1 killed in Kentucky high school shooting, governor says

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!

Really?

I live outside of town, in a fairly rural area. If I call 911 or the police, I may get a Sheriff out here in about 15 minutes or so. Do I really want to be without a firearm for 15 whole minutes, while an armed meth head is trying to steal tools out of my garage, or an armed burglar or rapist is trying to break into my house, etc.? Do you have any idea just how long 15 minutes really is when a crime is being committed? It simply makes no sense. And this is but one example.

No, instead you are trying to come up with a wide-sweeping non-solution without any consideration of the other consequences of a gun ban. This doesn't even touch on the initial reason it is in the Constitution in the first place, that an armed populace is a free one. Now, the easy argument is that our rifles are no match for a tank if the government decided to turn police state. And you would be right. However, you can still bet that the idea of millions of armed citizens is still a check and balance to such aims.

But really, we are prolonging the inevitable. Years from now, guns will be banned. The public will DEMAND it after more mass shootings (some of which will be like this one, genuine, others...false flags, err...Vegas..). So, you'll get your wish. But we won't even be able to say I told you so.

They'll be slick though. First, they'll make it unprofitable for companies to make ammo and firearms for private sale. Enough regulations would choke the market. Then, these companies will only be around to make for the police and military. Guns will still be "legal", just impractical, because nobody can find or afford ammo.

There will be a huge spike in armed crime, as armed criminals get while the getting is good. Eventually, this elevated crime rate will require more and more police state actions and rights restrictions. But we will cheer for them, because we'll feel "safer". A gun ban at this point, will be mostly academic, as it will have been a couple years since you could get any anyhow (all those gun shops, ammo places, etc. gone out of business).

It's really inevitable, but you can't blame us from trying to postpone this slide as long as we can. I'd say come back and visit this post when this all happens...but you won't be able to, because sites like this, will not be accessible in your sanitized browser.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I will keep this as my last post in this thread, get over yourself, you seem to want to be the only voice being heard, enjoy

Oh and no I did not even bother reading this epic rant of yours back at me, far to long and personal against me for some reason.

Maybe go outside or go for a lie down and stop being so confrontational, if you felt i accussed you directly of something so be it

but for me missing a single question mark, i guess i must have flunked out of school and not be a decent human being, such as your esteemed self.

You may reply if you like (it means you will get the last word) I wont be revisiting this thread

You win mate

Sorry, not my aim to derail this with gun vs. anti-gun talk.

The real focus should be on the causes that led this boy to take such actions. Previously, it seems he may have meant to do this same act with a 13 inch knife in 2016, before he got hold of a gun....

a reply to: Gazrok

Unfortunately, control is indeed inevitable, it's how we get there that counts though.

Fact of the matter is that guns would offer little protection against the bastards behind the NWO, totalitarian technocrats types, corporations and banking cartels, that are above the law, and a hell of a lot better armed, with a hell of a lot more than just firearms at there disposal were ever to come a knocking at your door.

The premise of the second amendment was sound for the time period in question. But it was never really envisaged to accommodate the kind of armaments and weapons in this day of age nor the mentality and or mental health concerns that rather an alarming amount people display.

a reply to: andy06shake

I keep seeing the talking point that the govt is better armed, yea and...

Vietnam is my counter, they were out gunned by a huge margin and bled us dry... then in the late 70s China decided they wanted to get some and they bled them dry as well.


Being better armed is not the point, but being armed and willing to fight is a vital thing.

as for my other post, was it a broken home, was it an abusive home.

If parents are involved in their childs life they can help them deal with bullies rather than bottle it up and lash out in something like this, or worst case see the signs and take steps to head it off and get their kid help.
Or we can go down the same tired road and enact some more legislation that will ultimatly be ineffective but certainly drive up the cost of firearms and ammunition until such a point that some idiot in congress goes well we have to confiscate all the guns to stop this.

All the while the problem does not go away.

