Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How the Lessons of Columbine Saved Lives At Arapahoe High School

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the factory-schooling dept.

Crime 894

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Ray Sanchez reports at CNN that the handling of Friday's shooting at Arapahoe High School, just 10 miles from the scene of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, drew important lessons from the earlier bloodshed. At Arapahoe High School, where senior Claire Davis, 17, was critically injured before the shooter turned the gun on himself, law enforcement officers responded within minutes and immediately entered the school to confront the gunman rather than surrounding the building. As the sound of shots reverberated through the corridors, teachers immediately followed procedures put in place after Columbine, locking the doors and moving students to the rear of classrooms. "That's straight out of Columbine," says Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services. "The goal is to proceed and neutralize the shooter. Columbine really revolutionized the way law enforcement responds to active shooters." Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson credits the quick police response time for the fact that student Karl Pierson, the gunman, stopped firing on others and turned his weapon on himself less than 1 minute, 20 seconds after entering the school. Authorities knew from research and contact with forensic psychologists that school shooters typically continue firing until confronted by law enforcement. "It's very unfortunate that we have to say that there's a textbook response on the way to respond to these," says Trump, "because that textbook was written based on all of the incidents that we've had and the lessons learned (PDF).""

cancel ×

894 comments

Come on man (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694389)

If you're attempting a school shooting you know you're gonna die eventually. Might as well go for a high score, go out with a bang (literally I might add)

police arive within 'minutes' (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694517)

how many to add to that 1.3 minutes the shooter could have been executing anyone they ran into ??

Again no teachers are allowed the ability to defend their students (and themselves) with their own guns ??

The tards who do this KNOW that nobody will oppose them for at least several minutes and even a manually cocked gun can kill dozens in that number of thime.

Time for all gun grabbing advocates to have THEIR police disarmed and their towns simply declared 'gun free' to get to experience themseves what they force on others.

Re:police arive within 'minutes' (0, Flamebait)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 7 months ago | (#45694597)

Every time we have yet another NRA sponsored massacre we have the gun nuts round to say the answer is more nuts with guns.

You are worse than pedophiles in my view.

Where were these slef styles defenders of liberty when Bush was setting up the gulag in Gitmo and using torture? They were cheering him on. If there ever was a fascist takeover of the US, the NRA would be there in their jackboots and pillowcases rounding up opponents to help the new regime.

Take the guns away, every damn one.

Re: police arive within 'minutes' (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694633)

Feel free to live in a city/county with strict gun laws with a high violent crime rate while the rest of us with guns live in one with a low violent crime rate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

But no amount of facts will convince you I'm sure, since you want to "believe" guns are bad.

Re:police arive within 'minutes' (1, Interesting)

sycodon (149926) | about 7 months ago | (#45694643)

Schools today treat the kids like goats staked out for lions to kill and eat. If I want to cause mayhem and kill, where do I go? A "gun free zone"!

Hey, everyone, come here and perpetrate your crimes, no guns here to worry about!

As for the political aspect of it, perhaps you missed the fact that this kid was a "Very Proud Of Being A Socialist" [realclearpolitics.com]

But then, you must be too since your goals of disarming the populace are identical to those of most socialist dictators. You should pay attention to the sig.

Re:police arive within 'minutes' (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694779)

Schools today treat the kids like goats staked out for lions to kill and eat. If I want to cause mayhem and kill, where do I go? A "gun free zone"!

Hey, everyone, come here and perpetrate your crimes, no guns here to worry about!

Yeah, that's why schools all around the world are, basically, the biggest crime zones with huge death tolls...

Oh, wait, nope, school shootings are mostly the proud US tradition, with shooting incidents from all over Eurasia for all time [wikipedia.org] counting less than US shootings just in past decade [wikipedia.org] .

"Solution to shootings? More guns for everyone!"

Re: police arive within 'minutes' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694665)

Keep your dirty pot-stained hippie hands off my Second Amendment.

Re:police arive within 'minutes' (2, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | about 7 months ago | (#45694713)

Why do you only want to give criminals the right to carry guns?

Re:police arive within 'minutes' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694751)

Why do you only want to give criminals the right to carry guns?

That is not what they want, but it is the unintended consequence of significantly (or completely) restricting gun ownership in the US. It's just way too late to try to reign in firearms.

I am not pro gun, but I am realistic enough to understand that anyone who is willing to use a gun to commit a crime (which includes murder as the primary offense or as a byproduct of another crime) is not worried about the additional charges of illegally being in possession of a gun.

