ANOTHER School Shooting - 5 Dead

[Mad4stevie]

Alright I think I have had enough of these school shootings. They are happening more and more frequently. As a professor at a college, these shootings make me on edge. We have little to no Emergency Plan, and it would be a massacre if something like this happened at my school. Is anyone else in school (either as a student or faculty/staff member) worried about these things? Does your school have a workable Emergency Plan?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23171567/

[David]

I want to carry my handgun everywhere I go so that I don't feel like a duck in some sociopath's sights. :eek: :mad: :woohoo:

[Mad4stevie]

Yeah - I feel like I wanna get a gun, too.

My fears are not unfounded because who do they usually shoot first???

The teacher . . .

There are plenty of unstable "kids" that I have seen at our college, in fact some of them have written essays that are concerning to me. We had a kid that for all intensive purposes was so similar to the shooter from VA Tech that I was kinda scared to have this kid in my class. He wrote an essay in my class that was full of violence and contained statements that he felt so angry sometimes that he "literally could kill someone."

Frankly, it was little surprise to me when he was kicked out of school for terroristic threats the week of the VA Tech tragedy. He got mad school and told everyone in the class that there was gonna be "another VA Tech". At least he wasn't in my class when this happened. :distress:

[JazmenFlowers]

awful. what is going the **** on?!

I just read, too, that Fred Phelps's clan plans to protest the vigils because of the country's godlessness and tolerance of gays. :rolleyes:

[skcin]

Alright I think I have had enough of these school shootings. They are happening more and more frequently. As a professor at a college, these shootings make me on edge. We have little to no Emergency Plan, and it would be a massacre if something like this happened at my school. Is anyone else in school (either as a student or faculty/staff member) worried about these things? Does your school have a workable Emergency Plan?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23171567/

The college I work at is still in the process of formulating their emergency plan. They're taking steps in the right direction, but they have a way to go. We do have emergency notifications via text message on our cells and email. But so did this school - it will warn others of the danger & tell them to stay inside, keep alert, etc. But it doesn't do anything for the people who are in the midst of the attack.

Our office is working on a safety plan, ordering silent panic buttons, etc. But really, there's only so much you can do. :(

[strandinthewind]

I am unsure if carrying a handgun would protect a person in this instance. The victims likely had very little time (a few seconds) before they were shot. That is not enough to get out the gun, take aim, and fire. The would help though if you were barricaded in a classroom and the gunman was trying to get in.

The thought, however, of allowing all students and teachers to have guns on them on campus is more than a little jarring and, IMO, problematic. Students, the lot of them, are usually tempermental. It goes with the age and territory.

In the end, I say again -- if you are going to some innocents because the world is unfair, etc. -- do us all a favor and kill yourself first.

[Chrislit18]

It's really sad, and frieghtning [thats not spelt right...] to see this happen. And with what Heather said about the student being mentally unstable as it was before he got kicked out of school, its almost as if you do have to worry everywhere these days. You never know about kids and what is going on in their brains. thats why when i see kids at school being tormented constantly i feel sorry for them, because someday something may go of in thier heads thinking that bringing a gun [or any other kind of weapon] to school and 'getting rid of thier problems' would help.

its so sad. and the thing is, that some of these kids who do this stuff ARE tormented constantly and this is the way the feel they can escape the stuff that is being said and possibly done to them.

but there is also cases [ie VA tech] where the kid was just mentally insane and felt it was 'his destiny' to kill so many innocent people. :(

My school [high school] policy for intruders [im guessing that shootings comes under this as well, i dont read the handbook] is that we stay in our classes, get bunched up in the corner away from the door, and if were all ok put a sign in the window. -.- we have NO plan, plus the windows dont even open up enough to jump out of. so were basically all dead if something happens.

I personally think they should be making it harder for people to get guns. i know theres the gun licence thing, but are the people getting the licences being mentally evaluated before...? :confused: even so, kids im sure are stealing them from people they know who have them.
its all such a racket.
But is such a shame to see things happen to innocent people

[David]

I am unsure if carrying a handgun would protect a person in this instance. The victims likely had very little time (a few seconds) before they were shot. That is not enough to get out the gun, take aim, and fire. The would help though if you were barricaded in a classroom and the gunman was trying to get in.If I can pack my own blast, I have a fighting chance some of the time. Otherwise, I'm nothing more than a duck in some sociopath's sights. In fact, more of a wingless duck.