The premise of the second amendment was sound for the time period in question. But it was never really envisaged to accommodate the kind of armaments and weapons in this day of age nor the mentality and or mental health concerns that rather an alarming amount people display

Maybe so, but it still doesn't negate the REASON it was put there in the first place...

As for comparisons though, like the tank analogy, I don't think you are appreciating the sheer numbers involved here. The US has just over a million military personnel here in the US. Meanwhile, it is estimated that there are 300 million guns among citizens (estimated, because many states don't require any kind of registration, etc.). (and you can bet in a civil war action, a certain number of the military (and their equipment) will go to the forces counter to the state). So, it is still a valid check and balance.

Pandora's box is open, you aren't going to close it again. (except in the scenario I outlined above, where the state basically makes most of them paperweights).

The one gun angle to actually pursue in this case, where did the shooter get the gun? My money is that it belong to the deceased dad, who sadly didn't have it in a safe, or who did lock it up, but then the keys were accessible upon his death, etc. Of course, legally, nothing saying a 15yr old can't get a gun.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for SENSIBLE gun laws, but all too often, introduced legislation doesn't really solve a problem, and instead only creates hassle and trouble for lawful citizens, or is too vague to pass. For example, I think we can all agree that whackos shouldn't have guns. But what legally then, constitutes a whacko? Anyone who sees a shrink? What about the guy who talks to one after his wife dies. Should he now be stripped of rights? Again, just need to avoid slippery slope here.

a reply to: andy06shake

So disappointing--I really just spent a while typing out a very intelligent response to your comment, and then hit the wrong button and went to a different web page and lost everything.

I'll just put it this way (a very short summary of what I wrote): Einstein evolved from a hard-lined anti-war activist, to an anti-Nazi/Hitler activist, to a pro-war activist (in response to Hitler's rise to power), to a lobbyist for nuclear weapons (because Germany was already chasing down the inevitability), to someone who ultimately regretted the creation of said weapon. He lived through the Weimar gun-control policies, which ended up denying the ability of Jews to own firearms, which in and of itself helped lead (directly or indirectly, that's debatable) to the ease at which the holocaust was carried out by the Nazis.

Before it got to that point, Einstein had already fled to America in 1933 and in the same year, renounced his German citizenship and resigned from the Prussian Academy. At the same time, he publicly shared his political thoughts:

The day before he left Pasadena, bound eventually for Belgium, he launched his first public attack against Germany’s new regime. “As long as I have any choice in the matter, I shall live only in a country where civil liberty, tolerance, and equality of all citizens before the law prevail.” The completion of the syllogism was simple—”These conditions do not exist in Germany at the present time”—and would not, Einstein implied, as long as the current regime remained in power.

Germany responded by eventually posting an image of Einstein on a pamphlet with the words, "Not Yet Hanged."

In his earlier years of anti-war activism:

In the spring of 1929, he wrote that “the people themselves must take the initiative to see to it that they will never again be led to slaughter. To expect protection from their governments is folly.”

While he was talking about forced service in the military coupled with government-run wars, I can't help but assume that he would use such logic in many aspects of life--say, the right to provide personal defense for one's self through firearms ownership versus relying on government agencies to be there to protect you.

See, Einstein lived during the aftermath of WWI and the Weimar Republic's gun control measures before seeing the future that Hitler was bringing to the country and his Jewish people and fleeing with his family to America--the land of liberties and rights that did not exist where he was (and were rapidly being chiseled away every year).

While gun rights/control/confiscation/denial was a real and serious ingredient in what was happening in Germany at the time, it was only one ingredient to the bigger problem as to why Einstein fled to America and eventually became a regretful advocate of the nuclear bomb, but it was an ingredient nonetheless.

I have a hard time believing, as you do, that "old Albert would be in the gun control camp myself." I feel like you've arrived at that conclusion in the most illogical of ways.

This is a good read about how Hitler reacted to the rise of Hitler, and is from where I took the quotes above. It really is quite interesting.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Oh and no I did not even bother reading this epic rant of yours back at me, far to long and personal against me for some reason.

If you can't bother yourself to read, then don't respond.

At least read the last half of it, since I was kind enough to justify some points and do some research that I think it would do you well to look into concerning firearm deaths in America and the number of firearms in the country. Here, I'll quote it all so that you don't have to seek it out...but be warned, it is a whopping eight very short paragraphs long.

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.

If you read that, great. If you read it and want to continue discussing the issue, great.

If you ignore it all and continue believing that gun saturation is the problem, then this is called willful ignorance and there's nothing that I nor anyone else can do to fix that...but it's not for a lack of me commenting without any substance.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Fair enough. But, if you would entertain a hypothetical for me: If there are no guns in the country, how do you think that would affect gun deaths?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If I was still a mod, that Einstein piece would have certainly gotten an applause.

Very eloquently put as to why old Al would likely not be a fan of the idea.


Back to the issue, I really do hope the shooter gets the mental help he obviously needs, and I really grieve for the parents and loved ones of those killed. I wonder too, how many of the "injured" are really in dire straits and fighting that battle. Sadly, I'm not sure what can be done to keep kids from being such cyber bullies. Personally, I often think this tech is raising a generation of total dicks. (hoping the censor functions work there).

Fair enough. But, if you would entertain a hypothetical for me: If there are no guns in the country, how do you think that would affect gun deaths?

Again, Pandora's box is already open, they are already out there. Even if guns were banned today, plenty of them out there. If this did happen, how long do you think it takes for criminals to realize their chances of armed resistance just plummeted? How long before armed burglars feel they can invade and loot homes with their biggest fear removed? How long before thugs hold up now unarmed shop keepers? And so on, and so on....

So, to answer your question, gun deaths would SOAR if guns were banned. Nearly overnight.

a reply to: Gazrok

I agree with you about Pandora's box, but I think you've misunderstood my initial query.

The HYPOTHETICAL aspect: If there were no guns in the US, do you think Gun deaths would go up or down from what they are now?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Did Albert Einstein own a Gun?

Just because the man's opinion was affected by war and mass genocide or changed over time does not mean that he would not subscribe to some form of gun control.

Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the universe".

Allowing our children and mentally unstable persons access to firearms, and sometimes military grade assault weaponry amounts to children playing dice with death or Russian roulette even.

He also said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Does that sound like the words of a man who would subscribe towards gun ownership?

I'm well aware of how Hitler came to power, tragic set of circumstance that should never have been allowed to happen but a lot of which was orchestrated in such a way so as to suit an agenda.

Look at who profited from both the axis and allied powers during WW2? Those are the real bastards right there and funnily enough neck deep within our respective military industrial complex which makes the same weaponry that our kids are killing one another.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Your nation nor my own or the war that "They" waged in Vietnam and lost, could potentially resemble the war "They" could now rage upon our towns, streets and cities.

Take away our McDonalds, KFC, Facebook, cable TV or even disposable nappies and Tampax for a month and the people would be shouting from the rooftops to return to the norm.

Possibly also worth considering America and her allies lost in Vietnam not just down to geography and oppositions will to win but because she was fighting with one hand tied behind her back.

If you had wished to win you would have but the cost may well have contributed to lobbing atomics at Russia and vice versa.

Apologies Op if i somewhat went a little off topic by the way.

a reply to: Wayfarer

There will never be no guns--even if there was a massive attempt at confiscation across the board (which would be impossible, considering many states don't require registration, like my state) and gun manufacturing was outlawed, it would still happen elsewhere in the world and guns would find their way into our country.

Therein lies my issue with your hypothetical--it doesn't reflect any possibility that could actually happen.

a reply to: Gazrok

Ha, if you liked that one, you should have seen my original post that I had all typed up and was literally attempting to put in my last link in the comment and I accidentally hit the "live" link at the top of the page. Pissed me off.

I'm glad that you like it, though, but to be completely fair, it's possible that Einstein would advocate for more gun control, but I just don't see it as a reality. Sadly, though, he never really debated the topic that I can find, so it's all speculation.

Yes, when I saw that the shooter was apprehended instead of killed, that was a good thing. We need to be able to better figure out the "why" behind these attacks as it pertains to the mind. I still stand by one of my original comments and expect to see a report eventually saying that he was on some sort of anti-depressant medication (or similar, with similar effects on the mind).

I live in KY (just south of Cincinnati), and I was watching an interview with the parents of the girl who was killed, and I lost it--I cannot take seeing parents in so much pain and anguish. Things like this really make me appreciate that we homeschool our children, but then again, I know that a constant fear of this happening at our local school is irrational. But as is proven, it COULD happen, no matter how unlikely.

Have you heard for sure that it was bullying? I haven't caught part of the story that has noted that yet.

And the censor function doesn't censor out "dick"

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Did Albert Einstein own a Gun?

I don't know, but that's irrelevant, as I know many people who are pro-2nd Amendment but choose not to own a firearm. It's not about ownership, it's about the right to do so if you wish.

Just because the man's opinion was affected by war and mass genocide or changed over time does not mean that he would not subscribe to some form of gun control.

And vise versa--but if you look at his attitude toward civil liberties, and the fact that he loved crunching numbers in order to come to a conclusion, I'm a betting man that he would not be on the side of much gun control, if any.

But also keep in mind that he was able to read the writing on the wall BEFORE the genocide and war began, so I am giving him credit where credit is due in his ability to figure out the valid reasoning behind why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the universe".

Einstein said a lot of things, many of which, like this quote here, is irrelevant to our conversation.

Allowing our children and mentally unstable persons access to firearms, and sometimes military grade assault weaponry amounts to children playing dice with death or Russian roulette even.

Possession of firearms by people with mental illness

Please note that 47 out of 51 (inludes D.C.) states/districts in America have laws banning people with mental illness from owning or possessing firearms. Furthermore, you'll not at the top of the page that it cites 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), with states:

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—


(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

There are a lot of other good limitations, too, so it's worth a looksee. But let's not pretend that it's perfectly acceptable in the whole of the U.S. to just willy-nilly throw firearms at children and the mentally ill, because that's not how it is at all.

He also said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Does that sound like the words of a man who would subscribe towards gun ownership?

Again, this has nothing to do with his attitudes toward personal ownership of firearms, it was concerning the creation of WMDs after the use of the atomic bomb and his lamenting of how far our technology has come concerning the destruction of human lives.

Look, I'm done derailing the thread over Einstein and our speculation about his stance on the 2nd Amendment--this is about families who did lose or could have easily lost their child(ren), so I think that it's time to focus back on that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"I don't know, but that's irrelevant"

It's not quite through now is it?

If he was pro-gun i imagine he would have owned one.

What we can infer is that Albert Einstein was a pacifist, also i did not bring the man into the equation.

The focus is that Guns in the hands of the mentally unstable or young children and even young adults may very well end in tragedy.

Is there even a day of the year any longer that you manage to make it through where nobody gets shot?

I think you would be hard pushed to find one.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if Guns were banned or ownership of such severely retarded?

The sky would not fall, just like it does not fall in any other free nation where firearms are restricted for public use.

Could we please not turn this into yet another anti-gun rant

There is ample evidence in this case that this young man planned to kill people with a knife well before he somehow got hold of a gun. He was found with a large knife and a "hit list" of fellow students and teachers nearly two years ago and somehow he managed to evade treatment for whatever it was pushing him to harm others. Nobody other than his immediate family knows how that happened since he was a juvenile. Much like the Vampire Killer (Rod Ferrell) case several years ago, some judge ignored some really obviously serious warning signs that this young man was a danger to society.

Did they ignore it though? Like one of the above posters, I too feel we'll see some psycho drugs in this equation, prescribed for mental issues.

Have you heard for sure that it was bullying? I haven't caught part of the story that has noted that yet.

It's all over the social media of the local area. It isn't through official news sources yet. Then again, I'm not even sure official news has leaked Gabe's name officially yet.