Re:police arive within 'minutes' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694863)

If there ever was a fascist takeover of the US, the NRA would be there in their jackboots and pillowcases rounding up opponents to help the new regime.

I think the NRA is smart enough to realize that, when you spend decades fighting in support of independent firearm ownership, suddenly turning on that population would be a Very Bad Idea.

Oh, did you mean they would "round up" those who have self-selected to not own any firearms? It is certainly your right to choose for yourself to not own any firearms, but that is also your own damn problem, one not solved by attempting to force your decision onto others.

Take the guns away, every damn one.

Good luck with that.

Re:Come on man (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694671)

From the summary,

The goal is to proceed and neutralize the shooter. Columbine really revolutionized the way law enforcement responds to active shooters.

Do we require further evidence that public schools are turning into medium-security prisons? Lock-down the inmates...I mean students. Send in the shock troops...I mean the police with their military assault rifles and other weapons of war. Neutralize the shooter indeed. Maybe if teachers, administrators and most importantly parents took the time to be human and exercise humanity towards other persons including their own children, these shooting gallery incidents wouldn't happen at all.

Rule #1 (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#45694391)

The first rule should be to not give easy access to firearms to the general public in the first place.

Re:Rule #1 (1, Insightful)

BlacKSacrificE (1089327) | about 7 months ago | (#45694415)

+1 insightful. The only thing to be proud of here is.. Nothing.

Re:Rule #1 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694445)

Very true.

I'm from Germany, were gun laws are much, MUCH stricter and therefore we aren't seeing such tragedies on a yearly basis like it's come to be anticipated in the US.

There's really not all that much you can do to prevent people and especially children from going psycho every once in a while. That doesn't mean you should stop trying, of course, but the main thing you'll first have to take care of is just this: If someone cracks, see to it that this person can't inflict that much damage on himself or his environment.

I know, I know, guns are part of your culture, constitution, etc. and will be hard to get rid of these days, what with almost every household having one... but that just means it's a bigger problem, not an unsolveable one.

no you just have lots and lots of stabbings and cl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694531)

And whats the pop in germany these days? still 1/4th of the US.

Oh and BTW the schools are 'gun free zones'

Re:no you just have lots and lots of stabbings and (3, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 7 months ago | (#45694631)

Schools are only gun free to the extent that there are no guns brought in from outside.

Europe has roughly the same population as the US and the murder rate is actually identical - if you exclude firearms deaths. The number of Americans murdered with knives etc. is pretty much the same as the number of Europeans.

The higher US murder rate is entirely due to the NRA and the politicians who are to weak in the spine to stand up to them.

The UK gun murder rate is essentially zero because it is almost impossible for a criminal to get a gun.

We need a war on guns. Make drugs legal and guns illegal. Shut down the manufacturers and the death merchants. It won't take every gun off the street but it will eliminate most of them within a few years.

Its only a matter of time before this happens.

Re: no you just have lots and lots of stabbings an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694727)

...to (sic) weak in the spine..

Yes, making moves to repeal the Bill of Rights always works out well for politicians. Grow up and pull your head out of the sand.

Re:no you just have lots and lots of stabbings and (3, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | about 7 months ago | (#45694777)

Actually Europe has a much higher population than the US. The population of the EU countries is now over 500 million. If Europe is more unified politically, it will be the single biggest geopolitical force in the world.

Re:no you just have lots and lots of stabbings and (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694799)

What was the European murder rate in the 20th century vs US? Please count millions murdered by the various Gov'ts.

Re:Rule #1 (-1, Troll)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 7 months ago | (#45694537)

That doesn't mean you should stop trying,

I don't think the united states even tries. Or maybe they haven't been willing to increase the funding for mental health care. Or maybe it never reaches the news. Either way, I don't think you can say that USA has been trying hard at it, specially after these kind of events. It always seems to be the guns fault. And I always seem to think: there are a lot of ways to kill a lot of people without needing to fire a bullet (some include projectiles, some don't; some require time, some are more immediate).

Did you know that with some kind of explosive (preferably one that you can remotely detonate) and some coins (easily available) you probably can kill or severely injure a lot more people than you can with a firearm? The ensuring explosion is like a frag grenade, except you can make it a lot bigger and lethal. Bonus points for triggering it in a cafeteria o some other kind of eating place with lots of people.