The thought, however, of allowing all students and teachers to have guns on them on campus is more than a little jarring and, IMO, problematic. Students, the lot of them, are usually tempermental. It goes with the age and territory.So a temperamental student goes wacko & uses his gun to shoot up a classroom. In that case, we have ... err ... PRECISELY WHAT WE HAVE NOW! :thumbsup:

(Except that in this case the victims would have a fighting chance.)

Besides, legally allowing guns on campus (or elsewhere) doesn't necessarily mean that literally everyone is going to pack. Aren't there many of you here who, even if you were legally allowed to do so, would not carry a gun around with you? It would make an interesting Ledge Poll: How many of you, if legally allowed to do so, would pack heat in your daily lives?

In the end, I say again -- if you are going to some innocents because the world is unfair, etc. -- do us all a favor and kill yourself first.Well, gee, yeah. But I hope I'll win the Lotto someday too.

[David]

My school [high school] policy for intruders [im guessing that shootings comes under this as well, i dont read the handbook] is that we stay in our classes, get bunched up in the corner away from the door, and if were all ok put a sign in the window. -.- we have NO plan, plus the windows dont even open up enough to jump out of. so were basically all dead if something happens.Quite probably.

I personally think they should be making it harder for people to get guns.It's hard to get heroin too. But those who crave it manage somehow. Society is extremely porous.

But is such a shame to see things happen to innocent peopleYes, yes it is.

[shackin'up]

Aweful. Double aweful if people are going to carry guns to prevent it? Well, I'll keep my mouth shut further.

[Sarah]

There's not much of a solution to this... people are whack.

everyone just needs to smoke some weed and chill out.

[SuzeQuze]

There's not much of a solution to this... people are whack.

everyone just needs to smoke some weed and chill out.

Haha, if only it had that effect on everyone. I wig out!

[strandinthewind]

. . . So a temperamental student goes wacko & uses his gun to shoot up a classroom. In that case, we have ... err ... PRECISELY WHAT WE HAVE NOW! :thumbsup: . . . .

YEs, but I think it would happen more often. That, of course, is speculation. I knew people who lived on campus and had guns and they were lushes and crazies -- they never shot anyone. So, my theory likely is flawed.

In the end, if I thought banning al weapons would actually work, I'd be for it. But, there is no realistic way to get rid of all the handguns out there now and I do not want the police to be the only ones with guns :eek:

I do think that to own a handgun, you should have to do the following:

1. Present a photo ID and put that picture and your relevant information in some licensing government database somewhere - like you do for a driver's license - along with the background check stuff.

2. You ought to have to go down to some facility and fire the gun into a ballistic measurer and keep the bullett patterns on file. This will also ensure that you still have the gun.

3. You ought to have to go to jail for a year and pay a $10,000 fine if you give your gun away. And, if you give that gun away and it is used in a crime, you should be convicted as an accessory to that crime.

To me, whatever burden these conditions add for owning a handgun are slight and certainly do not overly burden whatever right The Supreme Court has said exists in the Constitution to bear arms in your militia.

But, like the crazy people who want a 12 year old to be able to have an abortion without her parents' knowledge, the gun crazies cannot fathom anything other than buying an automatic assault weapon on the street corner for cash. Insanity if you ask me. Ans, the price we all pay for it is what happened today.

[DavidMn]

awful. what is going the **** on?!

I just read, too, that Fred Phelps's clan plans to protest the vigils because of the country's godlessness and tolerance of gays. :rolleyes:Thats it!! Its all our fault this is all happening!:rolleyes: how could I be so stupid?:laugh:

[SortaSavageLike]

Back in the 20s and 30s, anyone with enough money could walk into a general store and buy a Thompson submachine gun with a 50-round drum magazine, no questions asked. I don't remember any school massacres occurring back then, however.

