• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US school shooting: Police investigate Marylan

Lerxst said:
A win? A ****ing win? Nobody "won" in this incident, are you serious? Three kids were shot. This isn't a sport.
Click to expand...

i think his point was ONLY 3 people were shot, because an armed response stopped the gunman

could it have been much worse? of course

would that have been better? of course not

maybe, just maybe we can all consider that a win....that other kids DIDNT get shot

but maybe just some of us look at it that way
 
So apparently they still don't know what brought this 17 year old down. Witnesses say he had the gun to his own head after shooting the girl, who he apparently had some sort of relationship with at one time. The 14 year old boy appears to be simply collateral damage. They don't know if he shot himself or the SRO shot him. But that doesn't even matter. Every time I hear about some kid bringing guns to school with the intent of harming others, it makes me scared for my own kids.

Such a sad and terrible story. Thank goodness the 2 kids he shot look like they will both fully recover.
 
minnie616 said:
Guns are usually much easier to buy and do not require as much knowledge as building a bomb would.
Click to expand...

Bomb making equipment is quite easy to buy and the knowledge to build one is available in any local library or on the internet. And you don't have to even be around to use a bomb or remote detonate one. On the other hand you do have to know how to put bullets in a gun and the untrained is not likely to be very accurate with one.

The problem is not the guns. The problem is people intent on doing evil. Until we focus on THEM and a culture that inspires the evil instead of the weapons used to do evil, we are just whistling in the wind.

Think of how many millions are inconvenienced because Sudafed has to be locked up. But there is just as much meth out there as ever. Regulating the substance has never been very effective or sometimes not at all effective in remedying the problem.
 
tres borrachos said:
So apparently they still don't know what brought this 17 year old down. Witnesses say he had the gun to his own head after shooting the girl, who he apparently had some sort of relationship with at one time. The 14 year old boy appears to be simply collateral damage. They don't know if he shot himself or the SRO shot him. But that doesn't even matter. Every time I hear about some kid bringing guns to school with the intent of harming others, it makes me scared for my own kids.

Such a sad and terrible story. Thank goodness the 2 kids he shot look like they will both fully recover.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a very sad and terrible story.

I also am hoping the two students that were shot will both fully recover.

From todays CNN article:

Speaking to reporters, Dr. James Scott Smith, the superintendent of St. Mary's County's public schools, put the senselessness of it all in perspective.
"It looks as though the SRO [school resource officer] did exactly what the SRO is trained to do, and yet we still have a tragic loss of life," he said. "We still have somebody in critical condition. And we have students at the school and staff at the school impacted."
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html
 
gdgyva said:
i think his point was ONLY 3 people were shot, because an armed response stopped the gunman

could it have been much worse? of course

would that have been better? of course not

maybe, just maybe we can all consider that a win....that other kids DIDNT get shot

but maybe just some of us look at it that way
Click to expand...

Maybe so.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Bomb making equipment is quite easy to buy and the knowledge to build one is available in any local library or on the internet. And you don't have to even be around to use a bomb or remote detonate one. On the other hand you do have to know how to put bullets in a gun and the untrained is not likely to be very accurate with one.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I agree it is easy to find materials and instructions no how to make bombs. I do not agree that it is easier to build and remotely detonate a bomb than it is to learn how to load a gun and shoot someone. There are thousands of firearms instructional videos on line. You can find many videos on just how to load, shoot, and clean specific guns. Granted, if they've never actually shot a gun, then their accuracy will suffer, but not many people are truly skilled at rapid fire shooting against moving targets anyway.

The problem is not the guns. The problem is people intent on doing evil. Until we focus on THEM and a culture that inspires the evil instead of the weapons used to do evil, we are just whistling in the wind.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

Think of how many millions are inconvenienced because Sudafed has to be locked up. But there is just as much meth out there as ever. Regulating the substance has never been very effective or sometimes not at all effective in remedying the problem.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of how prohibition almost never works (if ever). The Volstead Act, The War on Drugs, the Clinton era assault weapons ban...all miserable failures in terms of controlling, preventing, or curing a problem.

The problem is the people, not the inanimate object they choose to carry out their evil deeds.
 
Lerxst said:
Yes and no. I agree it is easy to find materials and instructions no how to make bombs. I do not agree that it is easier to build and remotely detonate a bomb than it is to learn how to load a gun and shoot someone. There are thousands of firearms instructional videos on line. You can find many videos on just how to load, shoot, and clean specific guns. Granted, if they've never actually shot a gun, then their accuracy will suffer, but not many people are truly skilled at rapid fire shooting against moving targets anyway.



Agree 100%.



Perfect example of how prohibition almost never works (if ever). The Volstead Act, The War on Drugs, the Clinton era assault weapons ban...all miserable failures in terms of controlling, preventing, or curing a problem.