OTOH I wonder what would the effects be if somebody grabbed some Uranium (apparently you can order some from Amazon for testing and calibrating devices) and slipped it into the food. Or some other kind of chemical.

But hey, you are right. Imposing more restrictions on firearms will surely reduce casualties. Unless you happen to stumble on somebody with a lot of determination and nothing to lose.

Re:Rule #1 (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#45694815)

The huge numbers of countries that have strong gun control are not suffering with school massacres being committed with bombs instead.

Where do you get a lot of people setting off home made bombs? Places where there are also a lot of guns. Iraq in the last decade. Northern Ireland in the 70s/80s. etc.

Bombs are not gun alternatives. Cutting guns does not increase bomb attacks.

Re:Rule #1 (3, Funny)

fatphil (181876) | about 7 months ago | (#45694565)

It may be +5 insightful now, but just wait until the yanks wake up...

I've got my popcorn...

Re: Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694741)

As an american that supports gun ownership rights, I have to admit this comment was spot on...

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694417)

The first rule should be to help those who need help. People going on a shooting spree are as much a victim of society as the people they kill. Society made them the way they are and is paying for that.

Re:Rule #1 (5, Insightful)

Sigma 7 (266129) | about 7 months ago | (#45694489)

People going on a shooting spree are as much a victim of society as the people they kill

Except for the fact that some of those shooters are simple psychopaths.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - pretended to show promise after they attended the anger management classes, even writing a letter of apology to the van owner. At the same time, they wrote in their journal about their god-given right to break into a van in the middle of nowhere. Other bits of motive exist, with them generally claiming things persistent with narcissism.

Granted, most of the problems could be avoided by people paying attention. Obviously, the person providing the firearms should have known that something was wrong with purchasing a semi-auto pistol and a shotgun for two minors who had a questionable history.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 7 months ago | (#45694755)

Obviously, the person providing the firearms should have known that something was wrong with purchasing a semi-auto pistol and a shotgun for two minors who had a questionable history.

Aside from the fact that selling firearms to minors is illegal, you mean?

Re:Rule #1 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694625)

People going on a shooting spree are as much a victim of society as the people they kill. Society made them the way they are and is paying for that.

Are you fucking kidding me? Some of these shooters have mental issues, but if you think "I can't get my way!" or "I don't fit in because I don't fit in!" or "Nobody likes me because I'm different" justifies killing people who may or may not have been the ones who didn't like you then you are out of your fucking mind!

Your point of view on this means everyone (eg, "society") could be justifiably killed because some douche thinks the world isn't nice enough to them? Isn't that what Kim Jung Un thinks, too?

Sounds to me like you're someone who might take these same types of actions.

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694421)

I was thinking the lesson learned was going to be that this time they detected bullying and a mentally unstable person and got him the help he needed before he decided to shoot a school up. ....But Letting him get a gun and start shooting is _almost_ as good, really.

Re: Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694431)

If you don't like it then move to Europe.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694461)

Apparently, the best way to go about this is to molest (or "frisk") everyone who leaves the building. To check their innocence, of course.

Land of the free, home of the brave.

Re:Rule #1 (4, Interesting)

DamonHD (794830) | about 7 months ago | (#45694465)

Seems obvious to most Europeans. And my emphasis is on 'easy'; not never no way ever, else I'd be all for unconditionally banning bleach and kitchen knives and human-driven cars too. This needs a more nuanced fix than most would like to admit I think.

I *never* want to see permits for concealed carry or similar in the UK, BTW.

Rgds

Damon

Re: Rule #1 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694561)

The answer is obvious to a lot of people in the US too. Don't publicly and legally declare huge buildings full of people as defenseless. Schools are the only place in the country that I know of where firearms are unequivocally banned yet there is no security otherwise. This is the most dumbfounding lot obvious thing in the world...and despite shooting after shooting after shooting we don't do a thing about it. The article even points out that the most important thing is to confront the shooter as soon possible. Better to have somebody on site that can respond in seconds or call the police so they can respond in minutes? I'll even give you that response time in this case was really impressive.

There are over 290,000,000 guns in circulation in the US and about a 14,000 homocides per year. That is a 99.9999% responsible ownership rate. 99.99% is statistically perfect.

This is going to hurt your brain but the gun people are right and all of the data backs them up.

Re: Rule #1 (1)

toutankh (1544253) | about 7 months ago | (#45694629)

Your numbers may be right but what you do with them is wrong, for two reasons. First, some people have more than one gun. Second, guns are owned for more than a year. The real question here is "how likely is it for each gun owner to kill someone with a gun eventually".

Re: Rule #1 (1)

temcat (873475) | about 7 months ago | (#45694745)

But it's guns that kill people, right? Ergo, we should count guns.

Re: Rule #1 (3, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 7 months ago | (#45694841)

No, people looking for a way to people use guns to kill other people. More often than not because that's the most efficient way.

There's a pretty good example of this in Switzerland. Just a few years ago they had a pretty big (by European standards) gun murder problem (far less than US).
How did they take it down to European levels in spite of every man having an assault rifle at home, courtesy of Swiss army? They forbade owning ammunition and mandated that gun itself is stored in completely disassembled state. They also forbade taking gun out of the house without special permit, which is difficult to get.

Result: their murder rate went to European one, with gun murder collapsing. Because when the most efficient tool is disassembled and has no ammo, people use other more available but less efficient tools, which may or may not serve the purpose. It's very easy to kill someone with a gun. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife. It's exceptionally hard to kill someone with bare hands.

Re: Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694667)

Would you accept the same level of safety from nukes?

Re: Rule #1 (0)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 7 months ago | (#45694693)

Actually its only 99.995%

And the issue is not the 99.995% of owners who don't commit murder, its the 0.005% who do.

And given that the total number of firearms deaths is three times the number of murders, the number of 'responsible' owners is far smaller. There is a child under 5 killed with a firearm every week in the US.

Any gun that is accessible enough to be used in 'self-defense' within 1 minute 20 seconds is going to be accessible to a child.

Re: Rule #1 (1)

berashith (222128) | about 7 months ago | (#45694773)

the school resource officer that seemed very critical to this is actually an armed officer. Usually they are actual police. The article mentioned an armed resource officer and an unarmed faculty member that assisted in keeping this from getting out of control. I was trying to figure out how police could respond with only 1.3 minutes from entrance to death of the shooter. The idea of minutes for response is already too fast to believe. The only way to get under 2 minutes is to be on site.

I dont think arming teachers is going to be the best way to defend these places, but any shooter with a brain for strategy is going to take down the single armed resource officer before any threat is realized. Wearing tactical wardrobe is just asking to be caught.

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694583)

Seems obvious to most Europeans. ... [snip] ... in the UK, BTW.

Join the Schengen zone and the Euro zone and then we'll talk. Until then, that's the UK, not Europe.

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694763)

Seems obvious to most Europeans. And my emphasis is on 'easy'; not never no way ever, else I'd be all for unconditionally banning bleach and kitchen knives and human-driven cars too. This needs a more nuanced fix than most would like to admit I think.

I *never* want to see permits for concealed carry or similar in the UK, BTW.

Rgds

Damon

While I lived in Texas I felt very safe walking into the bank to deposit my paycheque. I was pretty much assured nobody would be stupid enough to attempot an armed robbery in a US state which allowed conceal carry permits. When out walking to and from the grocery store in the evening I would occasionally encounter a group of youths...I kept my eyes fixed on their eyes as I approached and walked past them...They usually stepped aside even when there was plenty of space between us to pass with them widening the berth. Apparently, a clean-cut guy wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and polished boots sent a message to them.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694471)

Another school shooter on psych drugs...

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694573)

Another school shooter on psych drugs...

WHO ALSO PLAYED VIDEO GAMES

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694649)

And let's not forget he was on the Debate Team. Ban all Debate Teams!

Re:Rule #1 (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 7 months ago | (#45694503)

Even if we love punishing the innocent to stop criminals, we'll have to amend the constitution before we can ban firearms or do anything similar.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#45694595)

The constitution is up to 27 amendments now, so that's not a bar.

And removing dangerous weapons is not punishing people. Quite the contrary.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 7 months ago | (#45694615)

Well, that depends on how you look at it. You're restricting people's freedoms to stop a few people who abuse a tool, and barring extraordinarily catastrophic situations, I just can't get behind that.

Still, I'd be far less concerned if we just amended the constitution to clarify things rather than ignore it outright.

Re: Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694687)

It is when the only people who obey the law are law abiding citizens, because of course criminals obey the law right? And they don't look to prey on the weaker or defenseless like those without a gun to protect themselves say in a "gun free zone"?

Re:Rule #1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694515)

Yes, of course... let's disarm the public so that their GOVERNMENT can kill HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people instead...

Try Googling 'democide' - you blind idiot.

No doubt you're one of the idiots who believe that Sandy Hook was a real incident as well...

http://planet.infowars.com/guns/death-by-democide-the-reason-we-have-the-2nd-amendment

Try reading this:
http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/TheSecretBehindCommunismIntro.pdf

The so-called 'Russian Revolution' was a JEWISH takeover of Russia, during which the JEWS murdered around 50 MILLION Russian Christians.

All of whom were DISARMED, of course. You blind idiot.

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694555)

wat

Re:Rule #1 (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#45694679)

sorry anon, but when you use infowars as your first link, you lose all creditability. Granted infowars gets some things correct, they are blithering lunatics

Re:Rule #1 (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 7 months ago | (#45694689)

Alex Jones: Where the Whacko Left and the Whacko Right come together.

Re:Rule #1 (1, Interesting)

Ecuador (740021) | about 7 months ago | (#45694519)

Never gonna happen in the US. The even deliberately misread their constitution (Second Amendment) to proclaim their "absolute" right to bear arms (forgetting the "in a militia"). They will give you millions of reasons: it is their culture/tradition (as was slavery I guess), bad guys will always have guns so you need to defend yourself etc. Even seemingly intelligent people cannot grasp the fact that if guns are controlled, only few resourceful criminals will be able to get them. And they are traditionally not the type to walk in a school and shoot dozens of students for no reason...
I don't know, perhaps some people like the fact that there is a Columbine or a Zimmerman incident every now and then to reminisce of the old west...
At least they are marginally better than Mexico in gun related deaths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate [wikipedia.org]

Re:Rule #1 (4, Informative)

Cardcaptor_RLH85 (891550) | about 7 months ago | (#45694705)

Legally speaking, every male American citizen between the ages of 17-45 who is not an active duty member of the armed forces and every female member of the National Guard is a member of the 'militia of the United States' by federal law (10 USC 311). That militia is formed for the purpose of draft selection but, it's still a militia set up by federal law and if that doesn't meet the requirements for "A well regulated Militia" then I don't know what does. I, being a 28 year old male citizen of the United States, therefore consider myself to be a member of the well regulated militia of the United States and therefore have the right to bear arms. Even if I have not to this point chosen to exercise that particular right.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 7 months ago | (#45694709)

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the federal government outlawing slavery by making it illegal for the states to organize slave patrols.

The people who wrote it did not believe in freedom. They were slave owners.

Re:Rule #1 (5, Informative)

Binestar (28861) | about 7 months ago | (#45694721)

The constitution doesn't say "in a militia".

Re: Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694729)

Look up the definition of militia back when the country formed. It has a very different meaning than it does today, but that wouldn't support your opinion so you won't. Not that the writings of the founders clearly support gun ownership as well or anything.

But your clear lack of grasp of who obeys laws probably makes it impossible to grasp the above anyways. Since the data clearly shows an increase in violent crime (including gun crime) when the average citizen cannot protect themselves.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

Re:Rule #1 (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#45694759)

ecuador, if you deliberately do not understand what the militia is in our country (every able bodied man is technically militia)

Columbine was a horrible disaster, but they would have used explosives if they didnt have guns, we were not stopping them by getting rid of guns, we would have stopped them with better mental health

As for Zimmerman, perhaps trayvon should not have attacked him, Now you are against a man defending himself as well?

What is the liberal fascination with differentiating "gun deaths" and "deaths" as if using a gun somehow makes it worse. Now lets dig deeper into those "gun deaths" how many are gang related? outlawing guns wont stop that as they are using them illegally anyway

how many are suicide? if someone wants to kill themselves, they are going to. So if we take away gang shootings and suicides, what is our new number?? THAT is the number that is actually relevant here.

Re:Rule #1 (5, Informative)

Major Blud (789630) | about 7 months ago | (#45694793)

I think you're the one to misread the constitution:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This was clarified in District of Columbia v. Heller:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [wikipedia.org]

Re:Rule #1 (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#45694575)

correction, the first rule should be to allow mature adults to carry their weapons on them. Who decides who the "general public" is? I dont want a ruling class with guns and a population without. If that were to happen than only criminals and rulers would have guns, middle and lower class would not. In other words, to take a play from the liberal handbook

why do you hate the middle class and poor people?

Re:Rule #1 (-1, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#45694607)

correction, the first rule should be to allow mature adults to carry their weapons on them.