I really don't know why I said that, but hopefully someone can make the connection for me.

[Chrislit18]

I think that I understand what youre trying to say SortaSavageLike [sorry, I dont know your name :(]...
The fact is that society has gone downhill in the last century basically. People in general have become more and more disturbed, and its like there is nothing that can be done over it. There was less 'gang/street' violence back then too. the 1920s is my new chapter for AP history, and most people just carried guns for protection...mostly of the comunists who were coming to america, and threatening the government. People did not just buy guns to have them, or for any other reason except for protection, and to hunt for food [in the extreme rural areas].

I do believe that in this day and age the right to bear arms should be taken out of the constitution. In the army and other national servises is one thing, but average people should not be allowed guns. And I agree 100% with what you said strandinthewind, people should be punished for giving away guns without federal consent. especially if the person they are giving the gun to is known to be mentally unstable, or doesnt have a gun liecnce.

USA needs gun control. plain and simple.

[michelle2677]

Ledge Poll: How many of you, if legally allowed to do so, would pack heat in your daily lives?



i'm sorry, but this just cracked me up coming from you :laugh:

anyway, my brother carries a gun. I had no idea he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but he does. I, personally, probably never would. IF i ever decided to own a gun, it would be kept close to my bed, or left in my car. I wouldn't ever feel the need to just carry it around with me. coincidentally, my car and home are the only 2 places i've ever felt threatened, so that might be why :shrug:

re: the shooting, it's such a tragedy. and even more so, that this is happening more often. :( bless the families who have lost loved ones :distress:

[SuzeQuze]

I sleep with a hammer under my pillow. TMI?

[michelle2677]

I sleep with a hammer under my pillow. TMI?

not at all. i'm going to start sleeping with my pepper spray. not because of the school shootings, just other things going on.

[Sarah]

word. gun in the house, sometimes the car. i carry a pretty nice knife most of the time... not necessarily as a weapon; it's a handy tool. But any time I find myself in a slightly iffy situation, it's a bit of a relief. i haven't had spray for a long time... but it is a good idea. probably a better idea than a knife, but hey. whatever.

[rubytuesday]

Aweful. Double aweful if people are going to carry guns to prevent it? Well, I'll keep my mouth shut further.:nod: I know what you mean

[strandinthewind]

I sleep with a hammer under my pillow. TMI?

Can we please leave your sex life out of this :D

[strandinthewind]

. . . I do believe that in this day and age the right to bear arms should be taken out of the constitution . . .

Grammatically, it is not in the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The NRA and other crazies need for it to be in the Const. so that it is harder for the Federal Government to control the sale of arms. The same thing applies with abortion. If it is not a Const. right (the right to privacy is judicial law - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html ) - the governments can regulate and/or ban it.

[David]

Grammatically, it is not in the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It's a bit of a puzzle, that 2nd Amendment. Come, let us parse together.

The construction is what's called a nominative absolute. Using modern punctuation styles, you would write it like this:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's this type of sentence:

"Michelle being a sheltie lover, Paula decided to ask her to babysit her own dog."

Absolute phrases can have different purposes & different effects. Usually context helps you pin down the intent. Sometimes the absolute explains a single cause or condition, & it could be rewritten with "because":

1. "Michelle being a sheltie lover, Paula decided to ask her to babysit her own dog." (Paula asked Michelle for her help ONLY because she's a sheltie lover.)

2. "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed." (The right to bear arms shall not be infringed ONLY because a militia is necessary.)

But sometimes the absolute construction leaves open the possibility of other reasons. It suggests an attendant condition rather than -- or in addition to -- a cause.

"Michelle being a sheltie lover, Paula decided to ask her to babysit her own dog." (Paula asked Michelle for her help primarily because Michelle is a sheltie lover, but also because she had a few days free to dogsit & she's reliable.)

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed for several reasons, among them -- perhaps the most important reason, perhaps not -- the necessity of a militia.

Example in Malory (with construction inverted): "There came into his halle, he syttynge in his throne ryal." Here the absolute is merely an attendant condition, not a cause. Example in Shakespeare: "I should not seek an absent argument / Of my revenge, thou [being] present." Again, merely an attendant condition--one of many (unstated but implied) reasons.

[SuzeQuze]

not at all. i'm going to start sleeping with my pepper spray. not because of the school shootings, just other things going on.

I need to get some of that since I think disabling is a better way to go, I just don't have an FID card.

[skcin]

I wouldn't carry a gun. Just not comfortable. Not sure if I want everyone else carrying one either, but I suppose the people who I REALLY don't want carrying a gun could easily get one illegally. :shrug: So I don't know how I feel about gun control & the right to bear arms.

It's come out that Steven (the shooter) had a history of mental illness, but friends & fam thought he had it under control. They think he suddenly stopped taking his meds. :( The guns & ammo were obtained legally, background check came out OK. Perhaps his mental illness history either wasn't considered severe enough , or didn't count since he was in a treatment facility as a juvenile.

[Mad4stevie]

Grammatically, it is not in the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The NRA and other crazies need for it to be in the Const. so that it is harder for the Federal Government to control the sale of arms. The same thing applies with abortion. If it is not a Const. right (the right to privacy is judicial law - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html ) - the governments can regulate and/or ban it.

Well, I guess we will find out exactly how "the right to bear arms" is to be interpreted when the Supreme Court takes this issue on during this court term. I wouldn't say it isn't IN the Constitution . . . we don't know that yet, quite frankly, until the S.C. examines it:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf

As you have indicated, there are constitutional rights not specifically stated in the Constitution, like the "right to privacy". However, I think the language of the 2nd Amendment and its possible interpretation is different than the penumbra "right to privacy".

[strandinthewind]

^^^

The Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think any correct reading of the Second Amendment must conclude with the right bear arms exists solely in the context of a well regulated militia and certainly within the context of a securing a free state. Otherwise, why would those phrases be in that sentence, particularly the phrase "well regulated," which suggests government control. The Framers were very careful with their language, which is why, inter alia, the word "God" appears nowhere in the U.S. Const. Remember, until the Constitution was drafted, there was no Federal Army as we know that term today. The states provided this entity, and still do to some degree today via the National Guard system. Moreover, the states and citizens were somewhat fearful of the Federal Govt. having too much power - oh to see their eyes widen while beholding today's beast :eek:

Interestingly, the NRA has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington - to me, that speaks volumes and is regretable.

In the end, even if the Court interprets the Second Amendment as granting an absolute right outside the context of a well organized militia, the benefits of preventing the potential risk from some crazy person buying a machine gun from the local drug store by making them wait a week while a background check is performed seemingly outweighs any Constitutional right to buy that gun on the spot. As a example in another context, you have the right to free speech actually in the Const., but and understandably, you cannot scream fire in a crowded theater because people could get hurt. Thus, the Court wisely and correctly limited free speech in that context. Similarly, because we now know that people will use guns to go on killing sprees and our youth are dying as a result, some regulation seems to be in order. And, enforcing the current laws would go a long way in preventing these horrid sprees.

Here is a pretty good site on this issue

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

In the end, I realize that not all guns can be banned. So, regulations and the enforcement thereof seemingly is the only way to try and protect ourselves.

[strandinthewind]

. . . As you have indicated, there are constitutional rights not specifically stated in the Constitution . . . .

That the Court creates these rights out of thin air is somewhat scary to me. In other words and thankfully, most of the cases seem to err on the side if creating some right that allows people to live in a freer manner. But, get enough Scalia's on the Court and that same "good thing" could turn against the currect line of thought.

