Charles, this is not the thread.

This is your single warning.

this is true, mental health and even physically disabled people have less and less places to go to help nowadays.

Thanks for this statement, this really hit home for me:



Originally Posted by MindBomber
Right, because the people with a mental disposition appropriate for educating elementary students are often equally suited to a role as a close-quarters urban combat soldier.

I think the sad thing about mental illness is that there is too much focus on drugs rather than therapy.

Drugs are easy. Drugs are cheap. Drugs are everywhere. Numb the pain, Numb reality, Make them more conforming to society, and have people in a semi-conscious state towing the company line so they can pay for the drugs to make them numb.

You turn on the TV, open a magazine, and click on a website and all you see is an ad for this drug and an ad for that drug. Drug to take away depression, take away the anxiety, take away the panic, lessen the mania....oh, and if that ONE drug doesn't work, try combining it with another one....and another one. Before you know it, you are on some random 5 drug cocktail that would put a horse to sleep. But, its okay....you now appear to be 'normal'.

The unfortunate thing is that the side-effects for these drugs are often just as bad or ever worse than the actual mental health problem the individual is dealing with. Don't get me wrong, I think drug DO help some people and drugs CAN work great when in conjunction with therapeutic treatment. The problem is, it is easier to pop a pill in the privacy of your own home once a day than to call someone and make an appointment. Talking about it is hard. Whether you are telling your family you are seeking help or being honest with the therapist, there is a social stigma attached to what you are doing.

People judge, people think you are crazy, people think you are weak, and it makes people uncomfortable.

Mental health programs are always being cut or having their funding reduced or they are lumped together with substance abuse programs. Mental health problems doesn't always equate substance abuse. Normal people like you and me suffer from depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and other issues that effect our lives. We don't need more drugs...we need better outreach. We need to remove the social stigma that we are all 'crazy'. If it is okay to go to the doctor when you are physically ill, why is it harder to go to the doctor when you are mentally ill.

I am happy to see that the conversation about mental health in regards to this horrendous event is being discussed....but at the same time, I think it could do harm. Just because some of us suffers from a dip in our mental health does not mean we are going to act out like this.

\rant.

Not to defend any one position, but I think the point Jlomein is trying to make is not that teachers make good soldiers, but that teachers are selfless and will defend the lives of their charges quite literally to the death as we've seen here. I believe he's suggesting that arming these people would allow them to be better prepared to defend their charges, and hopefully not need it to be to the death.


Now, that having been said I'm personally opposed to having guns in schools. There've been stories of cops taking off their weapons to go to the washroom or leaving it in their car and usually nothing bad happens--but introducing more weapons into a school system is just asking for trouble.

Agreed. Something more reasonable would be to just station a cop at each school..the costs justify children from being killed.

IIRC there was security screening measures there, and all the doors were locked. He forced his way in and past security. I doubt any cop who was stationed at any school would be on alert all the time--all it takes is just a moment of confusion or distraction and you can get shot.

Since the guy was the son of a substitute teacher at the school, if there was a cop, he may have looked at the kid and started to ask "How come you're here? Your mom isn't working today!" and gotten shot before he finished the question.



There are no easy answers here.

Was he not wearing military gear/bullet proof vest while holding a shit load of automatic guns? Quite sure a cop would have reacted to that...

Friend posted this on FB.

Got a point.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...84018591_n.jpg

It is difficult to find isn't it? Because I have searched for it before myself and found many news articles (NOT pro-gun writers) that make every attempt to findany reason why homicide rates are dropping WITHOUT even mentioning an increase in legal armed citizens. They never mention it because they cannot find information relating increasing armed citizens leading to more homicide.

Once again I'd like to reiterate Mr. James Yeager's statistics not on homicide, but specifically active shooter situations. 50% of active shooters are stopped by intervention (the other 50% quit on their own regard or commit suicide without being confronted). 2/3's of the time a shooter is stopped by intervention, it is by a civilian, NOT a police officer.

Look at the Clackamas Town Center shooting article I posted. The Clackamas shooter entered the mall with a rifle, and killed two people before his rifle jammed and malfunctioned. When this happened he was confronted by a legally armed citizen who pulled a gun on him. The responsible citizen did not shoot because innocent people were behind the active shooter in the line of fire. However, when confronted, the active shooter ran away, and once he cleared his weapon, took his own life without killing anyone else. NONE of the national news media are reporting this, only the local Oregon news who are getting the real story. This relates back to my quote of the CNN executive who said they don't want to report on vigilante justice for fear of copycats. If they fear copycats, why do they report on mass murderers?

Piers Morgan didn't let John Lott get a word in edge wise, but Lott did manage to get one fundamental point across. In the Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting, there were six movie theatres close to the shooter's home. He didn't go to shoot people at the closest movie theatre. He chose the movie theatre that was specifically marked as a gun free zone, where he knew no one in the theatre would be armed. He wanted to shoot and murder defenseless citizens. As soonas he was confronted by armed police officers (arriving too late to save the long list of victims), he gave up and surrendered. He had no intention of resisting armed force, he only wanted to release carnage on defenseless people.

For fuck's sake, who cares what studies say, the average jackass in society can't even park their car properly in a mall parking lot but you're advocating that average citizens needs to conceal carry........... I wouldn't trust most people I see walking around in public areas with a box of matches let alone the decision of when and where its appropriate to take the safety off on lethal force.

Leave gun carrying to the police.

Posted via RS Mobile

Tacoma Mall shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also Brendan McKown had regularly trained for these types of situations.

The bulk of scholars do not consider evidence presented by pro-gun research as compelling, they consider social factors with a broader reach to be the primary locus of changes in crime rates. Given that, it is reasonable that arming citizens would not be discussed. A biologist presenting data on evolution does not consider the points made by a creationist, and this situation is no different.

A good article, very impartial and ultimately leaning towards arming citizens being an entirely ineffective measure.

Do armed citizens deter crime? | FPU News

Well, they did not change bomb regulations, too. Bombing ppl was and still and is ilegal. Same thing with guns and shooting people. Someone tell me about bomb regulation changes after the shoe bomber. Are bombs harder to buy now? Oh wait, you can't buy them.

To get a driver's licence, do you have to take a driver's skill course? Yes. However, do you have to go to classes on the liability issues of driving a car in public and running people over? Do you have to go to classes specifically outlining when it is justified to use your vehicle as a deadly weapon? Do you have to retrain and test annually on your driving ability and skill? Do you go through criminal and mental background checks to get a permit to drive?

I suggest you go read about the CCW permit process. I think you'll find it interesting how the right to bear arms is a constitutionally given right in America yet it can be a difficult and long process to get a CCW. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege, and yet it can be much easier to get a driver's licence in many states.

What's funny is that so many are against legally armed citizens with CCW permits, yet none of these high profile active shooters had CCW permits. CCW holders are the good guys that the national news media tries to surpress. Once again I reference the Clackamas Town Center incident, and there are many more I can list where CCW holders stopped a threat.

Everyone believes that pro-gun writers have an agenda and bias, which is true, but do you really believe the liberal national news media doesn't have one either? I'm not drinking the kool-aid from either camp, I'm only trying to find some truth in the center.

I want to thank you for posting this incident. I have read it many times before. Brendan McKown is a hero. He is a CCW holder who attempted to stop an active shooter.

A man entered Tacoma Mall with a rifle and began shooting people. McKown drew his legally carried handgun, confronted the active shooter, and verbally commanded him to cease his actions. McKown was shot several times and is now paralyzed for life. Another legal handgun carrier in the mall also drew his weapon and attempted to stop the active shooter, but he did not shoot due to innocent people being in the line of fire.

Do these two CCW holders sound like brash, act first-think later type men to anyone? McKown had the collected sense to verbally command the active shooter before taking any lethal action. The second CCW holder had the smarts to not fire when innocents are behind your target.

You have a sick sense of humour. Remember that this thread is about a shooting massacre where 27 people were killed, many of which were children. Your disrespect for them has no place in this thread.

I've said my points and rebuttled many arguments from others here. It's become difficult to keep up with all the posts as most on RS seems to be in the liberal "guns are bad, there are no social problems at work here" camp. As a final reminder I urge everyone to read up on the issue as well as past similar events, finding information from both the left national media and the right pro-gun camps and find where the truth lies.

A lot good carrying gun did. Carrying a gun did not save any lives it just ended up getting another person shot.

sounds like Obama is about to announce some gun control initiatives right now





edit: yep he says he's going to do something but no indication as to what says he'll be discussing it with experts in the coming weeks

List of defensive gun use incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read, learn.

For everyone who thinks the national media is unbiased, read this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting

Everyone has heard of Columbine and Virginia Tech. Did anyone hear about this 2002 School of Law shooting where armed citizen response stopped the shooter? The news outlets downplayed the use of a legally carried gun and made this story fade away.

So the problem are the solution are the same?

If he had gone to a theatre where a bunch of other people had guns, the death toll would have been much higher. If his goal was to kill as many people as possible, he made the wrong decision.

I assume you are speculating that return fire at the active shooter by legally armed citizens would increase the death toll in this situation.

Did you not read the Tacoma Mall shooting? Or the Clackamas Town Center shooting? Even the Appalachian School of Law shooting? All involved legally armed citizens confronting the active shooter. In none of these cases were innocent bystanders shot by legally armed citizens. In two of these cases legally armed citizens chose NOT to fire because innocent bystanders were behind their target, in the line of fire.

CCW holders are not brazen vigiliantes out to shoot first and ask questions later. They follow the four fundamental safety rules, the relevant one in this case being be sure of your target and what is in front of and behind it.

Is everyone not surprised that these documented cases of active shooters being confronted by CCW holders were not widely publicized by the national news media? I'm betting almost NO ONE here has heard of the Appalachian School of Law shooting. It happened three years after Columbine and generated little news. Does no one believe that the national news media like CNN and MSNBC have their own agenda? They are profit making ventures! Read the Wiki page I posted about defensive incidents involving firearms and tell me how many of those you heard on the news.