Alleged shooter at Texas high school spared people he liked, court document says

They would teach respect for authority and more personal responsibility along with tradational American values

Plus I believe they would not hacpve to rely on drugs to manage children

But with the ACLU and other radical leftwinf groups taking them to court before liberal judges it would still be difficult for conservative educators also to do the right thing

 

Do you have any proof at all that teachers are NOT teaching respect for authority or personal responsibility? Where in gods name do teachers give kids drugs to manage them? I think a strongly worded note is needed there!!
What would they be doing for the ACLU to be taking them to court?

 

That is too complicated to explain in one post

When teachers are getting beat up by students in their classrooms that indicates lack of resoect for authority to me

Here is one example

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...E4F2488E83C12D3507CBE4F2488E83C12D3&FORM=VIRE

 

condones? that's a bit of bold faced lie, innit? did someone abrogate punishments for murder when we weren't looking?

try to be a little more honest....hyperbole is one thing, straight up deceit is another thing altogether. Thanks.

 

Just so we’re clear - you have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to murder people.

 

But "conservative" teachers would fix that problem?

 

Umm.......yeah?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say you have the right to murder people. Where are you going here?

 

they can't seem to disentangle the two concepts.

stupidity or deceit. it's one, the other, or a bit of both. no other options.

 

A lot of damage has been done

But conservative educators would first stop the bleeding and stabilize the patient before attempting major surgery

 

Why I was looking for you to clarify your position. You appear to be drawing a nexus between the right to bear arms and people murdering each other, trying to establish causation. The keeping and bearing of arms does not cause murder. Murder is caused by? I know you can tell me. Starts with an 'I.'

 

Well, to be fair, Jerry Brown lets violent felons out of prison far before the end of their prison sentences...

 

(cocking head to the side)Noooo, you seem to want to draw that nexus. MY point is murder has been committed and nothing is being done to stop it from happening again.

 

Interesting.....how would they do that? What damage has been done by "liberal" teachers? Are you saying that they have taught kids to disrespect them and authority? Does that make sense? How is that even done? My father was a teacher, my mother was a teacher, my brother IS a teacher......I'm pretty sure that's not in the curriculum to be taught. Do you think they have secret meetings? Are they getting direction from the "Deep State"?

 

What needs to be done to stop it from happening again?

 

Exactly, that's the problem. Have a longer waiting period, raise the age to buy a gun, better background checks, put some guns on the "not allowed" list.
What do you suggest?

 

I'm not sure we agree on what "the problem" is.

So I wait ten more days to shoot up the school.

Then I go buy a gun from the black market. Or I steal one from my dad. You can buy almost anything you want on the dark web. Or you can go to a guy like "Nightscope" in the two minute video below. Pay particular attention to the narrator at around 1:05 - "thanks to California's restrictive gun laws..."



So not only are my state's gun laws totally ineffective at preventing violent crime, they actually encourage guys like Nightscope to up their game in the illegal gun trade because there is so much money in it. Every new gun law puts more money in his pocket while setting up a thug like Payback to go out and use his 100% illegal gun "like an ATM card" as he glibly brags. I want Payback behind bars until he's 85. But you won't let me do that. He is a piece of **** who will put a bullet in your brain without even thinking about it before he sits down for breakfast. Gun laws take the guns out of the wrong hands while leaving violent scum out on the street to rob, kill, rape, bootstomp, whatever their worthless thug brain wants to do. Taking my guns does not prevent a single criminal or violent act. Making it harder for me to buy guns does not prevent a single criminal or violent act. Please tell me why I can make this statement. I'm looking for a very specific answer.

Lastly on gun laws, I'd like to submit for your review a tale of two states: California and Oregon. I am very familiar with both of these states. I have lived in CA for almost 30 years (and am getting ready to finally make my exit), and have owned a second home in OR for the last nine. As you know, CA has among the most restrictive gun laws in the country. What you may not know is that OR has some of the least restrictive (although that may be changing with new far-left governor Kate Brown who assumed office after far-left Governor Kitzhaber was removed from office on fraud charges).

Without going into the minutiae, it is worth knowing that CA ranks #46 in Guns&Ammo magazine's Best States for Gun Owners while enjoying an "A" rating from The Giffords Law Center (gun control advocates) State report card. OR is ranked at #28 from G&A, and gets a "C" from Giffords. Now let's look at the homicide statistics for the two states...

OR
All homicides: 2.0/100,000
Gun homicides: 0.9/100,000

CA
All homicides: 4.9/100,000
Gun homicides: 3.4/100,000

So CA's overall homicide rate is 2.5x higher than OR yet it has among the most restrictive gun laws in the country. And it's gun homicide rate is 2.7x higher. It is far easier to buy and legally carry a gun in Oregon, but the gun homicide rate is 270% lower than in California where it is very difficult to buy a gun and almost impossible to legally carry one. What conclusions would you draw from this?

Then look at the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine -- all "F" grades from Giffords, but #1, #2, and #7 respectively in LOWEST GUN HOMICIDE RATES. These states have virtually no guns laws... almost no violent crime... and no mass shootings that I can recall.

Sources
http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-states-for-gun-owners-2015/
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state#Murders

Something is badly broken in our culture. We need to start there. As I've stated numerous times upthread, murder -- or any act of violence for that matter -- starts with intent. What is it that makes a 17-yo punk who can't get laid want to shoot up his school? What is it that makes a piece of **** lowlife gangbanger thug like Payback want to "use a gun like an ATM card?" These are two divergent paths, of course, but when we start to understand the root cause of that intent, we start to understand the solutions. I have my ideas, but they are not scientifically vetted and I am willing to concede I could be wrong. But overall, our society has undergone a literal sea change in the last six decades or so where personal responsibility has been traded for instant gratification, work ethic has been traded for entitlement, and narcissism has replaced humility. We have, in my view, actually regressed as a society where each person's infantile gestures are to be valued equally, as long as it satisfies their paltry ego. Whether I am right or wrong, we didn't have mass shootings like we did 60 years ago -- a time when guns were available everywhere and there were very few restrictions.

I think the latter is easier to deal with, but again you don't want to take that route: I view the criminal justice system as neither punitive nor rehabillative -- it should exist for the sole pragmatic purpose of protecting the public from dangerous people. If you value your personal freedom, maybe just maybe you'll think twice before you beat a body down wit an alunimun bat (sic). If not, you go away. In either case, shifting the odds in favor of decent society by removing individuals from it who've demonstrated their refusal to play nice is the preferable solution in my view.

The former -- the mass shooter -- is a more difficult and complex problem. I think the social indicators I posted above factor into it, as well as extreme bullying, and there may be some truth to claims about psychoactive drugs that we can't seem to shovel down kids' throats fast enough these days. And I think to a lesser degree, violent movies and video games may play a role in romanticizing violence and also desensitizing especially pubescent boys who are already wrestling with all kinds of hormonal signals. I don't know how old you are, but I'm sure you remember being a teenage boy.

 

Maybe in the meantime someone will see something and say something. Maybe you won't pass.

It's really inconvenientto buy guns on the black market. It's also not THAT easy.
The conclusions I would draw is that with statistics you can draw any conclusion you want. I COULD get some to refute yours but it would be drawn out and cost millions of dollars and thousands of lives when we're done.....so I'll pass.
Please tell me why I can make this statement. I'm looking for a very specific answer. That's OK, you're dying to tell me so go ahead.

This is where we split completely. The problem I have with your argument is that the problem we have here does....not....happen in other countries. It's a small world. We see the same movies, play the same video games. In the west we have the same family dynamic but they aren't shooting up schools. If the problem is mental illness then whatever punishment is supposed to make you think twice probably doesn't matter.
I don't know about the drug angle. Maybe, maybe not but they also have the same drugs in other countries.
I'm as old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth but I do remember being a teenager. To be honest, I had a great childhood.

 

Then no accurate comparison can be made between the two nations. The laws and culture of the nation of Spain are vastly different from those of the united states. There is no overlap in commonalities that makes them comparable and similar to one another. What is being done by yourself is not so much a comparison of apples or oranges, it is more accurately comparing apples to cinder blocks.

 

Then perhaps educators should simply shoot the most problematic and violent students in front of all the other students present, to make it clear that such behavior will no longer be tolerated.

 

As demonstrated in the Parkland incident, it does not matter how much time passes, or how many individuals speak up about what they see, if law enforcement simply refuses to do its job. Nikolas Cruz was not arrested, even when he was threatening his own family and neighbors with a firearm.

 

That's a bit radical I think.

 

You're right. Doing nothing is always best. Good thing you have law enforcement to blame. They were probably too busy taking care of people speaking Spanish or football players not taking a knee, You know, the important stuff.

 

It is being stated by yourself that such an approach to addressing the issue would not work?

 

Yes, I'm stating that this method proposed by you:
Then perhaps educators should simply shoot the most problematic and violent students in front of all the other students present, to make it clear that such behavior will no longer be tolerated.
Would not work.
It's also a good argument why teachers shouldn't have guns.

 

The school shooter did it because it was his school but he killed so many because his school was not protected. Other mass shootings are performed in areas where guns are not allowed or where resistance would be at a minimum. Keeping legal gun owners out of places do not make them safer, it only shows criminals and nut jobs where it would be safe for them to do what they want at least until police arrive.

http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com/average-police-response-time.html
The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour. Interpretation? If you live in an upper income area you probably are privy to the 4 minute response time, while middle to rural areas will see a much longer response time.

How much damage can even a person with a knife do in 4 minutes in a crowd of people at a concert or something similar let alone a gun? Now if guns were allowed to be carried in those places would the shooter feel as safe to choose those places or would he look for easier targets?