Of course, the root of all this bruhaha is, once again, the far religious right, which cannot abide anyone not adhereing to their public, but likely not private, canonical life. Marriage is a good example. Why is it so important for the U.S. Govt. to sanction (with benefits and rights) any kind of marriage to the misfortune of those forms of marriages outside the traditional religious form? What would it hurt to delete marriage from any and all laws and instead allow people to determine what, where, and how, there property rights are determined when they die or while they are alive? The answer to me is so apparent that no harm will come -- but even mildly religious people seem to think God will be angered if the state does not sanction, for the most part, a rather incorrect form of Christianity. Sanctioning one religion over another or forcing someone to believe in a religion or denying someone benefits because they have a different or no religion flies in the face of most of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In the end, the religious busy bodies so concerned with the manner in which other people conduct their private, "sinful" lives should follow Jesus Himself's teaching about concentrating on your own sins and leaving God to do the judging. That concept is way too hard for the far religious right, despite Christ Himself setting it forth :shrug:

[Stew_Matthews]

I think Paula has identified the issue that concerns me and that is the way in which the licencing checks are carried out. I applied for a licence in Illinois and the approval took 10 days. The Chicago Police then spent 48 hours doing their bit. To me it was more like a credit check, in fact it took me longer to get a US driving licence and bank account than it did to get a gun licence. Maybe there is a lot going on behind the scenes but the process needs to thorough and considered to ensure that those carrying handguns are responsible.

My other concern is that I don’t see a robust process to review whether an individual should still carry a handgun. It feels like – here you go, you can have a gun for five years. I think there needs to be a better review process and more explicit criteria about the circumstances when a gun licence should be revoked.

[SuzeQuze]

That the Court creates these rights out of thin air is somewhat scary to me. In other words and thankfully, most of the cases seem to err on the side if creating some right that allows people to live in a freer manner. But, get enough Scalia's on the Court and that same "good thing" could turn against the currect line of thought.

Of course, the root of all this bruhaha is, once again, the far religious right, which cannot abide anyone not adhereing to their public, but likely not private, canonical life. Marriage is a good example. Why is it so important for the U.S. Govt. to sanction (with benefits and rights) any kind of marriage to the misfortune of those forms of marriages outside the traditional religious form? What would it hurt to delete marriage from any and all laws and instead allow people to determine what, where, and how, there property rights are determined when they die or while they are alive? The answer to me is so apparent that no harm will come -- but even mildly religious people seem to think God will be angered if the state does not sanction, for the most part, a rather incorrect form of Christianity. Sanctioning one religion over another or forcing someone to believe in a religion or denying someone benefits because they have a different or no religion flies in the face of most of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In the end, the religious busy bodies so concerned with the manner in which other people conduct their private, "sinful" lives should follow Jesus Himself's teaching about concentrating on your own sins and leaving God to do the judging. That concept is way too hard for the far religious right, despite Christ Himself setting it forth :shrug:

How have we come to this? Why does the RR have so much power? We are supposed to be a free country so I thought. I think it's so crazy. I suppose it may be because there is so much more to fear these days and those people claim to have answers when people are desperate for some.

[strandinthewind]

How have we come to this? Why does the RR have so much power? We are supposed to be a free country so I thought. I think it's so crazy. I suppose it may be because there is so much more to fear these days and those people claim to have answers when people are desperate for some.

How about years of threatening the masses into submission :shrug: Up until a few decades ago, the Roman Catholic Church (arguably the least offensive of the RR, which BTW mostly does not consider the RCC valid) was a ruling power, though and granted not as much as in the Middle Ages. In fact, it is widely asserted and mostly accepted that Pope John Paul II was the most influential figure in bringing about the fall of Communism in Europe. Why you ask - I submit it is all about money. The more in the flock, the more in the coffers.

[SuzeQuze]

How about years of threatening the masses into submission :shrug: Up until a few decades ago, the Roman Catholic Church (arguably the least offensive of the RR, which BTW mostly does not consider the RCC valid) was a ruling power, though and granted not as much as in the Middle Ages. In fact, it is widely asserted and mostly accepted that Pope John Paul II was the most influential figure in bringing about the fall of Communism in Europe. Why you ask - I submit it is all about money. The more in the flock, the more in the coffers.

Yeah, they create a lot of the fear. People get into trouble when they make life choices out of fear. And you're right, it's about money. Whenever things don't seem to make sense, look for where the money's going. What a racket.

[strandinthewind]

If you want to fill your pews, and therefore coffers, preach hate :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

If you want to fill your pews, and therefore coffers, preach hate :shrug:

Okay, I'm going to start godhatesidiots.com. :lol: