Mass shootings

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 09:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Right after you left.  84-87.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-102-juvenile-crime-facts

"Data gathered from a variety of sources indicate that after a period of relative stability in the rates of juvenile crime, there was a major turning point in about 1985. A. Blumstein, Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus?, National Institute of Justice Journal 229 (August, 1995). Then, within the next seven years, the rate of homicides committed by young people, the number of homicides they committed with guns, and the arrest rate of non-white juveniles for drug offenses, all doubled."

"Between 1984 and 1993, arrests of juveniles for violent offenses rose by nearly sixty-eight percent."

So the parents of your generation were probably the worst ever when it comes to raising criminals.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-15-2018, 09:24 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I really want someone to tell me why they "need" to own a military grade assault rifle.  I'm not anti-guns, people do have a right to keep one for self defense, hunting, etc.  But I've never met a hunter who needed to shoot deer with an AK-47.

I have a buddy with a small armory of high end death sticks.  You name it he's got it, probably 70K+ between the guns and ammo.  Along with a host of medical degrees, patents and and an innumerable list of lives he's saved in the OR.  One of the brightest people I've ever known, yet a certified gun nut.  His obsession is self protection of degree, as in apocalypse type stuff.  If the shit ever hit the fan, I would be at his place in a heart beat, but its just so crazy to prepare for something so extreme in such a disparate manner.  

[SunsetBengal]

(02-15-2018, 09:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-102-juvenile-crime-facts

"Data gathered from a variety of sources indicate that after a period of relative stability in the rates of juvenile crime, there was a major turning point in about 1985. A. Blumstein, Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus?, National Institute of Justice Journal 229 (August, 1995). Then, within the next seven years, the rate of homicides committed by young people, the number of homicides they committed with guns, and the arrest rate of non-white juveniles for drug offenses, all doubled."

"Between 1984 and 1993, arrests of juveniles for violent offenses rose by nearly sixty-eight percent."

So the parents of your generation were probably the worst ever when it comes to raising criminals.

Watch what you say.  Generation is generally thought of as people who grew up in the same ~ 20 year span.  Now, your graphic noted a pretty much even line through the 80's, and a huge spike in the mid 90's.  Since then, seems like things have only went back to "normal" levels, when it comes to juvenile crime rate. *except that they aren't counting rape statistics after 2011.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 09:41 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I have a buddy with a small armory of high end death sticks.  You name it he's got it, probably 70K+ between the guns and ammo.  Along with a host of medical degrees, patents and and an innumerable list of lives he's saved in the OR.  One of the brightest people I've ever known, yet a certified gun nut.  His obsession is self protection of degree, as in apocalypse type stuff.  If the shit ever hit the fan, I would be at his place in a heart beat, but its just so crazy to prepare for something so extreme in such a disparate manner.  

And people like this are the reason I need an AK-47.

[BmorePat87]

(02-15-2018, 04:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understood.  With respect, your source actually bolsters my point.  I'll past the findings from your source for clarity.

Mass Public Shootings per Decade

1910s: 2

1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6

You see an obvious uptick in the 30's, which I think we can al logically agree has to do with the dire economic straits people were in during that decade.  But, again, what strikes me is the low number in decades following major conflicts, in which millions of soldiers returned home, bearing the scars of these conflicts.  Guns were more easily available, outside the NFA, they were barely regulated by today's standards.  Yet the number of such shootings remained comparatively low.  Even factoring in your per capita point, which I concede as a solid counter, the numbers are significant.  There are obviously huge social factors playing into this that have absolutely nothing to do with firearms.  IMO you'd have to include poorly supervised children (disintegration of the nuclear family included), narcissistic and solipsistic worldviews brought on by social media and mollycoddling children (i.e. a lack of accountability) and the sensationalism in the coverage of these events.  For some people being famous is such a goal that being famous for a bad reason is a viable alternative.  Lastly, how we deal with mental health issues.  I actually agree with GM's slippery slope argument in this regard, but there has to be a middle ground between the abuses of psychiatric commitment in the past and today's almost totally hands off approach. 




