1 killed in Kentucky high school shooting, governor says

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Phew I am glad your numbers make it seem ok to you,

"In a really bad year...I'm going with 2014...there were 36"

Even with my poor maths thats 3 a month, 3 school shootings a month and you are honestly ok with that

Put words in my mouth much?

If you could put as much effort into reading comprehension as you do trying to demonize me, you'd understand that my point was that, even though this happens far too often, calling it "the new American norm" is asinine, and doesn't take into account why the shootings occurred.

If you would slow down (I doubt that you even looked at my link), you would note that a large chunk of those shootings in 2014 were not the 'average school shooting,' but targeted attacks during altercations in places like the parking lot, or even drive-by shootings of people, or a retaliation for gambling debt at a university, or seeming attempted robberies in university parking garages, etc, etc.

I'm not dismissing the acts by any stretch, I'm just showing that calling this a new norm is ridiculous--there's much more to each incident than the standard statistics and hyperbolic claims show.

Can you imagine a year with 0, now that would be something to be proud of

RIP to the innocent lives lost and the devasting consequences for their loved family members

I agree, but like I said to Wayfarer, I have my concerns as to why this seems to be an increasing problem on average, and the gun is just the tool, not the underlying cause.

But don't ever accuse me of being ok with schools shootings--I must assume that you didn't read all the way through my comment to which you felt it appropriate to make your asinine claims about me.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Please expound on the reporting, I would like to know what is so upsetting?

I have not listened much to the reports.

POTENTIAL TRIGGER WARNING ESPECIALLY FOR ANYONE RELATED TO VICTIMS


Okay so I feel awful even writing what I heard yesterday but there was a woman describing the scene while Arial stills of the school showed- and she said a first responder carried out a girl who was clearly deceased- she said the first responder was covered in the girls blood and that the girl was dripping blood profusely as her body was carried out. She had been severely injured according to the reporter.

..... I just.... I didn't see why that was necessary. It really made me angry that the network was okay with her to say something so graphic so soon with responders still on scene. If my loved one was injured- I'm sure I'd find out soon enough how bad it was, I'd just fall out if I heard someone say that about my baby just minutes or few hours after it had happened. Aghhh.

Sorry clearly I'm the one who got triggered but In case anyone is as sensitive as me when it comes to shooting events I put the warning up so they won't have to cry like I did.

-Alee

Dollars to donuts this kid was on some kind of drug for mental illness.

Seems to be the answer today...don't spank or punish a kid, lets give him something that alters his brain chemistry instead....

And if he wasn't on any medication nor depressed or whatever the excuse de-jour is what will be your reasoning then?

Honestly, don't believe what the msm is putting out about this shooting. I've heard the reports on msm and they don't even come close to what eyewitnesses say. School officials and others are reporting, "The pupils did as they were trained to do." and that the shooter ran away after running out of ammo. Not so according to witnesses, when he ran out of ammo, bystanders stopped him by surrounding and subduing him. That's why there were injuries termed as "not gun-shot wounds" to several students. These young people should be treated as heroes and yet they're being ignored or shoved into the background with reports that the shooter was "apprehended by the deputy who arrived first on the scene."
Apparently there were a number of people who did not "follow training" to run and hide rather than confront and remove the danger.

I think starviega nailed it actually....

The name of the shooter has not been officially released, but this site claims to have his name:

twitter.com..

twitter.com...

Seems this is the (alleged) shooter. Even a letter from his stepsister urging folks not to treat him like a monster.

Apparently, overweight kid with glasses, band geek, abusive father who died the previous night. He posted a video and was crying, got bullied for that, and likely sent him over the edge. Once you google on the name, you'll see even more local traffic basically confirming this.

And if he wasn't on any medication nor depressed or whatever the excuse de-jour is what will be your reasoning then?

I'm pretty much liking my odds....

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Phew I am glad your numbers make it seem ok to you,

"In a really bad year...I'm going with 2014...there were 36"

Even with my poor maths thats 3 a month, 3 school shootings a month and you are honestly ok with that

Put words in my mouth much?

If you could put as much effort into reading comprehension as you do trying to demonize me, you'd understand that my point was that, even though this happens far too often, calling it "the new American norm" is asinine, and doesn't take into account why the shootings occurred.

If you would slow down (I doubt that you even looked at my link), you would note that a large chunk of those shootings in 2014 were not the 'average school shooting,' but targeted attacks during altercations in places like the parking lot, or even drive-by shootings of people, or a retaliation for gambling debt at a university, or seeming attempted robberies in university parking garages, etc, etc.

I'm not dismissing the acts by any stretch, I'm just showing that calling this a new norm is ridiculous--there's much more to each incident than the standard statistics and hyperbolic claims show.

Can you imagine a year with 0, now that would be something to be proud of

RIP to the innocent lives lost and the devasting consequences for their loved family members

I agree, but like I said to Wayfarer, I have my concerns as to why this seems to be an increasing problem on average, and the gun is just the tool, not the underlying cause.

But don't ever accuse me of being ok with schools shootings--I must assume that you didn't read all the way through my comment to which you felt it appropriate to make your asinine claims about me.

Wow, not sure I put words in your mouth as I only quoted something you wrote, sorry for that, i only had one question to you which was, are you ok with 3 a month?

I am not one for a debate if you are merely trying to belittle me with put downs, regarding my reading comprehension, I did read your thread and in my own opinion (which I am sure I am entitled to) I felt your post was informative but some elements were a little misplaced, why do you make a negative assumption that I did not read your post properly? do you think it was poory laid out? As I stated I felt it was quite informative, I was not aware of the number of tradgedies prior to your post.

If something happens on a regular enough occurence then it does become the new norm, what defines that is ones own perspective on "normal", I did not suggest this was the new norm that was another poster, my own thoughts on these tradgedies comes from the saturation of guns in the USA.

My only q? to you was are you OK with 3 a month.

Wow, kids get killed and injured in a mass school shooting, and people want to bicker about he said, she said semantics, and statistics.... ugh. Can't we all just get along?

Weird how adversarial things get here sometimes.

Gun control nuts were on this like white on rice from day one though.......

a reply to: Gazrok

Why do you consider the people who are outspoken regarding gun control to be "Gun control nuts"?

Seems to me they are not the ones running around with firearms killing people.

Recognition that a problem exists is hardly nuts and is, in point of fact, the first step to attempting to tackle and/or address any dilemma.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Honestly, don't believe what the msm is putting out about this shooting. I've heard the reports on msm and they don't even come close to what eyewitnesses say. School officials and others are reporting, "The pupils did as they were trained to do." and that the shooter ran away after running out of ammo. Not so according to witnesses, when he ran out of ammo, bystanders stopped him by surrounding and subduing him. That's why there were injuries termed as "not gun-shot wounds" to several students. These young people should be treated as heroes and yet they're being ignored or shoved into the background with reports that the shooter was "apprehended by the deputy who arrived first on the scene."
Apparently there were a number of people who did not "follow training" to run and hide rather than confront and remove the danger.

I'm curious how the school trains their students, I've seen some ALICE drills ( I guess that's what they are called around here, school shooter drills, never had them when I was in HS, graduated 2009) on youtube and it looks like a lot of schools train the kids to "distract" the shooter by piling on top of them football style or throwing chairs or anything they can find at the shooter. Maybe the kids dogpiled the guy - or whatever it is they did -because of their "training". I'd like to know. I"ll reply if I ever get an answer on that.

-Alee

Why do you consider the people who are outspoken regarding gun control to be "Gun control nuts"?

Nuts because most do so without any first hand knowledge of the existing rules and regulations, etc. and instead just want to ban guns. Nuts because they don't understand why our founding fathers felt this right was important enough to be second only to free speech. Nuts because they ignore mass attacks using other weapons such as knives, hatchets, or vehicles, and instead only focus on the TOOL used vs. the REASONS or MOTIVATIONS that are the root of the problem. Nuts that don't realize that none of the proposed legislation would have done anything to prevent most mass shooting incidents, nuts that don't realize that magazine limits just means a shooter carries more mags, nuts that don't realize that making guns illegal doesn't mean much to a CRIMINAL (who, by definition, operates OUTSIDE the law...)...

You know...nuts.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

Wow, not sure I put words in your mouth as I only quoted something you wrote, sorry for that, i only had one question to you which was, are you ok with 3 a month?

No, now you're walking back your claims, which were (and I quote):

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Phew I am glad your numbers make it seem ok to you,

"In a really bad year...I'm going with 2014...there were 36"

Even with my poor maths thats 3 a month, 3 school shootings a month and you are honestly ok with that

See, where I come from, punctuation and proper communication skills matter. In both instances of the bolded portion of your quotes, you are making statements, one saying that the statistics (not my numbers) make school shootings seem okay with me, and the other saying that I'm "honestly ok with" three school shootings a month.

When there is no question mark, it's not a question--don't pretend that you were asking when you were accusing, because your snarky little "Phew" at the start of your response showed the real tone of your comment.

I am not one for a debate if you are merely trying to belittle me with put downs, regarding my reading comprehension, ...

But when the shoe fits...

Why should I entertain discussing the topic with you when you initiate the discussion with sarcastic tones and accusations about me? Don't pretend that you started this exchange on some moral high ground and that you're astonished that I would call you out on something.

I did read your thread and in my own opinion (which I am sure I am entitled to) I felt your post was informative but some elements were a little misplaced, why do you make a negative assumption that I did not read your post properly? do you think it was poory laid out? As I stated I felt it was quite informative, I was not aware of the number of tradgedies prior to your post.

Because your conclusion was that I'm okay with school shootings because the numbers, statistically speaking, are so small. If that was your take-away--and judging by your own words, it was--then you either didn't read the whole thing (as I called out the poster to whom I was responding in the last part of my comment for politicizing the action), or you failed to understand the reason that I made the post in the first place.

If something happens on a regular enough occurence then it does become the new norm, what defines that is ones own perspective on "normal", I did not suggest this was the new norm that was another poster, my own thoughts on these tradgedies comes from the saturation of guns in the USA.

No, there really is not a subjective definition of "normal" in this instance. Even in South Central L.A. in the late 80s and early 90s, school shootings were not normal, even though there was a high saturation of gun violence and gang activity in that area. Even if you take an area well known for gun violence and look at the instance of school shootings, there is no place in America where it is a normal event, year after year.

My only q? to you was are you OK with 3 a month.

Again, that wasn't a question in your first response, it was a statement.

I'm not okay with any gun violence against innocent human beings, but as the Jefferson quote in my signature will help you understand, I realize that there are those who will abuse the ability to own firearms from time to time in this or that place, and that there are no laws that will ever deter anyone from doing such things.

But I will tell you, in a country of over 320-Million people, where there are more privately owned guns than people, when a heavy year of school shootings consists of 36 of those firearms being used illegally against innocent people on school property, I would argue that the statistics on that are pretty damn amazing (considering that you cannot legislate away murderous behavior).

Let's look at something interesting, though: According to this "The Guardian" article, there are 30,000 deaths attributed to firearms annually in the U.S. (that's obviously an average), but it notes that:

About two-thirds of those are suicides.

So, if we take that as a general fact, then we are looking at 10,000 firearm-related deaths, and not even all of those can be assumed to be crimes. But just for the sake of erring on the side of caution, we'll pretend that every single one of the 10,000 deaths is a crime--some bad guy who ignores all laws and just takes someone's life.

With the estimate of guns in American being more that one per person (the "The Guardian" article says 88/100 people, but that's not correct), and there being 10,000 illegal uses against human beings in a year, you're looking at, by the percentage of guns owned, a 0.003125% number of firearms being used to take a human life...and that's only dividing by the number 320-million. If I wanted to be more accurate, according to this "WaPo" article, there are estimated to be 357-Million firearms owned in the United States, bringing that percentage to a ridiculously negligible 0.0028%.

Seriously, that's less that one percent of one percent of firearms used to take the life of someone other than the person holding the gun.

So, yes, you'll have to excuse me when I say that, statistically speaking, and for a nation where firearms are so readily available to nearly everyone of age to own, we're doing really, really well as a nation when it comes to the ratio of firearms owned to firearms used to kill other human beings.

But, like I said--no, I'm not "okay" with innocent people dying at the hands of murderers, but I'm also not going to defend someone who says that the "saturation of guns in the USA" is the problem, because statistically speaking, that's asinine.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gazrok

Why do you consider the people who are outspoken regarding gun control to be "Gun control nuts"?

Ha, well, let's see, maybe because they say things like this:

Seems to me they are not the ones running around with firearms killing people.

And then you say:

Recognition that a problem exists is hardly nuts and is, in point of fact, the first step to attempting to tackle and/or address any dilemma.

But when the nuts diagnose the incorrect problem, over and over and over, and expect a different result--well, I'll let Einstein explain what that means.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think old Albert would be in the gun control camp myself.

Along with the rest of the sensible souls that can see further than the nose on there face.

The problem are GUNS and the fact that they are so prevalent in a society that's completely obsessed with the right to bear arms.

Repeating the same experiment and expecting a different result is exactly whats happening, and yet the outcome remains the same, that being a lot of dead innocent people killed via firearms for no other reason than the crazy bastards that wield the things.

Repeating the same experiment and expecting a different result is exactly whats happening, and yet the outcome remains the same, that being a lot of dead innocent people killed via firearms for no other reason than the crazy bastards that wield the things

Oddly, you seem to forget about all of the cases of a gunman being STOPPED by one of these "crazy bastards", an armed citizen who was able to stop a gunman. Who knows how many lived were saved in such cases? But you want to find out! Who is really the crazy bastard here?

If you outlaw the guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. Surely you have heard this argument before?

And if you do, will that stop a guy from getting in an SUV and plowing through a crowd of people? No. Taking away the tool (especially with so many guns already out there) will be an even bigger mistake. Not to even mention the basic reason our founding fathers had it in there to begin with, but obviously that argument won't sway you, because you seem convinced that only the government having guns is fine and dandy.

Why the heck are you even on a site like this then? LOL. I mean, if Big Brother has our backs and all.....

a reply to: Gazrok

Arm the chldren!

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

More like arm the teachers (with a biometric locking pistol)... LOL

No, instead of guns being the talking point, it should be the circumstances that led to this...which so far, seem to stem from cyber-bullying.
Whether other factors are at play, we really don't know yet, but the early indications are that this at least triggered the shooter.

a reply to: Gazrok

Thanks for pointing out the fatal error i most obviously failed to spot. LoL

I know, let's just give them all cruise missiles and let the problem sort itself out eh? As they have also been known to indiscriminately stop crazy bastards dead in their tracks.

What's odd is that citizens feel the need to own and/or field firearms to protect themselves in whats supposed to be a first world nation!

Guns are a major problem on the streets of the U.S, both the legal variety and illegal variety, in the hands of children and mad disgruntled bastards who use them for such nefarious purpose.

That's a fact. And that fact is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Hard job driving an SUV into a classroom full of children, possibly you could do it outside, but SUV are a means of transport whilst guns have a rather more deadly purpose, and it's not hunting that's for sure.

And once again people will focus on the gun instead of everything that lead up to this point, what kind of home was the child raised in. were the parents active in the childs life, who was the child involved with, was the child the focus of bullying, was the home broken etc...

Lots of things probably contributed to this problem but everyone wants to focus on the delivery system rather than the entire situation.

a reply to: Irishhaf

"What kind of home was the child raised in?"

Chances are one that contained guns.

"Were the parents active in the child's life?"

Think bullying was an issue, cyber or otherwise, fact is that parents cannot prevent bullying from happening whilst they are part of there children's lives or otherwise. All they can do really is offer sound advice, as doing anything else is generally counterproductive to the situation.

Lots of things probably did contribute to this problem, and guns are one of the things, the main thing really that allowed the idiotic misguided soul to perpetuate such a depraved act of violence.