Breaking News - Ohio School Shooting

[Revoltingest]

U.S. News - Report: 4 hurt in Ohio high school shooting

I presume that there will be a lot of legal, gun & political issues addressed, but what struck me was an MSNBC video I just watched on TV.
A reporter was interviewing a female student at length, & the entire time, the camera focused solely on her ample decolletage. I thought
it was to shield her identity, but other students had their faces shown during their interviews. I haven't found video link yet....perhaps
it's too recent.

WTF!?!?
A little decorum would be appropriate.

 

[beenie]

At least the shooter is in custody and didn't kill himself in glory like they usually do.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least the shooter is in custody and didn't kill himself in glory like they usually do.

Ordinarily, I'm OK with perps committing suicide & saving taxpayers the expense of prosecution & incarceration, but
for kids, I hope they can re-enter society as safe & productive members. Teens can outgrow being a danger to others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is terrible.

Teens can outgrow being a danger to others.

Too bad the legal system often doesn't see it this way, even though there is plenty of science to back up the notion that teens do not have good impulse control due to their frontal lobes not being fully developed. And of course there will be the blame game. And because our system loves being hard on crime it is highly likely the shooter will not receive the help he needs to become a fully functioning and non-violent member of society.

 

[Copernicus]

That is terrible.

Too bad the legal system often doesn't see it this way, even though there is plenty of science to back up the notion that teens do not have good impulse control due to their frontal lobes not being fully developed. And of course there will be the blame game. And because our system loves being hard on crime it is highly likely the shooter will not receive the help he needs to become a fully functioning and non-violent member of society.

I agree. Our legal system is incapable of handling crimes of this sort. The only solution that ever gets implemented lately is to make the laws even more draconian. This troubled youth will probably not be the same person in 10 or 20 years, but how can we ever know that he will be safe to let out into the public again? He murdered another student and injured others. His life was ruined by his inability to control his rage and the availability of a dangerous weapon. And he has caused horrible injury to the lives of others. Meanwhile, the legal system is caught between the desire to rehabilitate the criminal and the desire to punish and discard. You can't do both.

 

[Revoltingest]

Law enforcement types are all over the place after the shooting. The kid is in custody, yet we see a herd of black-clad
helmeted SWAT guys milling around with big weapons but nothing to do. What purpose do they serve in this capacity?
They talk of how schools should be safer than other locations, but nothing is done except to make plans for lock down
procedures. No teachers are armed, not cops are posted there, & parents are prohibited from being armed. It's a
recipe for carnage.

 

[Copernicus]

The reason that they don't arm teachers and parents is that that would be a recipe for more carnage. Our history has too many examples of vigilantism gone bad. Even police, who are trained to use firearms, make mistakes of judgment in situations where there is a perceived threat of physical violence. Parents and teachers are not trained for those situations. Giving a lot of people guns just multiplies the chances that more innocent people will be injured or killed. The way to handle violence is to seek ways to defuse it, not to multiply the chances that people will get shot. Guns are not really good defensive weapons, and the best defense is not an offense when there are a lot of innocent bystanders in the vicinity.

 

[Revoltingest]

The reason that they don't arm teachers and parents is that that would be a recipe for more carnage. Our history has too many examples of vigilantism gone bad. Even police, who are trained to use firearms, make mistakes of judgment in situations where there is a perceived threat of physical violence. Parents and teachers are not trained for those situations. Giving a lot of people guns just multiplies the chances that more innocent people will be injured or killed. The way to handle violence is to seek ways to defuse it, not to multiply the chances that people will get shot. Guns are not really good defensive weapons, and the best defense is not an offense when there are a lot of innocent bystanders in the vicinity.

That all makes sense to consider. The problem is that in any situation with both costs & benefits, to focus only upon the costs as an argument is illusory.
Consider arming teachers: Are they really so likely to rampage or shoot innocents that it's preferable that everyone be unarmed & captive at the hands
of a mass murderer? I don't buy that. Millions of us legally carry concealed weapons. You may decry the costs of 'vigilantism' (what I'd call self-defense),
but this must be balanced by the benefit of using guns for self-defense (many tens of thousands of times per year in the US).
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.
I couldn't find reliable figures for vigilantism's pros & cons. What have you found?
Even if the costs & benefits were about equal, I'd er on the side of individual choice, responsibility & empowerment. To rely solely upon government to
protect us (or rather, clean up after the carnage from lack of protection) is a recipe for their ever greater authority over us. Yet courts have ruled that
cops have no legal duty to protect us. Personal protection is a personal responsibility. Ain't nobody gots to do it for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

When I'd pick up my kids at school, I'd have to leave my handgun in a safe in my truck. That's a step ignored by illegal carriers.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd love to see parents and teachers armed to the teeth. That way, we could have real bloodbaths. None of this five wounded crap. How about thirty killed instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd love to see parents and teachers armed to the teeth. That way, we could have real bloodbaths. None of this five wounded crap. How about thirty killed instead.