That American experiment isn't working too well. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

In other words, to take a play from the liberal handbook

So you're a right wing gun-nut. And semi-illiterate. Did you really have to confirm the stereotype?

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694699)

You didn't even reply to the meat of his post.

Who decides who the "general public" is?

Do you only want the ruling class to own guns?

Re:Rule #1 (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#45694787)

always ad hominem with you basil

Re:Rule #1 (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#45694827)

Always illiteracy with you ganjadude.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#45694849)

so are you going to answer the question or just keep swatting? who decides who is worthy of owning a gun?? you? obama? do you really want to live somewhere where only the ruling class has weapons??? If you are not going to answer and just throw out attacks on my typing, dont bother, save yourself the karma

Re:Rule #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694661)

Agreed. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

I am genuinely terrified at the number of people who think it's a good idea to disarm the populace. Has the "War on Drugs" and "Star Wars Holiday Special" taught us nothing?

Make gun ownership illegal in the U.S. and it will create a boon for illegal traders and smugglers in Mexico. Now we have criminals with guns and unarmed, law-abiding citizens dependent on their government to protect them.

A tragedy in any other country is success here (5, Informative)

deanklear (2529024) | about 7 months ago | (#45694685)

"Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or England. We have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 -- about one-quarter the US rate, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 -- less than one-tenth the US rate. Those figures refer to all gun deaths -- homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.

The 1996 reforms made gun laws stronger and uniform across Australia. Semi-automatic rifles were prohibited (with narrow exceptions), and the world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed from circulation and destroyed. The licensing and registration systems of all states and territories were harmonised and linked, so that a person barred from owning guns in one state can no longer acquire them in another. All gun sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means you cannot buy a gun over the internet or at a garage sale.
-
Australia didn't ban guns. Hunting and shooting are still thriving. But by adopting laws that give priority to public safety, we have saved thousands of lives."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives [theguardian.com]

Re:Rule #1 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694701)

Did you read the summary? Shooters stop shooting when they encounter armed law enforcement.

Rule #1 should be....keep armed law enforcement in schools at all times.

Or better, keep armed adults in schools at all times.

Then, the shooters wouldn't even bother entering, knowing resistance would be nearly immediate. And those that do enter anyway will be stopped immediately.

Re:Rule #1 (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 7 months ago | (#45694855)

Rule #1 should be....keep armed law enforcement in schools at all times.

I'd honestly rather not make schools more like prisons than they already are.

School shootings are rare, even if the media makes it seem like they occur often and are the cause of an untold number of deaths. Other than perhaps improving mental health care, I don't think much else should be done. Keeping armed law enforcement in schools would just be a waste of money, in my opinion.

Re:Rule #1 (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 7 months ago | (#45694761)

in china they do it with knives.

besides, a bit hard to put that cat back into the bag now.

Re:Rule #1 (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about 7 months ago | (#45694767)

We're afraid if they terk oer guns, some king will come in and try to oppress us again. As long as we have our guns, we're quite happy to live with a corrupt government that's happy to stack the deck in the favor of the wealthiest citizens in exchange for the funding to stay in power. We're quite happy to sit around and watch them dismantle all the social safety nets and worker's benefits that our grandparents' unions negotiated, and the only down side is one or two massacres a day. They're so common now that usually if only two or three people get shot, it won't even be reported on the national news. And we like it that way. Obviously. Anyone who tries to terk oer guns quickly finds themselves un-elected. After Sandy Hook, a couple of Colorado Democrats passed some legislation that stated something to the effect of if you were mentally ill you couldn't get a gun. One of them was recalled and another resigned because it looked as if the recall effort was going to pass. But hey, at least some king isn't oppressing us!

Re: Rule #1 (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 7 months ago | (#45694833)

When we first solve the problem of how to prevent marijuana from being sold in the U.S. illegally and the massive smuggling industry surrounding drugs, then we can consider working on gun restrictions.

Open borders and crime cartels don't mix well with the idea of banning things that people want.

Injustice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694847)

Punishing the innocent along with the guilty is unjust. Taking handguns away from responsible people because someone ELSE might abuse THEIR gun is unjust.

Making the general population even MORE VULNERABLE to crime (by being even less able to respond with lethal force), merely invites crime.

Why do shooters go to schools? Because *nobody there will shoot back.*

Fear tends to hijack the reasoning process, driving people to do the exact opposite of what actually makes sense. Empowering people to defend themselves against threats is a better response than trying to use the law to make the threat go away (which it won't).