The problem is the people, not the inanimate object they choose to carry out their evil deeds.
Click to expand...

Well, in my own defense, I didn't say it was easier to build a bomb than fire a weapon. And yes learning how to load and fire a weapon is probably easier. But there is a learning curve in both.

My point, and I don't think you will disagree with it, is that those intending to do evil will find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass. I have no problem with laws and regulation that make sense, but blaming guns instead of a society that creates people determined to misuse them does not make any sense to me whatsoever. It does make sense if the underlying motive is to give government more and more control over the liberties that people will be allowed to have.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Can you say with any degree of confidence that taking away guns would have reduced the killings given all the different ways there are to kill? Would you be more afraid of the Austin bomber if he was sniping with a rifle to kill people instead of using bombs?

Would you rather take your change with the gang member with a gun or that your car could blow up when you start it up tomorrow morning?

The fallacy is seeing the guns as the evil instead of those who are doing evil.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, there is no way to "take away guns" anyway. The best that could be done is to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally unbalanced to get them, and to restrict military grade weapons to the military.

But the old, tired meme that "hey, there are other ways to kill people anyway" simply doesn't mean a lot. Sure, it's possible to carry out other means of killing people, but the fact remains that mass shootings are way too common here in the USA, while they're quite rare in the rest of the developed and peaceful world. We're not doing something right.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Actually, no, there is no way to "take away guns" anyway. The best that could be done is to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally unbalanced to get them, and to restrict military grade weapons to the military.

But the old, tired meme that "hey, there are other ways to kill people anyway" simply doesn't mean a lot. Sure, it's possible to carry out other means of killing people, but the fact remains that mass shootings are way too common here in the USA, while they're quite rare in the rest of the developed and peaceful world. We're not doing something right.
Click to expand...

We sure aren't doing something right. At best, less than 1/4 of American households have some kind of firearm in them if you trust the NY Times and WAPO, less than 1/3 if you trust CNN, and just under 1/2 if you go by a 2016 Pew poll. So opinions widely vary there, but all agree that there are guns in fewer than 50% of American homes.

I am guessing that during the time I was growing up, the percentage would have been at least 2/3rd and probably considerably higher. I don't think it likely there was a single household in the small town where I did most of my growing up that didn't have a least a shotgun and some bird shot. The boys with pickups would frequently have a gun rack across the back window and a shotgun or rifle in it when they came to school. But there were no serious accidents, no shootings, no gun crime of any kind. Certainly there was nothing in the news about school shootings or other mass shootings.

But the value system then was very different from now. And THAT is where I think we need to start looking for the answers to the problem.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well, in my own defense, I didn't say it was easier to build a bomb than fire a weapon. And yes learning how to load and fire a weapon is probably easier. But there is a learning curve in both.

My point, and I don't think you will disagree with it, is that those intending to do evil will find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass. I have no problem with laws and regulation that make sense, but blaming guns instead of a society that creates people determined to misuse them does not make any sense to me whatsoever. It does make sense if the underlying motive is to give government more and more control over the liberties that people will be allowed to have.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken. And I do agree with you, blaming guns or any other inanimate object for damage that people do to one another is wasted cycles. The government is certainly not the answer, although I do believe they can be a positive resource for communities if the can facilitate funding for things such as mental health outreach, treatments, and ongoing care. It would also be nice if they would step up their efforts and increase funding to schools for security planning and implementation. There is more than enough funding available to reallocate for this purpose, we just need motivated congress members to make it a priority.

I fear this kind of thing is only continue to happen as society has evolved socially and technologically to the point that today's young parents are going to have be ever vigilant and stop worrying about being their kids friend. Kids need guidance, they need rules, and they need consequences. That stuff has to start at home, because once they start relying on external forces to correct their kids behavior it's damn near too late for there to be any meaningful impact.
 
Lerxst said:
Your point is well taken. And I do agree with you, blaming guns or any other inanimate object for damage that people do to one another is wasted cycles. The government is certainly not the answer, although I do believe they can be a positive resource for communities if the can facilitate funding for things such as mental health outreach, treatments, and ongoing care. It would also be nice if they would step up their efforts and increase funding to schools for security planning and implementation. There is more than enough funding available to reallocate for this purpose, we just need motivated congress members to make it a priority.

I fear this kind of thing is only continue to happen as society has evolved socially and technologically to the point that today's young parents are going to have be ever vigilant and stop worrying about being their kids friend. Kids need guidance, they need rules, and they need consequences. That stuff has to start at home, because once they start relying on external forces to correct their kids behavior it's damn near too late for there to be any meaningful impact.
Click to expand...

We need fathers back in the homes, a moderating religious influence back in the schools, positive role models in personal contacts and in sports and entertainment figures again, respect and appreciation for legitimate authority and pride in flag and country, personal accountability and responsibility emphasized again, and recreational outlets that at least counter if not replace those that desensitize people to violence and suffering of others and/or glorify anarchy/illegal activities. And these mass shooters should be denounced as the hateful, sociopathic animals that they are and strongly accused of evil instead of treating them like prominent members of the community in the media and blaming the guns instead.
 
Speaking to reporters, Dr. James Scott Smith, the superintendent of St. Mary's County's public schools, put the senselessness of it all in perspective.
"It looks as though the SRO [school resource officer] did exactly what the SRO is trained to do, and yet we still have a tragic loss of life," he said. "We still have somebody in critical condition. And we have students at the school and staff at the school impacted."
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html


Right. We had a guard. We had protection. It still didnt work (completely).

What we really STILL HAVE is a huge ****ing number of males in this country that cannot control their emotions, their feelings of anger, rejection, jealousy, resentment, failure, etc.

Look at this, day after day...this shooter, the Austin bomber (24 yr old white male)...and yes, mostly white. The the Hell? Forget guns and bombs...these ****ed up individuals are coming out of the woodwork.

THis goes beyond bullying altho that is one major factor. How is our society producing these POSs?

Apparently, there's a huge number of these males out there...we need to identify them...it's not guns. Or bombs....it's these incredibly maladjusted males.

/rant
 
Lursa said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html


Right. We had a guard. We had protection. It still didnt work (completely).

What we really STILL HAVE is a huge ****ing number of males in this country that cannot control their emotions, their feelings of anger, rejection, jealousy, resentment, failure, etc.

Look at this, day after day...this shooter, the Austin bomber (24 yr old white male)...and yes, mostly white. The the Hell? Forget guns and bombs...these ****ed up individuals are coming out of the woodwork.

THis goes beyond bullying altho that is one major factor. How is our society producing these POSs?

Apparently, there's a huge number of these males out there...we need to identify them...it's not guns. Or bombs....it's these incredibly maladjusted males.

/rant
Click to expand...

The bomber so far seems to have come from a good, normal, traditional home but we will no doubt know more about that later. I am interested to know how they discovered his identity.

But statistics I've read say that 26 of 27 of the most deadly mass killers in American history were from fatherless homes. Even if no other factors were at play, that is an amazing statistic and one I think we cannot ignore.
 
gunner said:
Yea.....gun nuts will jump all over that in some kind of vindication parade. What an extremely sad set of circumstances that push the need for armed guards on a school campus.
Click to expand...

There should be armed guards on school campuses. Except they're usually "school district police officers" in most school districts that HAVE school district police depts.
I have no issue with well trained school police officers stationed at each school.
Emphasis on WELL TRAINED, as in "understands the needs of students, teachers, parents and the educational environment as a whole".
It's not the same as a regular law enforcement environment.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The bomber so far seems to have come from a good, normal, traditional home but we will no doubt know more about that later. I am interested to know how they discovered his identity.

But statistics I've read say that 26 of 27 of the most deadly mass killers in American history were from fatherless homes. Even if no other factors were at play, that is an amazing statistic and one I think we cannot ignore.
Click to expand...

It appears to have been deduced from his cellphone appearing at the locations of the bombings. It is good thing that he was so stupid but, by that being said on the news, may help to educate the next random bomber. I wondered if he was acting like the DC sniper and using several random targets so that when the real target was taken out (his ex-wife) then few would bother to look hard at personal connections.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The bomber so far seems to have come from a good, normal, traditional home but we will no doubt know more about that later. I am interested to know how they discovered his identity.

But statistics I've read say that 26 of 27 of the most deadly mass killers in American history were from fatherless homes. Even if no other factors were at play, that is an amazing statistic and one I think we cannot ignore.
Click to expand...

So men leaving?

Interesting because they often say that divorce is better for kids than living with parents that are hostile to each other.

Of course a marriage where the parents get along and set good examples is best but it seems that once the relationship is too much work, it's easier to split up instead of sacrifice and act like adults around kids.
 
trouble13 said:
People suggesting we are safer with more gun restrictions and use these events as proof are the fear mongers.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't so much say that we're safer with more gun restrictionsas much as I say it is an acknowledgment that all rights come with concommitant responsibilities and limitations under certain circumstances and that has been shown to reduce some of the incidents.

We are safer when we apply a multi-path approach to handling the problem, because this is a multi-faceted issue, with multiple factors. Easy access to unlimited firearms is really a small component of the issue. Mental health is actually the larger issue, much as some liberals wish it were the other way around.
If we only concentrate on restricting firearms, we won't get the kind of results we think we will get because in other countries where restrictions have been placed, there's also an increase in mental health resources as well. We have almost zero resources in the area of mental health, and the upcoming budget cuts will wind up eliminating what paltry resources we still have left.