There's no refuting that logic.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Better shooting facilities are needed in schools.
Students need a suitable war games area with live shooting, to let off steam.
They would only need to sign a waiver at the gate.

Survivors of three games should have direct entry into the armed forces, with merit.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Law enforcement types are all over the place after the shooting. The kid is in custody, yet we see a herd of black-clad
helmeted SWAT guys milling around with big weapons but nothing to do. What purpose do they serve in this capacity?
They talk of how schools should be safer than other locations, but nothing is done except to make plans for lock down
procedures. No teachers are armed, not cops are posted there, & parents are prohibited from being armed. It's a
recipe for carnage.

Quite often, through no real fault of their own, police officers who are trained make fatal errors for one reason or another, and when it comes to thinking of who to shoot we as a nation do not well and display a very clear racial bias.
UC SPiRL

Our research has provided robust evidence of racial bias in decisions to shoot (Correll, Park, Judd & Wittenbrink, 2002; Correll, Park, Judd, Wittenbrink, Sadler & Keesee, in press; Correll, Urland & Ito, 2006). Participants shoot an armed target more quickly and more often when that target is Black, rather than White. However, participants decide not to shoot an unarmed target more quickly and more often when the target is White, rather than Black. In essence, participants seem to process stereotype-consistent targets (armed Blacks and unarmed Whites) more easily than counterstereotypic targets (unarmed Blacks and armed Whites).

Moreover, by recording fluctuations in the brain's electrical activity (ERPs), we have observed that participants differentiate between Black and White targets about 230 milliseconds after the target appears on screen. This type of differentiation has also been observed when participants see a threatening (vs. a non-threatening) image. Strikingly, the more participants differentiate by target race (processing Black targets as if they were threats), the more bias they show on our task (Correll, Urland & Ito, 2006; see Ito & Urland, 2003, 2004, for more on race and ERPs).

The answer does not lie in flooding society with more guns. What we need are stricter laws on who can and can't own a gun, and harsher penalties for careless gun owners. There were four people shot, two killed, where I live because someone left a gun unattended and and in an insecure location and someone who has schizophrenia took it. Why shouldn't the owner be held responsible because his negligence and carelessness allowed for the crimes to happen?

Consider arming teachers: Are they really so likely to rampage or shoot innocents that it's preferable that everyone be unarmed & captive at the hands
of a mass murderer? I don't buy that.

An overworked and overstressed teacher would be in a very high risk position for shooting.
Teacher burnout - WikEd

Descriptions

• When a teacher cannot perform the day-to-day duties of teaching due to a sense of tiredness, frustration, exhaustion, and/or hopelessness. The teacher either leaves the situation or stays in the same position and, in general, is unsuccessful or ineffective as a teacher.
• A teacher's loss of idealism and enthusiasm for work (Matheny, Gfroerer, and Harris 2000).
• "An extreme type of role-specific alienation with a focus on feelings of meaninglessness, especially as this applies to one's ability to successfully reach students" (Wood, McCarthy 2000).
• "Syndrome resulting from teachers' inability to protect themselves against threats to their self esteem and well being" (Haberman)

People should take steps to protect themselves, but we should also be able to expect a reasonable amount of protection from the government, such as making it so people who are mentally unstable and potentially violent cannot own guns. They could even make gun safety courses mandatory for everyone in the household, and require people to be safety certified for guns. They could even penalize careless owners. But the fact is more guns and people arming themselves does not fix the fact we kill more people with guns alone per year than overall murder rates for a handful of nations combined over the course of multiple generations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Better shooting facilities are needed in schools.
Students need a suitable war games area with live shooting, to let off steam.
They would only need to sign a waiver at the gate.

Survivors of three games should have direct entry into the armed forces, with merit.

When I was in high school, target shooting was a varsity sport. We had our own range. (I was captain one year, & did pretty well.)
We brought our rifles to school, which had rifles for those kids who lacked their own. Never had a problem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When I was in high school, target shooting was a varsity sport. We had our own range. (I was captain one year, & did pretty well.)
We brought our rifles to school, which had rifles for those kids who lacked their own. Never had a problem.