Sick kids (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694411)

We should be reading the text book on how to prevent this kind of tragedies. Treat cause and not sympthoms.

I don't see saved lives but 2 lost lives.

No silver bullet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694475)

I happen to have a member of my distant family who did something quite violent - to his own family. Fortunately, no one died but he did spend 10 years in prison.

1. He liked to smoke pot and drink.

2. His parents were pretty ignorant about mental illness and are quite angry people. They are also VERY indulgent of him and his family said that was always the case because he was the only boy - his sisters were treated very strictly.

3. He was later diagnosed with bi-polar and schizophrenia after pestering the psychiatrist and insisting that he was hearing voices.

4. He is still a very angry person and prone to raging outbursts over the dumbest things.

What caused it? Mental illness? Drug and alcohol use/abuse? Ignorant parents? Over indulgent parents? Anger issues?

All the above?

I have my own hypothesis: he has no self control and after committing his crime, being too chicken to face up to it, faked being mentally ill (REAL easy to do) so to preserve some relationship with is immediate family.

Re:No silver bullet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694811)

I happen to have a member of my distant family who did something quite violent - to his own family. Fortunately, no one died but he did spend 10 years in prison.

1. He liked to smoke pot and drink.

2. His parents were pretty ignorant about mental illness and are quite angry people. They are also VERY indulgent of him and his family said that was always the case because he was the only boy - his sisters were treated very strictly.

3. He was later diagnosed with bi-polar and schizophrenia after pestering the psychiatrist and insisting that he was hearing voices.

4. He is still a very angry person and prone to raging outbursts over the dumbest things.

What caused it? Mental illness? Drug and alcohol use/abuse? Ignorant parents? Over indulgent parents? Anger issues?

All the above?

I have my own hypothesis: he has no self control and after committing his crime, being too chicken to face up to it, faked being mentally ill (REAL easy to do) so to preserve some relationship with is immediate family.

Lack of self-control is a mental health issue just not in the way you define mental illness. Some people over self-control to the point they will commit suicide instead. Both are examples of mental illness.

Re:Sick kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694593)

We should be reading the text book on how to prevent this kind of tragedies. Treat cause and not sympthoms.

I don't see saved lives but 2 lost lives.

As a point of fact Claire Davis (the victim) is not dead, but injured. You have the right point though.

Re:Sick kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694683)

We should be reading the text book on how to prevent this kind of tragedies. Treat cause and not sympthoms.

I don't see saved lives but 2 lost lives.

If you treat the cause, then there would be no shooting, and so there would be no hero, no success story, and no credit for the man in charge.

The whole system is setup to encourage after the fact heroism rather than tragedy prevent. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, but a pound of cure gives you more credit than a ton of prevention.

Colorado people are mentally ill. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694711)

Colorado mining companies are to blame for releasing all those metals into the environment causing mental illness.

this is not a test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694419)

if this were a test...... you would be getting some questions to answer

sad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694427)

So sad the news is

Columbine really revolutionized the way law enforcement responds to active shooters.

instead of

Columbine really revolutionized the way society identifies and treats those in need of psychological support in order to avoid them turning into active shooters.

Re:sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694481)

Damn, and I JUST used the last of my last mod points before seeing this ....

Re: sad (2)

chipperdog (169552) | about 7 months ago | (#45694513)

+1 that comment....let's prevent people from wanting to shoot up a school instead of being proud of knowing how to deal with the situation after the fact.

Re: sad (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 7 months ago | (#45694621)

Yes. This is the thing nobody seems to care about. The thing nobody focuses on.

Re: sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694861)

Yes. This is the thing nobody seems to care about. The thing nobody focuses on.

That's because the police (law enforcement) won't get their military-grade weapons if they focus on the real issue "prevent people from wanting to shoot up a school instead of being proud of knowing how to deal with the situation after the fact".

So what have we learned (5, Insightful)

skovnymfe (1671822) | about 7 months ago | (#45694429)

The way to deal with shooter situations is having a better emergency procedures? What about all the hidden surveillance and monitoring and CCTVs and metal detectors and RFID tags? What did they do to help?

Re:So what have we learned (4, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | about 7 months ago | (#45694483)

The way to deal with shooter situations is having a better emergency procedures? What about all the hidden surveillance and monitoring and CCTVs and metal detectors and RFID tags? What did they do to help?

Ensure reelection of officials by pretending to do something?

Re:So what have we learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694487)

And why is this on Slashdot? It's as relevant to nerds than the Mandela story...

Re:So what have we learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694601)

The way to deal with shooter situations is having a better emergency procedures? What about all the hidden surveillance and monitoring and CCTVs and metal detectors and RFID tags? What did they do to help?

They stopped the shootings you didn't hear about because they didn't happen. Dumbass. Does every safety measure have to apply in every situation? "Oh i broke my foot! Get the medivac helicopter out here to save me otherwise why the fuck do we have medivac helicopters!!???!?!?!"

We stil haven't taken the right actions (1, Insightful)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 7 months ago | (#45694457)

1) Ban guns or at least implement proper gun control.

Re:We stil haven't taken the right actions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694557)

Aren't guns already banned in school? Ohh I know let's ban murder. I can't believe we haven't implemented this sweeping legislation yet. Ohh that is right we have.

If we so serverely restrict gun, that creating a gun would be similar to faking a dollar bill, or building a dirty bomb, no doubt gun violence would go down. However I would not want to live in such a society where freedom is sacraficed in favor of safety. I would rather live in a society where everyone is armed. Sure there may be a few more accidental deaths, but there would be less helpless victims.

Gun violence is going down. Media sensationalism is going up.

Shotguns (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 7 months ago | (#45694715)

Shotguns are Vice President Joe Biden's preferred weapon. Less evil that all other guns and apparently politically correct.

I would, however, discard his advice on shooting through a door. That will most certainly land you in jail.

more gun control? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694569)

How about arming the teachers who can respond within seconds instead of murderous minutes?

The crooks will always have guns - so yes, YOU disarm yourself and put a sign on your back "I have no gun" and walk around like you have some magic circle protecting you -- show us all how its done.

Dont forget to walk in the bad part of town to aid in proving your theory.

So that means LE fucked up the first time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694477)

If they fucked up once they can fuck up again. Why should the people revere LE as Gods when they are in fact falible. I say take justice into your own hands. If every kid in the school had been armed, maybe no lives would be lost. Instead some innocent young girl has to die because the anti gun nazi want a helpless population. Wont someone think of the children. How many kids have to die before they are allowed to have the basic hardware to defend themselves.

Cops and Gang Stars working hand in hand to ensure your kids are helpless and hooked on drugs.

feeling lucky punk ? (2, Insightful)

TTL0 (546351) | about 7 months ago | (#45694497)

"school shooters typically continue firing until confronted by law enforcement."

Right. Because Sister Mary Elephant yelling "young man, put that thing down" just wont work. So maybe it's time to have armed guards and metal detectors as part of a larger strategy to help stop these incidents.

Re:feeling lucky punk ? (2)

fatphil (181876) | about 7 months ago | (#45694581)

Just won't work? Nonsense! You know why nuns look frumpy? Because they've got full kevlar under that habit, and are packing at least two carbines too.

The Teabagger answer: (-1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about 7 months ago | (#45694571)

Give ALL kids weapons. That way, they can all police themselves! After all, it's what George Washington wanted!

Re: The Teabagger answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694783)

That is a great idea! I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Just Make sure everyone get basic gun safety (a federal requirement for gun ownership) and crime rates will plummet. Now if we could only get those whose agenda is to take away all the guns from law abiding gun owners on board!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

Friends Don't Let Friends Play DOOM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694617)

nt

This shows we still haven't really learned (5, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#45694781)

The lesson we keep ignoring is that the root of the overwhelming vast majority of these cases is the same: mental health. Our country continues to completely ignore the elephant in the room. Until we improve access to mental health care, and de-stigmatize the pursuit of mental health treatment, we will continue to have unstable individuals in our society who will do this to us. We don't necessarily need to lock them all up, many can be treated; but they all need access to help.

Our current health care system fails miserably at this. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 (aka "affordable care act", aka "Obamacare") does almost nothing for this problem.

Underlying cause: Still not addressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45694843)

"shooting at Arapahoe High School, just 10 miles from the scene of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting"

So the underlying causes that cause these shootings have not been addressed in the slightest. That would be too much work and would require some thought about the high schools system social deficiencies.

Now they are patting themselves on the back about how well they "neutralised" the kid. Morons of the highest order.

Education system that creates such damaged individuals is clearly flawed... and there are thousands of equally fucked up people who graduate but would go into high government and military/corporate/police positions. The death toll they incur in positions of power daily dwarfs these shooters.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...