I would be okay with scaling up mental health resources first before seeing any moves on gun restrictions, provided we actually begin some serious dialogue on how we could implement such restrictions if the need proves necessary.

Sheriffs in the days of The Old West had gun restrictions in many towns, but it was a localized approach and it was based on community needs.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It appears to have been deduced from his cellphone appearing at the locations of the bombings. It is good thing that he was so stupid but, by that being said on the news, may help to educate the next random bomber. I wondered if he was acting like the DC sniper and using several random targets so that when the real target was taken out (his ex-wife) then few would bother to look hard at personal connections.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory/question. That would work well in the spy/conspiracy novel I am slowly writing in my head. :)
 
Lursa said:
So men leaving?

Interesting because they often say that divorce is better for kids than living with parents that are hostile to each other.

Of course a marriage where the parents get along and set good examples is best but it seems that once the relationship is too much work, it's easier to split up instead of sacrifice and act like adults around kids.
Click to expand...

Hey I was a battered child--physically and emotionally--and I was in college before my mom finally threw my father out. I know what a bad marriage looks like and no, nobody should stay in one. I would have been infinitely better off had my folks split early on. But we are talking about the outlier's here as most men do not abuse their wives or beat their kids.

So yes, during a time when the large percentage of marriages did not end in divorce, we can speculate that most consisted of mature, honorable, responsible adults who took their marriage vows seriously and their responsibilities as competent parents seriously. I child cannot have a better situation than that. The best gift a mother and father can give their children is to love each other.

And when that culture was the norm--yes there were exceptions but we are talking about the norm--gun crime was not much of any kind of problem outside of the big city gangs and organized crime.

And until our society starts looking at culture and values instead of trying to blame inanimate objects for our problems, no amount of gun control will solve anything and will likely make it worse.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I don't so much say that we're safer with more gun restrictionsas much as I say it is an acknowledgment that all rights come with concommitant responsibilities and limitations under certain circumstances and that has been shown to reduce some of the incidents.

We are safer when we apply a multi-path approach to handling the problem, because this is a multi-faceted issue, with multiple factors. Easy access to unlimited firearms is really a small component of the issue. Mental health is actually the larger issue, much as some liberals wish it were the other way around.
If we only concentrate on restricting firearms, we won't get the kind of results we think we will get because in other countries where restrictions have been placed, there's also an increase in mental health resources as well. We have almost zero resources in the area of mental health, and the upcoming budget cuts will wind up eliminating what paltry resources we still have left.

I would be okay with scaling up mental health resources first before seeing any moves on gun restrictions, provided we actually begin some serious dialogue on how we could implement such restrictions if the need proves necessary.

Sheriffs in the days of The Old West had gun restrictions in many towns, but it was a localized approach and it was based on community needs.
Click to expand...


Bold - what did you intend to say?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Hey I was a battered child--physically and emotionally--and I was in college before my mom finally threw my father out. I know what a bad marriage looks like and no, nobody should stay in one. I would have been infinitely better off had my folks split early on. But we are talking about the outlier's here as most men do not abuse their wives or beat their kids.

So yes, during a time when the large percentage of marriages did not end in divorce, we can speculate that most consisted of mature, honorable, responsible adults who took their marriage vows seriously and their responsibilities as competent parents seriously. I child cannot have a better situation than that. The best gift a mother and father can give their children is to love each other.

And when that culture was the norm--yes there were exceptions but we are talking about the norm--gun crime was not much of any kind of problem outside of the big city gangs and organized crime.

And until our society starts looking at culture and values instead of trying to blame inanimate objects for our problems, no amount of gun control will solve anything and will likely make it worse.
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph says it all. Somehow, we are producing a ****load of these POS losers...they are coming out of the woodwork.
 
Lursa said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html


Right. We had a guard. We had protection. It still didnt work (completely).

What we really STILL HAVE is a huge ****ing number of males in this country that cannot control their emotions, their feelings of anger, rejection, jealousy, resentment, failure, etc.

Look at this, day after day...this shooter, the Austin bomber (24 yr old white male)...and yes, mostly white. The the Hell? Forget guns and bombs...these ****ed up individuals are coming out of the woodwork.

THis goes beyond bullying altho that is one major factor. How is our society producing these POSs?

Apparently, there's a huge number of these males out there...we need to identify them...it's not guns. Or bombs....it's these incredibly maladjusted males.

/rant
Click to expand...

It seems to be overwhelmingly young males who commit mass shootings in schools. Males also constitute the overwhelming majority of serial killers. There also seems to be a recurring theme of some degree of emasculation at home or socially in many perpetrators.

Just a casual observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom