went to the wrong school

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/01/16/semi-truck-crash-school/

 

[ivwshane]

You went to the wrong school

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/01/16/semi-truck-crash-school/

Well shit! Now we need teachers to be armed with trucks!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Don't discount the fact that they look for soft targets. They are usually looking for power and not a fight. It would not stop all, but it would stop the majority.

As for the other part, I can only hope. This usually devolves into muh guns vs muh guns ban.

Your assertion is mere speculation. I'm saying that the options you outline will simply change the plan. These people performing mass terror killing events arent sitting here debating the finer points, they're not well. And being unwell, they will continue to plan around whatever centralized show of force is present. Like it or not, the school is on a schedule, able to be manipulated and planned around. The would be assailant gets the opportunity to plan his attack intricatly, being there daily. Put guns in a safe, with limited access, guess you know who and what will be isolated and targeted. Or attacking areas of the school that will make for easy picking while staff arms up.

 

[realibrad]

Aren't the primary perpetrators of these events students/former students at the same school?

Also, more generally, what are you basing your profile of these people upon? Your generalizations aren't passing the smell test for me. But I could certainly be ignorant of the profiling that's been completed on these people and their shared motives and choices.

“These kids often feel very powerless. The one way they can feel like they’re somebody, that they’re a man, is to get a gun and kill people.”

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2331236

If you are looking for power, you create a situation where you have no chance of losing.

Sandy Hook was kids he did not know. This FL shooting was done after the kid had been out of that school for a while. It's true that the school represented something he was angry at, but it was for power.

 

[realibrad]

Your assertion is mere speculation. I'm saying that the options you outline will simply change the plan. These people performing mass terror killing events arent sitting here debating the finer points, they're not well. And being unwell, they will continue to plan around whatever centralized show of force is present. Like it or not, the school is on a schedule, able to be manipulated and planned around. The would be assailant gets the opportunity to plan his attack intricatly, being there daily. Put guns in a safe, with limited access, guess you know who and what will be isolated and targeted. Or attacking areas of the school that will make for easy picking while staff arms up.

I think you believe they are out for revenge more than anything, when it's really about power more often. Revenge is not unimportant, but power seems bigger.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think you believe they are out for revenge more than anything, when it's really about power more often. Revenge is not unimportant, but power seems bigger.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out the flaws in your plan. The motivation you're citing, either one, won't change what I've said.

 

[realibrad]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out the flaws in your plan. The motivation you're citing, either one, won't change what I've said.

If you are looking to exert power, you will seek places where that power is least likely to be challenged. Trying to plan when to do it will push many to seek another target. A movie theater, gym, something where there are lots of people in confined places.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If you are looking to exert power, you will seek places where that power is least likely to be challenged. Trying to plan when to do it will push many to seek another target. A movie theater, gym, something where there are lots of people in confined places.

Great, so youre basically concedng my point. Read my post again, since you want to discuss the finer points of motivation, centralizing a force of arms on school grounds will simply make a would be assailant, obviously familiar with school grounds, simply change his game plan.

Regardless of motivation.

 

[realibrad]

Great, so youre basically concedng my point. Read my post again, since you want to discuss the finer points of motivation, centralizing a force of arms on school grounds will simply make a would be assailant, obviously familiar with school grounds, simply change his game plan.

Regardless of motivation.

Yes? But if the goal is to reduce school shootings then it would do that. It might push them elsewhere, but that was not against the goal.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes? But if the goal is to reduce school shootings then it would do that. It might push them elsewhere, but that was not against the goal.

Again, speculation on your part. I'm pointing out the flaws in your idea.

 

[realibrad]

Again, speculation on your part. I'm pointing out the flaws in your idea.

The conversation was about reducing school shootings I thought? The one narrow argument about arming teachers should have the effect of reducing school shootings if done that way. It will not eliminate school shootings, and have little to no impact on shootings overall, but that was not the discussion. So what flaw are you pointing out?

 

[ch33zw1z]

The conversation was about reducing school shootings I thought? The one narrow argument about arming teachers should have the effect of reducing school shootings if done that way. It will not eliminate school shootings, and have little to no impact on shootings overall, but that was not the discussion. So what flaw are you pointing out?

Read my previous posts.

 

[realibrad]

Read my previous posts.

I have and I am still unsure as to what you are saying, which is why I asked you to explain.

You seem to be saying that these people will stick to their target because they are unwell and are not thinking rationally. That seems weird, because, you also believe they will stake out their desired target, get familiar with the actions and habits of the people, and then build a plan on how to attack. That seems to conflict with your idea that they are too unwell to pick a different target that offers less resistance.

That said, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that most of these mass shooters are seeking power, and will pick targets that they know offer the least resistance a la Aurora and Sandy Hook.

Your position is unclear to me, thus I am asking you to explain.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I have and I am still unsure as to what you are saying, which is why I asked you to explain.

You seem to be saying that these people will stick to their target because they are unwell and are not thinking rationally. That seems weird, because, you also believe they will stake out their desired target, get familiar with the actions and habits of the people, and then build a plan on how to attack. That seems to conflict with your idea that they are too unwell to pick a different target that offers less resistance.

That said, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that most of these mass shooters are seeking power, and will pick targets that they know offer the least resistance a la Aurora and Sandy Hook.

Your position is unclear to me, thus I am asking you to explain.

You really have a tough time with this.

You seem to think I'm veiwing this from one motivation, which I'm not.

Regardless of the motivation, having more guns on school grounds won't stop a determined assailant.

And just go with your assumed motivation, no evidence provided so far to support your assertion that more guns, even in a centralized lock box, will do anything to deter such acts.

Conjecture.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes? But if the goal is to reduce school shootings then it would do that. It might push them elsewhere, but that was not against the goal.

Why would it matter where the people are shot.

 

[realibrad]

You really have a tough time with this.

You seem to think I'm veiwing this from one motivation, which I'm not.

Regardless of the motivation, having more guns on school grounds won't stop a determined assailant.

And just go with your assumed motivation, no evidence provided so far to support your assertion that more guns, even in a centralized lock box, will do anything to deter such acts.

Conjecture.

I am confused for sure. I clearly said it would reduce, and not stop them. A determined assailant could attack a military base too, but, that is not a coherent argument. I said that in one narrow way some teachers could be armed and it would seem likely to be a deterrent. Its not a solve by any means and is not likely worth doing.

So to be clear, I say that the argument of arming teachers done in the only way I can see that would be reasonable might have a net positive insofar that it would deter some which thus would likely reduce school shootings. You say that I'm wrong because it wont stop them because mentally ill people cannot weigh finer points, but they can thoroughly plan out an attack such as spending multiple days if not longer analyzing people and their actions so they know when is best to strike.

Yep, still confused.

 

[realibrad]

Why would it matter where the people are shot.

Because the argument for arming teachers would only have an effect at school. This is stemming from how arming teachers could be done, but how that is still likely not going to be a net benefit. But, arming teachers would at best only be a benefit to the school and not beyond the school. I also doubt that there would be a net benefit to the school even if done in what I think is the best way to do it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I am confused for sure. I clearly said it would reduce, and not stop them. A determined assailant could attack a military base too, but, that is not a coherent argument. I said that in one narrow way some teachers could be armed and it would seem likely to be a deterrent. Its not a solve by any means and is not likely worth doing.

So to be clear, I say that the argument of arming teachers done in the only way I can see that would be reasonable might have a net positive insofar that it would deter some which thus would likely reduce school shootings. You say that I'm wrong because it wont stop them because mentally ill people cannot weigh finer points, but they can thoroughly plan out an attack such as spending multiple days if not longer analyzing people and their actions so they know when is best to strike.

Yep, still confused.

It won't stop, or even deter. Thats speculation on your part, as you come from a standpoint with something to lose.

Just think about it.