[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

PREE---cisely! It has been demonstrated time and again that the majority of these shootings are copycat.

And man! Are those AR-15s SCARY lookin'! You tote one of those into a school and you're gonna get INSTANT respect, not to mention your name and face on every major news medium in the country for at LEAST two weeks. Gotta use the gun that is getting the most negative attention to guarantee that type of "coverage".

So go ahead, media. Pour on the breathless outrage and over-the-top hysteria. Motivate even more of these loonytune kids to do the same thing. Because that is EXACTLY what is happening.

Actually, I don't think I have seen the Texas school shooters face on TV. Maybe, once, but I am not sure. I see. LOT of the children that died faces.

I guess we watch different media.

So, what do you suggest to solve it? Do we put more regulations on the media? How does that fit with the constitution?

Not arguing, I am interested in your thoughts on those.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

Hmmm. Not sure what rebutting that a 5 round bolt action rifle is adequate for home protection has to do with arming teachers.

My thoughts on arming teachers are mixed. Do I think you should take the average teacher, send them through a firearms class and give them a gun? No I don’t. Do I feel that if someone has life experience with firearms in a stressful environment, such as former LEO or military, which there are some who left those professions to become teachers? Then I think it’s something to consider.

I think hardening the target is something concrete that we can do now. Where we moved from they had converted the schools to single entry. They also had a Resource Officer(s) that was basically a Deputy Sheriff with a different patch on his/her uniform.

So yes there are things we can do now and many school districts have already taken action.

Teachers are not being paid to shoot intruders. It's not their job. If you want them to serve as bodyguards to their students then you need to pay them accordingly. Your taxes will go up, also accordingly. Maybe even enough that the state will need to impose a state income tax. Which of course will mean janitors and nurses and other non-teacher employees in those schools will also need a raise, because now some of their income is being sucked into taxes.

Giving teachers guns and requiring that they teach less, protect more, is not the answer.

The answer is not simple. But the solution would be to reduce the risk. To reduce the risk of a teacher ever having to decide whether or not to draw their gun on someone. A teacher shouldn't ever be held responsible for that. So how about reducing the risk that they would be.

The police, trained to do their jobs and protect the public, weren't able to prevent these shootings. Teachers should not be responsible to do what the police weren't able to do.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Giving teachers guns and requiring that they teach less, protect more, is not the answer.

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I would go along with arming teachers, assuming they receive the same training as police officers are given for active shooter situations. And other shooting training. Of course we would have to pay for that training, which is not teaching.

But, whether they are armed or not, anything we do at the school will impact the teachers to some degree. Any lock down procedures. And active shooter situation procedures the teachers have to be trained for to protect the children, etc.

But, until we have a real solution, I am willing to meet the "other side" half way in trying to implement things that might/should help. This is one they feel strongly about. As long as the teachers are not required to carry weapons I can see letting it happen.

BUT, Not the way Ohio is. 24 hours of training? Not with my child in that teachers class. With 24 hours of training that teacher is more likely a danger to the children. Give them the same training that any one else is given for these situations.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The police, trained to do their jobs and protect the public, weren't able to prevent these shootings. Teachers should not be responsible to do what the police weren't able to do.

I watched an ex CIA/FBI agent yesterday discussing this. She has had 4,000 hours of situational training and is now a teacher in a public school. She said she would rather NOT be put into that situation.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

What is making people going so crazy this year in our country. Could it be??? Our country has lost all morals. Lies are the norm. Police are bad. Druggies are heroes. Legal drugs are over used. God is bad. And so on and on.

Agreed, lots of lies...........on the media that I don't watch.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Actually, I don't think I have seen the Texas school shooters face on TV. Maybe, once, but I am not sure. I see. LOT of the children that died faces.

I guess we watch different media.

So, what do you suggest to solve it? Do we put more regulations on the media? How does that fit with the constitution?

Not arguing, I am interested in your thoughts on those.

I think the problem is that media is being used for social engineering purposes, which is flat-out wrong. Kids being shot and killed in school, insofar as overall gun deaths go, aren't even a blip on the radar. America averages something like 33,000 gun deaths each year from all causes. This year 24 kids have been killed by gunfire at school and this year is a sad exception--numbers year by year since the late 1990's are usually far lower, often in the single digits. It is a fact that a school kid is statistically in more danger of being killed by lightning than killed at school. By far the greatest number of gun deaths, 58% on average per year, is suicide. Homicides are at 37.2% per year (numbers provided by Brittanica ProCon) and it is a safe bet to assume that the overwhelming number of those are criminal-related, drug and gang disputes mainly. Legal intervention and unintentional deaths come in at 1.2% and 1.3%.

Every student killed is a tragedy. I get that. But what we are seeing is shameless. It is my belief (borne out by several studies) that media overhype is the primary cause of copycat killings, and it is anyone's guess just how many of these dead kids would still be alive if it wasn't for what media is doing.

Let's be honest. This is about GUNS, not kids. We have elected senators and representatives who represent us. Using media to try to force an issue via over-the-top emotion instead of the legislative system is doing no one any favors, least of all our kids.

