Originally Posted by Tom_PM (Post 20118716)

If only there was a common denominator with all of the other incidents.

Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 20118723)

There is,
there's a huge amount of publicity for the shooter.

That inspires copycats.

I would bet that if these incidents weren't splashed all over the news we would see the rate of shootings decrease.

:2 cents:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 20118751)

At the very least we can all agree that kids shouldn't have access to firearms.

Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 20118721)

don't people fight with their hands anymore?

A guy does or says something you don't like, you crack him in the face. Maybe he gets up and kicks your ass, maybe you kick his ass. Either way at the end of it you are both in the principals office sitting together making fun of the principals haircut and you walk away with a new friend.

it's a guy thing i know...

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 20118751)

At the very least we can all agree that kids shouldn't have access to firearms.

Originally Posted by Tom_PM (Post 20118716)

If only there was a common denominator with all of the other incidents.

Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 20118723)

There is,
there's a huge amount of publicity for the shooter.

That inspires copycats.

I would bet that if these incidents weren't splashed all over the news we would see the rate of shootings decrease.

:2 cents:

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 20118762)

There is. Every one of them was mentally disturbed in some way.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 20118744)

so i guess this is an everyday event now.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20118758)

You hit someone now a days and they sue you in court for everything you have.

A guy came up from behind me and cracked a beer glass across my face for no reason, I didn't know the guy. He's serving 5 years 8 months.

Guy started hitting my father thru the window on his truck. My father is 74. My father stopped the hitting by pointing a SW 40 at the ass hat. He only gets community service.

It's a fucked up world and disarming legal gun owners won't help. Although that's the answer of anti gun nutters. Fuck them, they don't have to own guns. We'll even put up signs showing people of their willingness to not have guns right in front of their house.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20118763)

I've often thought about this as a solution and tend to agree with you. While I haven't been able to find any facts supporting it, and it's not directly intuitive, it seems to me that this would make a big difference.

I would rather try to reign in the freedom of press via legislation than take away some of my personal rights due to a few dipshits.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20118758)

You hit someone now a days and they sue you in court for everything you have.

A guy came up from behind me and cracked a beer glass across my face for no reason, I didn't know the guy. He's serving 5 years 8 months.

Guy started hitting my father thru the window on his truck. My father is 74. My father stopped the hitting by pointing a SW 40 at the ass hat. He only gets community service.

It's a fucked up world and disarming legal gun owners won't help. Although that's the answer of anti gun nutters. Fuck them, they don't have to own guns. We'll even put up signs showing people of their willingness to not have guns right in front of their house.

Originally Posted by AaronM (Post 20118756)

But the staff should. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 20118829)

The shooter in Seattle told the police he was fascinated with school shootings
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/justic...mpus-shooting/

Seems to be at least some evidence of cause-and-effect right there.

And while I agree with you about not getting my rights taken away because of aberrant behavior from a few individuals I disagree with the idea of restricting freedom of the press.
Like the Second Amendment it's also part of the "Checks And Balances" built into our Constitution. Allowing Government to restrict the media would be a dangerous road to go down.

If enough correlation can be shown to exist between the number of shootings and the amount of publicity they get then the families of victims should be allowed to sue the media, the obsessive reporting on the these tragedies would vanish overnight.

Originally Posted by Atticus (Post 20118843)

Because that's the solution. Not only do we need MORE guns, let's make the people that don't own them post a sign. Brilliant. How about instead we just make certain people (cough*gun owners*cough) post a small dick alert sign in the window.

God you have been brainwashed by the NRA. I love how it's become a black or white argument. You're either for guns and need an arsenal or you're against them and want to take everybody's guns away. The NRA and the Republican party has simplified everything down so you (aka: simpleton) can comprehend the issue.

Newsflash dipshit. No one wants to come take away your fucking precious guns. They just want common sense laws enacted. But to avoid those common sense regulations the NRA (and gun lobby) have made it into a For Guns/Against Guns argument and like every good simpleton you fall for it hook line and sinker.

Congrats.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20118917)

Fuck, I'm gonna go out under the rainbow and pet a unicorn while I read an Al Gore book to try and calm down.

Originally Posted by AaronM (Post 20118756)

But the staff should. :2 cents:


UPDATE:

Shooter is dead.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 20118744)

so i guess this is an everyday event now.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20118917)

I guess this kid didn't know that they have very tough gun laws there:

"The county?s gun-control ordinance mirrors one passed in Portland in 2010 after a spate of shootings. The ordinance makes it a crime to carry a loaded firearm in public, to fire a gun in Multnomah County, not to report a stolen firearm and not to keep guns locked near minors. It also establishes a tighter nighttime curfew for minors convicted of gun crimes.

The ordinance makes exceptions for law enforcement officers, those with concealed handgun licenses, hunting and a few other cases."

I just don't get it...there was a LAW and everything! How could this happen? How could this possibly happen?

It doesn't make any sense. They made a "sensible" gun control law that only right-wing/gun-nuts opposed.

And somehow, somehow...this still happened. :(

I even heard that people get shot every day in Chicago and Washington D.C. !!!

How? They have some of the toughest gun laws on the books.

Fuck, I'm gonna go out under the rainbow and pet a unicorn while I read an Al Gore book to try and calm down.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20118968)

Let's see if we can come up with some solution to what we know, just for shits.

Here are some graphics that are factual, unbiased analysis of the last 2+ years of gun violence in schools, take a look and see what sort of legislation would curb this:

Solutions?

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 20118973)

Home schooling?

Originally Posted by Tom_PM (Post 20118716)

If only there was a common denominator with all of the other incidents.

Originally Posted by seeric (Post 20118977)

Sure is:

1) Mental problems diagnosed by clinically trained professionals.

2) Laws that don't allow for committing those folks when they make threats and the families report them to law enforcement

3) Psychotropic drugs prescribed to the person. Sometimes several drugs.


Has been the common denominators in every shooting.

For every shooting that happens, it reinforces that guns are not the problem. The system is broken on how we handle people with mental disabilities.

Instead of pump the folks with mental problems full of SSRIs and pharmaceuticals, maybe we should address our food supply and the genetic modification of that food supply for extreme profits by our government.

Pharmaceuticals are a huge profit category for our government. GMO food is a huge profit category for our government.

Go figure.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 20119019)

Nicely written.

Guns aren't the problem. The wrong people having access to guns are the problem.

I had gun cabinet full of shotguns and rifles growing up when I was a kid. I said this yesterday - we played Army in the back yard with toy M16s yet not once did I ever even think about pulling out a rifle or a shotgun for any reason. It just wasn't even thought of. Then again, we also didn't pump all kinds of crazy drugs into my system.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20118900)

Didn't you state that if these stories were not splashed across the media these sorts of events wouldn't happen? How do you suggest we don't splash them in the media without regulation?

Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 20118829)

If enough correlation can be shown to exist between the number of shootings and the amount of publicity they get then the families of victims should be allowed to sue the media, the obsessive reporting on the these tragedies would vanish overnight.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20118900)

Also, without delving into googling, isn't there quite a bit of media regulation already? For instance, television media has limits on what video it can air, no murders,etc.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20118900)

Nevetheless, it was an either or, I would rather see the media be regulated re: spree shooters than my rights.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20118900)

+ and this is a big +, especially with how poorly government is working currently. I have zero reason to think they would be able to craft legislation that would stop spree killers like this and not fuck that up entirely.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20118976)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I lol because it's funny and it's true. :winkwink:

Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 20119067)

Meaning you take the profit away from the media companies, these stories get the coverage they do because it keeps eyes on the screen, more profit for the media companies, if cause-and-effect correlation can be made and they start getting the shit sued out of them they will stop making a these stories into a big deal.
And it wouldn't have been done by increasing Government regulation.



Yes I believe there are quite a few regulations written about a hundred years ago to "protect" people from seeing things the Government thought might be disturbing to some.
Remember the stink about the Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction" a few years ago?
People saw a tit, oh horrors! :1orglaugh
Regulations right out of the Victorian Era.
I prefer using my right to change the channel if I don't like something to the concept of having the Government say what stories can and can't be run, that's a very slippery slope.



Why does it have to be either/or? I think we need to protect ALL rights guaranteed by the Constitution regardless.



With you there buddy. :thumbsup

This is what's going to happen, some new "feel good" legislation will be forced through that will only further restrict our rights in some way but will do fuck-all to prevent these tragedies from ever happening again, face it the people in Government don't want to solve things they only want to increase their power and further their own agendas.
This kind of thing is tailor-made for them.

And the next time it happens the cry will come from those same people in Government that MORE regulation is needed.
Rinse and Repeat.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 20119072)

even the guy in canada who shot the cops was home schooled and has bible thumping parents.

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20119085)

even the guy in canada.......?

what do you mean?

it was still funny.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 20119103)

my bad, i thought you were saying home schooling is a common trait among mass shooters. Adam Lanza, Justin Bourque, the seattle shooter, all home schooled. i'm sure there's more. home schooling doesn't prevent kids from being psychopaths.

http://hsinvisiblechildren.org/category/homicide-2/

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20119140)

I wasn't fully informed on all the details, including this statistic, in addition to those stats I c&p'ed in those images. I was pretty surprised to see some of that analysis in fact.

I took Sly's comment to mean remove them from the environment, again, not easily done, we'd have to rely on psychology, etc, and that opens up a whole other issue, which he's prolly aware of........ I thought his comment was tongue-in-cheek true.