Sure, a point that goes hand in hand with my post. 



Indeed.  It is also, IMO, a very important right.  The government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense.  An 80 year old woman should have the means, if she chooses, to be able to realistically be able to defend herself from a 20 year old man.  The interesting trend to me has been the number of more left leaning people acquiring firearms do to Trump's election.  I'll completely concede that gun ownership still strongly coincides to a more right leaning ideology, but it is apparent that when people fear the potential abuses of their government they will arm themselves.  Of course, that fear is almost always predicated on the ideology of the current government and how closely it coincides with your own.

I don't disagree that numbers are worse now and that it is strange that we didn't see these issues in the 50's considering the return of soldiers. Providing some context, though, this wasn't unheard of in the 40's. Nearly similar numbers (by population) as last decade. But information didn't spread as easily. 


I interpreted the upticks in a similar way: economy and opportunities. The soldiers came home to a country that celebrated them and gave them the chance to buy affordable homes, go to school, and get good jobs immediately. 

For the most part, we have a similar view on this issue. We both understand that gun violence is an obvious side effect of pretty open gun ownership which is a constitutional right. We can't talk about what England, Australia, or Sweden does. We need to find uniquely American solutions. 

[Vas Deferens]

(02-15-2018, 10:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And people like this are the reason I need an AK-47.

If you're worried about a guy that has saved thousands upon thousands of lives in his career, you should probably pick up a couple of them.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I do wonder how much them being televised/talked about/nationally covered contributes to it.

I saw where the kid who got stopped before he started in Washington by his Grandma turning him in after she found his notebook of plans and such. He researched school shootings a ton, planned to do right where they "failed" and wanted to make it something everyone would remember by having the highest bodycount of a school shooting ever.

[*Nately120*]

(02-15-2018, 10:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For the most part, we have a similar view on this issue. We both understand that gun violence is an obvious side effect of pretty open gun ownership which is a constitutional right. We can't talk about what England, Australia, or Sweden does. We need to find uniquely American solutions. 

According to the right-wing the issue is the mentally ill getting guns...something which the Obama administration regulated to prevent and then the Trump administration undid because, you know, everything Obama did was wrong.  Am I missing something here, or is it really as absurd as I see it?

*yet another mass shooting occurs*
Lefty - We need gun control!
Righty - No, this was caused by mental illness.
Obama - I'll sign something to make it harder for the mentally ill to own guns.
Lefty - Yay.
Righty - Boo!
Trump - I'll undo this and make it easier for the mentally ill to get guns!
Lefty - Boo.
Righty - (insert response here)

Seriously folks, if you support Trump you need to stop playing the "mental illness did this" card now, don't you?  Am I missing something here?

[Millhouse]

At this point there is no single thing that can help curb gun violence in the U.S., let alone at schools. It will have to be a multitude of things from many angles to try to address it. Most of which have been mentioned already.

However because of the second Amendment that the NRA and its followers believe sacred*, chances are it wont ever happen. And those multitude of changes that are needed definitely wont happen in the next few years with Trump and the Repubs in power.


* On a side note to that comment, it is just an amendment to the Constitution. The very same constitution that originally allowed slavery to exist without being an amendment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-15-2018, 09:41 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I have a buddy with a small armory of high end death sticks.  You name it he's got it, probably 70K+ between the guns and ammo.  Along with a host of medical degrees, patents and and an innumerable list of lives he's saved in the OR.  One of the brightest people I've ever known, yet a certified gun nut.  His obsession is self protection of degree, as in apocalypse type stuff.  If the shit ever hit the fan, I would be at his place in a heart beat, but its just so crazy to prepare for something so extreme in such a disparate manner.  