What can be done? Nothing, until we can be honest with ourselves. The gun "debate" solves nothing: people are entrenched on one side or the other and no statistic, or argument, is going to change that. On a personal level I try to avoid media that pushes the emotional hyperbole but that is nearly impossible: we are saturated with it. The irony is that school deaths by gunfire are actually DOWN since the 1990s, but you'd never know that from what we see, hear and read today.

We can all start by being honest, with ourselves at least. Far too few of us are.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Actually, I don't think I have seen the Texas school shooters face on TV. Maybe, once, but I am not sure. I see. LOT of the children that died faces.

I guess we watch different media.

So, what do you suggest to solve it? Do we put more regulations on the media? How does that fit with the constitution?

Not arguing, I am interested in your thoughts on those.

Deleted by writer (duplicate post)

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

Yeah right. If you miss with your first shot, any home invader would be upon you before you could cycle your second. Where as if you had a semiautomatic pistol you could fire off 10 rounds. Even if you missed it would give even the most hardened criminal reason to pause. I can’t believe you post this stuff.

Note that I used the word "enough". Meaning, that IF the SEMI-AUTO MAN-KILLERS and high capacity pistols were not sold to Civilians, then in general, the US would have fewer MASS MURDERS. Home invasion would probably depend more on how FAST a homeowner woke up than the action or caliber of his weapon.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Sorry, my reply got onto the wrong post, I guess I need more practice



I can 100% agree with this position. I am concerned that arming teachers will result in the shooter targeting the teachers first in ALL cases regardless of if the teacher is armed. But, I can certainly compromise and go along with a test of that and see how it works.



I can completely agree with this one with out hesitation. I do not believe it will solve the root cause, but it will almost certain result in a major reduction of school shootings.



I completely agree with you on this one also.

So, as we can see there are things we can do now that both sides can agree on (most of my liberal friends also agree with your list. These are the same things we could have done 20 years ago, and haven't. These are the same things we could do now and aren't.

I also expect we can both agree that banning one specific weapon or type won't work. And banning an entire class or all weapons are not going to happen. There is no practical or workable way to do that. And suggesting it just results in a distraction from doing what we can.

Maybe we need to get our electors to listen to you and me or throw them out and replace them with someone that does. From where I stand neither side (electors) is interested in doing these things.

Thank you for you post, it was constructive and pointed out a mistake I made. I appreciate your reply.

Australia banned a certain class of weapon....semi-autos and it worked for them. And they are a democracy much like the US

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I think the problem is that media is being used for social engineering purposes, which is flat-out wrong. Kids being shot and killed in school, insofar as overall gun deaths go, aren't even a blip on the radar. America averages something like 33,000 gun deaths each year from all causes. This year 24 kids have been killed by gunfire at school and this year is a sad exception--numbers year by year since the late 1990's are usually far lower, often in the single digits. It is a fact that a school kid is statistically in more danger of being killed by lightning than killed at school. By far the greatest number of gun deaths, 58% on average per year, is suicide. Homicides are at 37.2% per year (numbers provided by Brittanica ProCon) and it is a safe bet to assume that the overwhelming number of those are criminal-related, drug and gang disputes mainly. Legal intervention and unintentional deaths come in at 1.2% and 1.3%.

Every student killed is a tragedy. I get that. But what we are seeing is shameless. It is my belief (borne out by several studies) that media overhype is the primary cause of copycat killings, and it is anyone's guess just how many of these dead kids would still be alive if it wasn't for what media is doing.

Let's be honest. This is about GUNS, not kids. We have elected senators and representatives who represent us. Using media to try to force an issue via over-the-top emotion instead of the legislative system is doing no one any favors, least of all our kids.

What can be done? Nothing, until we can be honest with ourselves. The gun "debate" solves nothing: people are entrenched on one side or the other and no statistic, or argument, is going to change that. On a personal level I try to avoid media that pushes the emotional hyperbole but that is nearly impossible: we are saturated with it. The irony is that school deaths by gunfire are actually DOWN since the 1990s, but you'd never know that from what we see, hear and read today.

We can all start by being honest, with ourselves at least. Far too few of us are.

Thank you. That was very insightful.

I will take issue partially with the media is doing the social engineering. The media, in my opinion, is simply focused on running stories that will make them money. Sadly, they have to fill 24x7 streaming. Used to only have to fill 3 or 4 hours a day, now they have to come up with 168 hours of "news". sigh. So, they put out snippets with inflammatory headlines - all trying to get your attention to click. They get paid by the click and how long you stay to watch. They appear to have little regard for the consequences of their streaming, as long as they make money.

Keep in mind that to maximize profit, they need to focus their articles on THEIR base. Sort of like politicians. The Media picked a base to market to and have to feed that base articles the base will click to see and watch. It is a vicious cycle. I expect CNN has no business plan to try to take Fox watchers, and Fox has no plan to try and take CNN watchers. Each focuses on doing everything possible to capture their views attention.

That said, I feel it is a safe bet that some articles are "encouraged" by various outside (not part of the media company) interests. This is true of all media Fox and CNN. I am fairly sure it is a safe bet that some politicians have contacts that they "suggest" stories to, and the media runs with them so they can get "insider" stories in return.

In addition, even back in the day when Howard K Smith et al, actually had NEWS shows, that told the NEWS. politicians "played" the media - things like releasing bad news on Fridays. etc.

I get a lot of my new from BBC and other world news sources, for exactly those reasons.

Now, is social engineering being pushed. I don't know, could be. But, I doubt seriously that any of the major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, OAN, NewsMax, et all) would put a social engineering piece over profit. But, I am also sure they will "fill" in that extra 144 hours they have to fill with social engineering that their particular audience wants to hear.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Australia banned a certain class of weapon....semi-autos and it worked for them. And they are a democracy much like the US

Well, gun violence went down after they were banned. There is no doubt correlation. I am not sure if it was causation. Might be. Hard to say, there are too many unknown variables.

I have no problem trying it, but I don't feel we should stop trying anything else until we can get everyone onboard for that too. That is a poison pill in any bill proposed.

My suggestion (one sent to my congress critter) is to only propose single topic legislation for addressing the "gun violence" issues. Start with the shoe-in's. Universal Background checks (70% to 90% of Americans can/do support that) That should be a single topic bill and passed into law. Also, school hardening - some forms. That is not as big a shoe-in as background checks, but generally acceptable.

The omnibus laws to cover everything are doomed. And the worse part is the politicians promoting them KNOW they are not going to pass, so to me the only reason to ever submit them instead of single topic bills is to score political points.

Let's do what we can do. Let's leave the things we can't do on the table and continue to try to find compromises that will get them passed. But, an old saying in program management is "Don't let perfection be the enemy of good enough", I would say in this topic, that could be changed to "Don't let perfection be the enemy of doing ANYTHING for 20 years".

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I think the problem is that media is being used for social engineering purposes, which is flat-out wrong. Kids being shot and killed in school, insofar as overall gun deaths go, aren't even a blip on the radar. America averages something like 33,000 gun deaths each year from all causes. This year 24 kids have been killed by gunfire at school and this year is a sad exception--numbers year by year since the late 1990's are usually far lower, often in the single digits. It is a fact that a school kid is statistically in more danger of being killed by lightning than killed at school. By far the greatest number of gun deaths, 58% on average per year, is suicide. Homicides are at 37.2% per year (numbers provided by Brittanica ProCon) and it is a safe bet to assume that the overwhelming number of those are criminal-related, drug and gang disputes mainly. Legal intervention and unintentional deaths come in at 1.2% and 1.3%.

Every student killed is a tragedy. I get that. But what we are seeing is shameless. It is my belief (borne out by several studies) that media overhype is the primary cause of copycat killings, and it is anyone's guess just how many of these dead kids would still be alive if it wasn't for what media is doing.

Let's be honest. This is about GUNS, not kids. We have elected senators and representatives who represent us. Using media to try to force an issue via over-the-top emotion instead of the legislative system is doing no one any favors, least of all our kids.

What can be done? Nothing, until we can be honest with ourselves. The gun "debate" solves nothing: people are entrenched on one side or the other and no statistic, or argument, is going to change that. On a personal level I try to avoid media that pushes the emotional hyperbole but that is nearly impossible: we are saturated with it. The irony is that school deaths by gunfire are actually DOWN since the 1990s, but you'd never know that from what we see, hear and read today.

We can all start by being honest, with ourselves at least. Far too few of us are.

The reason why the Robb Elementary Massacre has gotten so much media attention is that it involves high numbers of very young children. This increases the emotions and the need to analyze the details of how and why it happened. It shatters the idea that children are SAFE in school. Parents of young children want to make a calculation as to how safe or unsafe THEIR children are at their school. They are getting that information from the main TV channels.
..........Another reason why the Robb Elementary shooting captured a large audience is that there were so many mistakes committed by those in charge of the situation. And the local and Texas State spokespeople kept changing their stories and even stating incorrect facts early on in the investigation. Incorrect following of KNOWN Police procedures may have caused excessive, unnecessary children's deaths. So many mistakes were made and people across the US demanded that those MISTAKES be acknowledged to help prevent future mistakes in future mass murder events. So, the bottom line is that in this case maximum media attention was WARRANTED.
........ The main difference with the Tulsa shooting is that it was resolved QUICKLY by police, without mistakes.

[jimjamuser]

[QUOTE=ThirdOfFive;2102251]I think the problem is that media is being used for social engineering purposes, which is flat-out wrong. Kids being shot and killed in school, insofar as overall gun deaths go, aren't

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Using Australia as the example is a bad idea. Their social system is different from ours, as is their culture. Americans suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome - where we are taught that standing out in a crowd is a good thing. Attention-seeking is celebrated. In Australia, people want to just be, and not focus their energy on being noticed.

Australians are more likely to experience first-hand other parts of the globe. Americans generally don't leave their own hemisphere. Only 1/6 of Americans have ever travelled abroad. 1/3 of Australians have.

Australian culture embraces the concept of fair play, while Americans will likely "do whatever it takes" to get a jump on their competition.

These cultural differences are significant enough to have an impact on the acceptability of stricter gun control measures.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

double-posted, n/t