Mass shootings

[GMDino]

(02-23-2018, 12:14 PM)Wyche Wrote: Sadly, I remember days like that here.....what happened?

It would be interesting to hear what she says.

Personally I think people got further apart.  It's really just that simple.

Vocal minorities took over the national conversations.  Throw in the 70's and 80's economics and people started "hating" more.  Hating other ideas and other people.  40-50 years later we have a society that thinks force is not only the answer but that they have to be prepared to kill to defend themselves from the "other" side.

Or, as the POTUS said just today, they have to be on the "offensive" to protect themselves.

People isolate themselves from opposing views, from the neighbors, and fear and paranoia take root.  Changing your mind based on new facts is "flip flopping" and being wrong is being weak.

I'm over simplifying a deeper conversation for the sake of time and typing!  LOL!  But in general I think we've stopped having conversations and started yelling without listening.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-23-2018, 10:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: So the officer wasn't a good guy?  

All seriousness aside, there was someone there, with a gun, who did nothing.  Yet the first suggestion given is/was to arm teachers.  

Just yesterday the head of the NRA finished his speech with the talking point that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

He just forgot to add a good guy with a gun who does his job.

And that is someone who I assume was trained on how to handle such a situation.  And I'll assume he had more training than a teacher will get.

No, this officer/deputy wasn't a good guy.  A good guy would have gone in and done something, even if it wasn't their job.  Training absolutely helps, but personality goes a long way in how someone will react in a situation like this.  I can say personally there is zero chance I wouldn't have engaged the shooter.  I can also virtually guarantee you there is a teacher at that school, like the football coach, who, if armed, would also have done something.  I'm not advocating arming teachers, I'm simply pointing out that there's definitely a teacher at that school who would have reacted more aggressively than the deputy who did nothing.

(02-23-2018, 11:00 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is related to those differences between California and the states most of the rest of us are from. The director at a non-profit which I am on the board for took a cross country road trip last year. Both she and her fiancee are rather liberal, but our brand of liberal, so also gun owners. Her fiancee actually owns his father's old service pistol (I say old, it's a SIG P229), which his father sold to him after he bought it upon retirement from the Virginia State Police. He has a concealed firearms permit and did his research on reciprocity, making sure to follow all laws.

While they were in California, they got pulled over for something by CHP. If I recall correctly that were speeding, but it was because there was a separate speed limit for pulling a trailer or something. I don't remember entirely, but I remember it not being something that we have laws about around these parts. Anyway, he had the firearm and ammunition separate, all locked away, out of reach, etc., but, because he wanted to be honest he told the officer that he had a firearm in the vehicle, explained the details, etc.

What happened next was what really displayed the difference between California and Virginia. They wanted to verify ownership. Well, there is no way to do that. The original sale was to the VSP. After that, there is nothing on record. They kept asking for proof of ownership, how he got it, etc. He kept explaining that in Virginia there is no tracking on that. When his father purchased it, there was no record. When his father sold it to him, there was no record. There is not going to be any record of this, ever. That's how Virginia operates. The CHP officers just did not believe this. They were incredulous that this was the case, even after talking on the phone to someone at VSP. They finally decided they were confiscating the weapon and that VSP had to put in the request to get it back, and at that point this guy could work it out with VSP. It's been over a year since then, they are still fighting through this.

CHP is notorious among other agencies for being unreasonable.  They are generally very professional but also very by the book to the point, at times, of absurdity.  While I applaud your friend's feeling of civic duty, he would have been much better off saying nothing about his firearm.  IN regards to his firearm, it's illegal in CA to own or possess a firearm that isn't on the approved hand gun roster.  You can find the roster here.

https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns

If the gun is not on the approved roster, and the SIG P229 your friend owns may not be (yes it's specific to the model number of the 229 as well, BTW I own one and I love it), then only a sworn peace officer can possess it within state limits.  The purpose of the roster is utter crap, but that's a whole other can of worms.  So, by state law, the CHP officer was precisely doing their job, the handgun in question was likely illegal for your friend to possess in CA.

(02-23-2018, 11:34 AM)Griever Wrote: im so glad we had a good guy with a gun on campus to stop the shooting


wait, no, we had a sherrif deputy on campus who was too busy hiding behind a stone pillar to do anything about what was going on inside

***** coward

Indeed.  It's very possible that guy could have saved the lives of numerous students.  Even knowing he was being fired at would very likely have caused the shooter to flee the scene.  This dude froze at the moment of truth and I'm sure it will haunt him forever.  It should.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2018, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, this officer/deputy wasn't a good guy.  A good guy would have gone in and done something, even if it wasn't their job.  Training absolutely helps, but personality goes a long way in how someone will react in a situation like this.  I can say personally there is zero chance I wouldn't have done engaged the shooter.  I can also virtually guarantee you there is a teacher at that school, like the football coach, who, if armed, would also have done something.  I'm not advocating arming teachers, I'm simply pointing out that there's definitely a teacher at that school who would have reacted more aggressively than the deputy who did nothing.