I don't own what I own for the exact same reason, I honestly just enjoy collecting them.  I appreciate the artistry and the craftsmanship that goes into them.  I appreciate the dedication to learn their manual of arms and the skill required to use them properly.  Some of the firearms I own are also ascetically pleasing.  That said, they will come in handy if a situation as horrible as that occurs.  I own ammunition I hope I will never use, high end hollow points from companies such as lehigh defense.  Others wouldn't bother with such an "investment", and more power to them, the decision is theirs.

(02-15-2018, 10:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And people like this are the reason I need an AK-47.

Good thing the Constitution gives you the right to do so.  As an aside, an AK, chambered in the standard 7.62x39, while rugged as hell, is not an ideal choice in the US.  First, and this is true of all AK's, the sight radius is very poor for a long gun.  Secondly, in a SHTF scenario your most prevalent available rounds are going to be 9mm Luger, .223 Remington and 12 gauge shotgun.  Finding usable ammo for your AK won't be as easy.  Do your gun thing right Fred!

(02-15-2018, 10:25 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: If you're worried about a guy that has saved thousands upon thousands of lives in his career, you should probably pick up a couple of them.

I appreciate your initial post here.  Many people have an erroneous idea of gun owners, especially ones who own multiple firearms.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-15-2018, 03:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol you will leave it at this .... haha.

Bullying is fine. Yeah it sucks that someone feels bad but we can’t lose the valuable life lessons for everyone involved.

If fist fights weren’t under no tolerance at school then we would see more which would give violent people an outlet to simmer down. So they wouldn’t have to ramp It up.

You can’t have males together and not have some sort of altercations. You see it everywhere. Whether it’s a fight, bullying, making fun of, it’s always a pack mentality and there is a fight to be the leader of that pack. If your answer to that issue is to make sure you raise beta males then so be it..... betas are great to stop violence the problem is they are terrible leaders.

You are entitled to your own views on how to raise men. And I am certainly entitled to mine. Stop using a school shooting as a reason to virtue signal. It’s pretty sad to attempt to use the emotion of the moment to make a point. Take the emotion out of your life.

What do you know about teaching leadership?

[Au165]

(02-15-2018, 06:38 PM)Benton Wrote: $3-4,000 per metal detector. Even for schools that big, you can still reduce the number of doors. And even if 10 is the minimum, you're talking a one time $30-40,000 purchase. Train faculty on how to use them, move on to other ways to make the buildings harder to bring guns into. Theres just under 100,000 public schools in the US. That's around $400 million (if my math is right). Last I saw, we were spending more than $11 million per day on fighting in the Middle East. So... take a month off. Let's let some people over there blow themselves up and argue with each other for the month of March. Tell them we'll resume bombing the shit out of them in April once we've taken even baby steps towards doing something.

What does training teachers to use metal detectors do? If there is not a "response team" of some sort there then the shooting happens at the metal detector line in the morning instead of inside the school. I explained in another example if you go the metal detector route not having paid security there to work them is pointless. Also something to consider, what happens when a metal detector goes off? Are these teachers now going to pat down a minor without parental consent? A cop can get away with it, a teacher will not and that is a bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen.

Let's assume the metal detectors workout and your not getting sued for sexual harassment each week over pat downs. The issue is you still don't have a secure school because schools aren't security minded. Schools have been built historically with a large amount of doors, and while you may lock down where people are allowed to enter on normal days you can't stop them from exiting those doors. If a couple kids wanted to go through the metal detectors with nothing then let their buddy in a back door with guns there would be little metal detectors do without additional systems to stop this. Schools need to have a security minded person looking at the big picture security risks not simply throwing money at a single thing. Each school is different so a one size fits all response isn't going to fix the problems of securing schools. As I mentioned before I work in the security industry and it is apparent most schools know nothing about security.

[Griever]

find it funny how people that say we should arm the teachers to keep this from happening are mostly the ones that think we shouldnt pay teachers extra to cover school supplies

dont have the money for school supplies but all of a sudden you have money for guns and training

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2018, 09:57 AM)Griever Wrote: find it funny how people that say we should arm the teachers to keep this from happening are mostly the ones that think we shouldnt pay teachers extra to cover school supplies

dont have the money for school supplies but all of a sudden you have money for guns and training

"LET'S ARM THE TEACHERS WITH GUNS!"

You cheap bastards won't arm teachers with the basics....paper, pens, textbooks... #GTFO

— Jaremi Carey (@PhiPhiOhara) February 15, 2018

[Benton]

(02-16-2018, 09:26 AM)Au165 Wrote: What does training teachers to use metal detectors do? If there is not a "response team" of some sort there then the shooting happens at the metal detector line in the morning instead of inside the school. I explained in another example if you go the metal detector route not having paid security there to work them is pointless. Also something to consider, what happens when a metal detector goes off? Are these teachers now going to pat down a minor without parental consent? A cop can get away with it, a teacher will not and that is a bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen.

Let's assume the metal detectors workout and your not getting sued for sexual harassment each week over pat downs. The issue is you still don't have a secure school because schools aren't security minded. Schools have been built historically with a large amount of doors, and while you may lock down where people are allowed to enter on normal days you can't stop them from exiting those doors. If a couple kids wanted to go through the metal detectors with nothing then let their buddy in a back door with guns there would be little metal detectors do without additional systems to stop this. Schools need to have a security minded person looking at the big picture security risks not simply throwing money at a single thing. Each school is different so a one size fits all response isn't going to fix the problems of securing schools. As I mentioned before I work in the security industry and it is apparent most schools know nothing about security.

Then... hire a security guard. Or four.

In the case of Marshall, there’s a paid security guard and a sheriffs deputy. They were both in the sign in shack in the parking lot during the shooting.about 200 yards away and outside where the shooting occurred.

There’s not one thing that’s going to work, but it drives me crazy people brush off metal detectors, largely because of cost (it’s miniscule compared to our tax revenues) or the number of doors (in many cases, they funnel kids into a small number of doors these days anyway).

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2018, 10:05 AM)Benton Wrote: Then... hire a security guard. Or four.

In the case of Marshall, there’s a paid security guard and a sheriffs deputy. They were both in the sign in shack in the parking lot during the shooting.about 200 yards away and outside where the shooting occurred.

There’s not one thing that’s going to work, but it drives me crazy people brush off metal detectors, largely because of cost (it’s miniscule compared to our tax revenues) or the number of doors (in many cases, they funnel kids into a small number of doors these days anyway).

I brush off metal detectors because I don't think they are an effective solution. The cost isn't something that enters into my mind, at least the monetary cost. The cost with regards to time of the school day, the costs with regards to how the presence of metal detectors and other security matters affects the learning environment, the costs of all of that to the education of our children is significant. I understand that there is a desire to look at these solutions because they make sense when you think of other "secure" areas. Schools are different and we need to realize that when we approach this issue.

[Au165]

(02-16-2018, 10:05 AM)Benton Wrote: Then... hire a security guard. Or four.

In the case of Marshall, there’s a paid security guard and a sheriffs deputy. They were both in the sign in shack in the parking lot during the shooting.about 200 yards away and outside where the shooting occurred.

There’s not one thing that’s going to work, but it drives me crazy people brush off metal detectors, largely because of cost (it’s miniscule compared to our tax revenues) or the number of doors (in many cases, they funnel kids into a small number of doors these days anyway).

I brush them off because they aren't a good solution from my experience in the facility security industry. The cost is something that should be considered because you now have the cost of people running them that is reoccurring, also they break relatively often so you have the additional maintenance costs as well (and it isn't cheap). They are also rather ineffective for reasons I said above as a stand alone solutioin. If you say no single thing works then you need to also consider the costs of those additional systems to make the metal detectors effective which is going to be three to four times the cost of the metal detectors themselves.

This all goes back to my post where I point out the issue in schools is they don't have a "security director", or someone like this, who looks at the overall security. Hospitals have them, Courts have them, even a lot of private businesses have them, but schools are way behind in considering security as a necessity. When we talk to schools often times they think of security upgrades as a luxury not as something they have to invest in. That mindset needs to change if we want to truly secure our schools, and that starts by putting people in schools that understand security best practices.

[Benton]

(02-16-2018, 10:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: I brush them off because they aren't a good solution from my experience in the facility security industry. The cost is something that should be considered because you now have the cost of people running them that is reoccurring, also they break relatively often so you have the additional maintenance costs as well (and it isn't cheap). They are also rather ineffective for reasons I said above as a stand alone solutioin. If you say no single thing works then you need to also consider the costs of those additional systems to make the metal detectors effective which is going to be three to four times the cost of the metal detectors themselves.

This all goes back to my post where I point out the issue in schools is they don't have a "security director", or someone like this, who looks at the overall security. Hospitals have them, Courts have them, even a lot of private businesses have them, but schools are way behind in considering security as a necessity. When we talk to schools often times they think of security upgrades as a luxury not as something they have to invest in. That mindset needs to change if we want to truly secure our schools, and that starts by putting people in schools that understand security best practices.

When I was an education reporter I did a fair share of school safety stories (I worked in McCracken where heath is). Almost every district in the area has a former law enforcement officer on staff to provide input and even the smaller districts have nearly annual safety audits. From all of them I talked to over the years, they basically said to make achools safe you’d have to bulldoze most of them and start over.

That’s not economically possible.

And like I said, we had two security professionals. They were shooting the shit and drinking coffee.

[Au165]

(02-16-2018, 10:54 AM)Benton Wrote: When I was an education reporter I did a fair share of school safety stories (I worked in McCracken where heath is). Almost every district in the area has a former law enforcement officer on staff to provide input and even the smaller districts have nearly annual safety audits. From all of them I talked to over the years, they basically said to make achools safe you’d have to bulldoze most of them and start over.

That’s not economically possible.

And like I said, we had two security professionals. They were shooting the shit and drinking coffee.

There is a difference between officers/security guards, and someone who has a high level understanding of facility security best practices. The ones you talked to are right in that many would have to be bulldozed to be "secure", however there are things they can be doing now to make them safer. This happened years ago in courthouses and it has got us to where we are today. Years ago courts were built in the center of town with multiple entry ways and very little security as far as who can enter with what. Over time they realized their flaws and built in extensive security plans to better secure existing building and implement best practices in new buildings. Schools need to look at courts as their blue print because a lot of the same challenges the courts faced we are seeing in schools today.

Again, I am giving my perspective as someone who works in this area every day. Inside the security industry it is no secret that schools have horrible security, they don't have the money to fix it, and when they do find the funding often don't spend the money wisely as they don't have someone properly advising them.

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2018, 11:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: Again, I am giving my perspective as someone who works in this area every day. Inside the security industry it is no secret that schools have horrible security, they don't have the money to fix it, and when they do find the funding often don't spend the money wisely as they don't have someone properly advising them.

See, I'm not in favor of schools spending the money on security at the expense of an educational environment. I know there are things that can be done to make a school more secure, but to get to the level of security a lot of people think schools should have it would not be very conducive to learning. It wouldn't be a real childhood.

We have been having an ongoing debate in my city over the plans for a new high school as our current one is >500 students beyond its capacity. An astroturf, Koch funded movement called "Students Over Structures" has been fighting it tooth and nail. Their name, though, is one that I like and have to think of when I look at solutions to school shootings. The policies we need should be student centered, not structure centered. Focusing on security isn't going to solve the real problems that cause these shooters to act in the way they do, and may even exacerbate the issues. We need to be focusing on the students to really get at the heart of this.