No Coincidence... school shootings connected to Internet use

Let it Rupp wrote:

Meh, there were mass shootings before the internet. After Columbine, they have seemed to be sensationalized in the media. It seems the Columbine shooters have paved the way for other social outcasts to have an outlet for their rage.

When I was in HS, a kid brought a gun to school and during class change it went off in his backpack and the bulletin struck a girl.

The incident was barely covered by the local news and no mention nationally. Contrastingly, a similar incident at a school a few days ago was covered for a few days by the national news.

By your logic the areas in the USA with the strictest anti gun laws would have the fewest gun killings. And yet the reality is the opposite.

it's not hard wrote:

CuriousPerson wrote:

the shear *number* of guns

I think the word you were looking for is sheer.

I think the quotation marks for which you were looking surround the word “sheer”.

Maybe connected. I was in 10th grade and took the day off with

a cold (Jan 1979) to watch Brenda Spencer on her shooting spree

in San Diego. That case was attributed to "abusive parents and mental illness".

Ironically, and years later found the coverage (during Columbine)

to be template for CNN's repeat video coverage.

Public policy and the expansion of the internet closes the doors to

those who cannot afford them, being a teen today, can become like

living in a dingy amongst sharks and battleships. Thus, media devices

not connected to school activities should be banned.

And what I've been proposing for the past 40 years, there should

be compulsory Military service in the United States of America before

high school graduation.

In light of the situation, for those of you non-fiction fans should read

"The Vanishing Neighbor: The Transformation of American Community by

Marc Dunkleman." Dunkleman, brings up a lot of players like Alvin Toffler

who foresaw, the grim America we walk today. I'm also noticing

public shools shuttering and for profit privates being put in their place.

The people who can afford those schools? The rich immigrants.

"The Battle of North Hollywood" was notable for, among other reasons, the fact that the instigators used semi-automatic weapons and the responding police had handguns and shotguns.

This incident sparked law enforcement to realize they better have guns as capable as the criminals were using. So logically, it's okay in the NRA supporters' minds to allow teenagers to have military-grade weaponry. I'm not saying the 2nd Amendment is illogical. I'm saying the NRA interpretation of it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

I'm so old I remember when AOL mailed out handguns with software CDs.

In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that you could not be held in a mental institution against your will unless you were a danger to yourself or others.

In the 43 years prior to 1975, there were 4 mass shootings resulting in 29 deaths. That's an average of about one per decade. In the 43 years after 1975, there were (get ready) 150 mass shootings resulting in 864 deaths. That's an average of 38 mass shootings every ten years. If that’s not startling enough, in the 43 years since 1975, there have only been 6 years when there wasn’t a mass shooting.

What has changed since 1975?

One clue I've turned up relates to the NRA. From Wikipedia:

After 1977, the (National Rifle Association) expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them are Republicans.

Ronald Dump wrote:

sayer of uhhh.... no wrote:

uhhh.... no, it's a logical viewpoint.

Do you have any idea how many felons carry guns? They already face immediate jail time for. You want to disarm regular citizens while leaving the guys who are already committing most of the crimes untouched.

Says the NRA using the fear factor. Works well apparently.

It can be done effectively.

Whether it should be is the question much like treatment of mental illness as just part of the larger discussion which no one wants to have...the original point.

Uhhh.... no. I don't even listen to the NRA. Much prefer NPR, the wholesome radio.

It's common sense, brah. Criminals be criminals. Felons be felons. They keep they guns, I keep mine.

I was reading in the NYTimes that in Israel you have to be 27 to own a gun or 21 if you've completed military service. I would totally support something like that in the US. We need to move away from the gun fetish and guns being like toys. Upping the age limit sends a message about what society expects from people.

I blame bitcoin

Exactly.

I can't have a rocket launcher, so why another military gun? Not selling AR-15s, or selling those only to 'adults,' or not selling bump stocks, or not selling so much ammo, or screening people, none of this goes against the 2nd, unless you're the NRA as of 1975 or whatever. You want to point figures, point them at the NRA, and our "leaders" who accept money from them.

Bottom line here is, we are going to have more, and more, and more of this incidents. At what point is that too much? I know the Repubs want to kill us all with Oxy now (200,000 or something in this decade), but come on!

hypedupguy wrote:

I was reading in the NYTimes that in Israel you have to be 27 to own a gun or 21 if you've completed military service. I would totally support something like that in the US. We need to move away from the gun fetish and guns being like toys. Upping the age limit sends a message about what society expects from people.

Honestly, I think it would be more effective to put background checks on ammo purchases. Currently, any felon in possession of a gun can waltz in anywhere and pick up a few rounds to knock off anyone he wants. Background check would at least drive much of that to the black market where hopefully prices would make it somewhat prohibitive.

Beep beep wrote:

Exactly.

I can't have a rocket launcher, so why another military gun? Not selling AR-15s, or selling those only to 'adults,' or not selling bump stocks, or not selling so much ammo, or screening people, none of this goes against the 2nd, unless you're the NRA as of 1975 or whatever. You want to point figures, point them at the NRA, and our "leaders" who accept money from them.

Bottom line here is, we are going to have more, and more, and more of this incidents. At what point is that too much? I know the Repubs want to kill us all with Oxy now (200,000 or something in this decade), but come on!

Uh.... no. AR-15s are not military guns. At least mine can't fire in full auto mode. Where can I get one that can?

You gun nuts have your heads up your collective butts.

I don't have guns, nor do I care to have one. I don't care if you have one, but your insistence that if I don't know every single fact about guns that you do, proves my point here. Cops had handguns and shotguns at the Hollywood Shootout referenced on this thread. Cops did. Yet now, it's okay for teens to have guns that CAN SHOOT IN RAPID SUCCESSION FAST. How's that? Is that accurate now? Are you happy?

WHY should anyone not shooting at 'terrorists' have a gun that CAN SHOOT IN RAPID SUCCESSION FAST? Speaking of terrorists, what's with these white dudes in the US terrorizing us with guns that CAN SHOOT IN RAPID SUCCESSION FAST? Why do ya'll support TERRORISTS.

Pull your head out, would you?

Beep beep wrote:

Are you happy?

WHY should anyone not shooting at 'terrorists' have a gun that CAN SHOOT IN RAPID SUCCESSION FAST?

Uh.... no. Any intruder who enters my home is a terrorist and must be dealt with by guns that CAN SHOOT IN RAPID SUCCESSION FAST. I like the dumbing down part. That is good. But you forgot CAN SHOOT IN RAPID SUCCESSION FAST WITHOUT RUNNING OUT OF AMMO FOR LONG LONG TIME.

So buy a machine gun, you tough man. Kill all those bad guys coming into your house. Only that weapon will protect you. Only a machine gun. Go on, tough man.

Two small rural schools shut down today for potential bomb or gun threats.

http://crawfordcountynow.com/