Indeed.  It's very possible that guy could have saved the lives of numerous students.  Even knowing he was being fired at would very likely have caused the shooter to flee the scene.  This dude froze at the moment of truth and I'm sure it will haunt him forever.  It should.

The fact that he froze he has to live with. I do not envy him in that regard.

It also doesn't take away from HE was the "good guy" who is supposed to do something.  That is no more a simple answer (as LaPierre insists) than any other because humans are, well, human.  That's why we have too look at the other side of it too: The guns, their availability and the requirements to own them. At least in my opinion.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-23-2018, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Personally I think people got further apart.  It's really just that simple.

Vocal minorities took over the national conversations.  Throw in the 70's and 80's economics and people started "hating" more.  Hating other ideas and other people.  40-50 years later we have a society that thinks force is not only the answer but that they have to be prepared to kill to defend themselves from the "other" side.

Or, as the POTUS said just today, they have to be on the "offensive" to protect themselves.

People isolate themselves from opposing views, from the neighbors, and fear and paranoia take root.  Changing your mind based on new facts is "flip flopping" and being wrong is being weak.

I'm over simplifying a deeper conversation for the sake of time and typing!  LOL!  But in general I think we've stopped having conversations and started yelling without listening.

Sometimes oversimplification countersinks the nail.....just as you did here.  There's A LOT of truth in what you just typed.  Some things you mention I have thought about at great length, others I hadn't considered.  People losing jobs to outsourcing has folks on edge as well, in my opinion.  People being on edge, and then having a squabble over silly wedge issues doesn't mix very well. I 100% agree with all you just said.  I guess I don't understand it, because I'm able to move back and forth across that "aisle" as I am presented with information that I hadn't seen before.  I enjoy conversation, especially when disagreement is engaged civilly.  Even if we come away still disagreeing, I am always interested in as many views and facts as possible in order to make my own decisions.  That leads to the issue we have these day with what is presented as "facts" by the very people we used to be able to trust to provide them.  Social media plays a HUGE role here too.  I am an enigma, of sorts, I am big time 'Murica in the sense of putting our citizens' needs first, but I'm hardly an isolationist.  I just believe in common sense, compromise for the greater good, give respect and get it back, and trying to get along.  However, if you leave me no choice.....

(02-23-2018, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, this officer/deputy wasn't a good guy.  A good guy would have gone in and done something, even if it wasn't their job.  Training absolutely helps, but personality goes a long way in how someone will react in a situation like this.  I can say personally there is zero chance I wouldn't have engaged the shooter.  I can also virtually guarantee you there is a teacher at that school, like the football coach, who, if armed, would also have done something.  I'm not advocating arming teachers, I'm simply pointing out that there's definitely a teacher at that school who would have reacted more aggressively than the deputy who did nothing.





Indeed.  It's very possible that guy could have saved the lives of numerous students.  Even knowing he was being fired at would very likely have caused the shooter to flee the scene.  This dude froze at the moment of truth and I'm sure it will haunt him forever.  It should.

I couldn't have addressed this any better.  Spot on.

[Bengalzona]

(02-23-2018, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.  It's very possible that guy could have saved the lives of numerous students.  Even knowing he was being fired at would very likely have caused the shooter to flee the scene.  This dude froze at the moment of truth and I'm sure it will haunt him forever.  It should.

I heard on the news that he resigned this morning.

A person never knows how they will react the first time they encounter a specific type of crisis situation. And training only goes so far in helping them react properly.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-23-2018, 09:08 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I have a friend in Australia who has a private armory of hundreds of firearms. But none are automatic or semi-automatic. He has no problem with their gun laws at all.

Well since you're the only one to reply to me, how do you feel about them?  Personally I say give it a try!  Why not?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-23-2018, 01:24 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Well since you're the only one to reply to me, how do you feel about them?  Personally I say give it a try!  Why not?

Actually.....your post on Australia, and another on Switzerland were what got my wheels turning on the lengthy post I made a couple pages back. :andy:

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-23-2018, 01:33 PM)Wyche Wrote: Actually.....your post on Australia, and another on Switzerland were what got my wheels turning on the lengthy post I made a couple pages back. :andy:

Thank you for your reply, sorry I didn't see your post earlier.  It's a lengthy thread and admittedly I came late to the party.  I guess my question is why couldn't it work here?  Trust me I do understand it would mean that we would have to review, and rethink, the 2nd amendment.

No it's not a popular opinion, but I'm also not a fan of watching masses of innocent people die every other month.  And I don't buy the opinion that anyone needs to ensure their overall safety with a gun (I've never owned one, and only used one on a regular basis while in the military).  Other than hunting, I just don't see the need for them.

[Bengalzona]

(02-23-2018, 01:24 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Well since you're the only one to reply to me, how do you feel about them?  Personally I say give it a try!  Why not?

Personally, I would like to see something similar here. But realistically, I don't think it is possible in the current political climate.


As an aside, I heard a little bit more about what the Texas school district is doing with teachers and guns and I'm starting to like their approach better. They aren't requiring all or any teachers to arm themselves. They are allowing teachers to voluntarily do this, but with certain guidelines such as a mental health screening and a police-like firearms course. But the most important thing is concealed carry permits and strict secrecy over which teachers would have guns. No one would know how many teachers or which teachers in a particular school were armed. The point is not so much to have a feasible "reaction force" to a school shooter. The point is to try to deter a potential shooter from starting a spree in the first place with the fore-knowledge that all or some (or even one) of the teachers in the school have guns too.

I'm not 100% sold on the idea. But I do like some of the ways they are approaching it.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-23-2018, 02:06 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Thank you for your reply, sorry I didn't see your post earlier.  It's a lengthy thread and admittedly I came late to the party.  I guess my question is why couldn't it work here?  Trust me I do understand it would mean that we would have to review, and rethink, the 2nd amendment.

No it's not a popular opinion, but I'm also not a fan of watching masses of innocent people die every other month.  And I don't buy the opinion that anyone needs to ensure their overall safety with a gun (I've never owned one, and only used one on a regular basis while in the military).  Other than hunting, I just don't see the need for them.

It's a complicated issue, for sure.  Coming from a rural area, guns were prevalent everywhere you looked.  Most everyone I know hunts.  I'm not the biggest hunter in the world, but I've been known to hit the woods a time or six.  I think we need an overhaul.  I don't think anyone needs a gun to survive, but with the rise of home invasions here in meth/heroin heaven, I can see the need for a shotgun to defend yourself.  If for nothing else.....a shot or two across the bow to scare off intruders.

[BmorePat87]

After cheers of "lock her up" (as his former Campaign chair is facing charges) and boos while Trump trashed McCain (as he recovers from cancer), Trump doubled and tripled down on giving teachers guns as the answer.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-23-2018, 02:11 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Personally, I would like to see something similar here. But realistically, I don't think it is possible in the current political climate.


As an aside, I heard a little bit more about what the Texas school district is doing with teachers and guns and I'm starting to like their approach better. They aren't requiring all or any teachers to arm themselves. They are allowing teachers to voluntarily do this, but with certain guidelines such as a mental health screening and a police-like firearms course. But the most important thing is concealed carry permits and strict secrecy over which teachers would have guns. No one would know how many teachers or which teachers in a particular school were armed. The point is not so much to have a feasible "reaction force" to a school shooter. The point is to try to deter a potential shooter from starting a spree in the first place with the fore-knowledge that all or some (or even one) of the teachers in the school have guns too.

I'm not 100% sold on the idea. But I do like some of the ways they are approaching it.

I agree it's a "solution" but like you I'm not sold on the idea.  However I also agree that given the political climate, Australia's solution may not be acceptable here.  One thing that bugs me about this country is the ideology that if it (whatever that "it" is) isn't American, it's crap or unacceptable. We could do so much better following other models in education, healthcare and IMO same with gun control.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-23-2018, 02:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: After cheers of "lock her up" (as his former Campaign chair is facing charges) and boos while Trump trashed McCain (as he recovers from cancer), Trump doubled and tripled down on giving teachers guns as the answer.

So how do you feel about having to go to work armed in order to teach kids?

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2018, 11:56 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: I did not know that was your "hobby"......makes me value your input even more than I already did.  You obviously delve into WAY more than I do....I just have these simple musings that come to me....often when that bastard insomnia shows up.

I probably haven't read much in the line of such articles since I was TAKING sociology and psychology in college.  (although I do read some stuff on those subjects from time to time)

Not so much my hobby as my field of study. I went back to school and am currently working on a degree in policy analysis/assessment. Working at a university, I am able to take classes for free and not have to travel far for them.

(02-23-2018, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: CHP is notorious among other agencies for being unreasonable.  They are generally very professional but also very by the book to the point, at times, of absurdity.  While I applaud your friend's feeling of civic duty, he would have been much better off saying nothing about his firearm.  IN regards to his firearm, it's illegal in CA to own or possess a firearm that isn't on the approved hand gun roster.  You can find the roster here.

https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns

If the gun is not on the approved roster, and the SIG P229 your friend owns may not be (yes it's specific to the model number of the 229 as well, BTW I own one and I love it), then only a sworn peace officer can possess it within state limits.  The purpose of the roster is utter crap, but that's a whole other can of worms.  So, by state law, the CHP officer was precisely doing their job, the handgun in question was likely illegal for your friend to possess in CA.

That's some interesting stuff. I had no idea about that list, and I doubt that this guy did, either. It would also explain why they are unwilling to give it back to him directly.

Also, if I could afford it, I would have a P229, myself. I have fired one and it is very nice.

[*bfine32*]

(02-23-2018, 01:04 AM)Benton Wrote: Your response is as cute and curt as your original statement was irrelevant to the discussion. No one is discussing taking away firearms from soldiers in combat. Likewise... in case you're not following... no one is discussing sending American kids into schools located in war zones.

Good grief.

You are the one that introduced movie Theaters into a back and forth about allowing educators to carry and some how my comments are irrelevant and I'm not following.  

(02-23-2018, 10:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, not "regardless".  If you were in a war zone and got shot at that is different than being in algebra class. Your experience, if while deployed, isn't the same at all.

I am sure a few would be happier to have a gun with them.  But I'll be honest, I haven't had one friend who is a teacher say they want to be the one carrying a gun.  that covers a few states and various grade levels and experience levels. Male or female.

I've talked to students who listed off the teachers they wouldn't trust with a gun for various reasons.

So while arming the "best" teachers as the POTUS has suggested (or didn't suggest depending on which tweet you read) might be "an" idea it is being resisted by the people he wants to arm.

How can you tell me that the location is relevant to where I would want to carry a weapon? As I said I don't speak for educators, but your friends aside, there may be an educator or 2 out there that would welcome the opportunity to better protect his/her children if the situation arose. Who are you or any of us on here to tell them they cannot be afforded that right/

(02-23-2018, 11:04 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Maybe we should just allow all students to carry in school.  This way, if one of them gets out of hand, we can count on all of the others to step up and make sure that they don't become victims. If one of the nuts show up, the sane ones could save the day.

Ridiculous comments like this is how subjects often get off track.

[BmorePat87]

(02-23-2018, 02:30 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: So how do you feel about having to go to work armed in order to teach kids?

Like I am living in a bizarro world. I've seen my profession attacked for years and told education wastes money. I've seen proposals to dismantle it, defund important support services for things like mental health, and eliminate critical programs for poor students that I used as a child. 

Now we need to spend money to arm teachers who are the only line of defense against suicidal murderers. 

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2018, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Personally I think people got further apart.  It's really just that simple.

Vocal minorities took over the national conversations.  Throw in the 70's and 80's economics and people started "hating" more.  Hating other ideas and other people.  40-50 years later we have a society that thinks force is not only the answer but that they have to be prepared to kill to defend themselves from the "other" side.

Here is what is crazy when you start looking at cultural influences and "mass shootings".

40-50 years ago there were MORE gun owners in the United Sates than there are today.

40-50 years ago there was just as much violent crime and many MORE deadly riots.  Peoples heads explode today if one person gets injured in a BLM demonstration but here are the death tolls from some riots in the 60's....Detroit '67 forty-three dead, Watts '65 thirty-four dead, Newark '67 twenty-six dead.  There were also multiple assassinations of public figures (MLK, John and Bobby Kennedy).

So there were more gun owners and overall our society was much more violent.  Yet "mass shootings" were extremely rare.

So if you want to look at cultural/social issues behind mass shootings you don't need to compare the US to other countries.  you need to compare the US today to the US 40-50 years ago.

[*bfine32*]

(02-23-2018, 02:30 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: So how do you feel about having to go to work armed in order to teach kids?

I would be against any legislation that forced an educator to carry a weapon.

[fredtoast]

I don't know why so many people are aginst letting teachers carry gins to school.

Don't MAKE any of them carry guns.

Make sure every one that does is trained.

But what the hell is it going to hurt? There are lots of teachers who own guns and would probably like to carry on school.

And when you make a comment like "The people who claim teachers are stupid now want to let them carry guns" to oppose this plan you are basically saying you agree with the people who claim teachers are stupid.

It is not like letting kids carry guns. Teachers are supposed to be smart and educated. Why can't they be trusted with guns?

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2018, 10:24 PM)Benton Wrote: How many times were you shot at in school? Movie theater?

One point someone made which shouldn't be overlooked is that the fact that mass shootings occur in places other than schools is being overlooked with these suggestions that the solution is to arm teachers. 

Are we also arming ushers at theaters? What about concession workers at concerts? Waiters at night clubs? Arm all priests? Bus boys at restaurants? Drive thru cashiers as McDonalds?

It's ridiculous that the defense of arming teachers is mentioning how it's good to have a gun in a war zone, but ridiculous proposals tend to have ridiculous defenses.