Am I correct to assume you had to have an outstanding behavior record to bring your guns to school, and probably good grades as well like most other sports? The reason I ask is that it may be the environment was regulated and responsible enough to allow for such actions.
I don't have a problem with gun ownership, and I would be blind to believe gun ownership in itself causes problems when Canada has guns but not the problem. But we do need to take steps to correct our problem and it is not by having more guns. The government shouldn't have to step in to tell people to be more responsible, but as high as our gun crime rate is and as irresponsible as Americans can be unless a very dramatic change in the paradigms of Americans happens there may not be many other options.
Personally, I favor mandatory gun safety classes, especially if and for kids if an applying owner has any.

 

[Copernicus]

Consider arming teachers: Are they really so likely to rampage or shoot innocents that it's preferable that everyone be unarmed & captive at the hands of a mass murderer? I don't buy that. Millions of us legally carry concealed weapons. You may decry the costs of 'vigilantism' (what I'd call self-defense), but this must be balanced by the benefit of using guns for self-defense (many tens of thousands of times per year in the US).
Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

I do not consider Gary Kleck an unbiased researcher in these debates. I think that you hit the nail on the head earlier when you suggested that we needed guns to protect against the vast number of stolen and lost guns. The existence of the vast pool of legal guns is what keeps so many criminals so well-armed. The solution provides a positive feedback loop to the problem. Kleck doesn't tend to see any side but the pro-gun side.

I will just re-emphasize my point about arming teachers. I agree that MOST teachers would make an effort to behave responsibly with a gun, but it is pure fantasy to think that someone who is untrained in the use of firearms and unfamiliar with violent situations would tend to behave rationally in the face of an armed individual. Even soldiers have been known to freeze under fire, and they are very highly trained and well-armed. Moreover, the presence of a firearm in every classroom would almost certainly lead to cases where irresponsible students got their hands on the weapon. The chances of that happening would probably be far more likely than the chance of the school being attacked by a gun brought in from outside. Finally--and I suspect this argument will carry more weight with you--the expense of arming every teacher and providing firearms training would really turn this idea into a taxpayer boondoggle. It just isn't feasible.

I couldn't find reliable figures for vigilantism's pros & cons. What have you found?

One of the problems with statistical arguments is that you really need to have a reliable method for collecting data. Vigilantism is related to the idea of a "citizen militia" of the "minuteman" variety. I think that George Washington had it right about that kind of armed citizen. He found such militias poorly trained and unreliable. They had one big success in the Revolutionary War, but they were mainly a distraction that seldom performed as well as Colonial and French regulars. Similarly, armed teachers and civilians make very unreliable performers under violent conditions that they are ill-prepared to respond to.

Even if the costs & benefits were about equal, I'd er on the side of individual choice, responsibility & empowerment. To rely solely upon government to protect us (or rather, clean up after the carnage from lack of protection) is a recipe for their ever greater authority over us. Yet courts have ruled that cops have no legal duty to protect us. Personal protection is a personal responsibility. Ain't nobody gots to do it for you.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - New York Times

Well, this isn't my favorite Supreme Court, but I think that their judgment on such issues is informed more by your style of libertarianism than my style of federalism. Scalia wrote the majority opinion on that, and I consider him the worst right wing ideologue on the Court. That ruling notwithstanding, the police can and will act to protect innocent lives. Civilians with guns are confusing in such situations, because the police cannot know whether someone with a gun is a friend or a foe. They have little choice but to treat any armed person in a dangerous situation as a potential foe. Armed citizens always perform well in our fantasies, but reality does not always perform as well as our fantasies.

When I'd pick up my kids at school, I'd have to leave my handgun in a safe in my truck. That's a step ignored by illegal carriers.

And some legal carriers. Why do you assume that all legal gun owners behave as intelligently or responsibly as you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Am I correct to assume you had to have an outstanding behavior record to bring your guns to school, and probably good grades as well like most other sports? The reason I ask is that it may be the environment was regulated and responsible enough to allow for such actions.

Oddly, only the best & the brightest shot competitively. <He says pompously, but correctly.>

I don't have a problem with gun ownership, and I would be blind to believe gun ownership in itself causes problems when Canada has guns but not the problem. But we do need to take steps to correct our problem and it is not by having more guns. The government shouldn't have to step in to tell people to be more responsible, but as high as our gun crime rate is and as irresponsible as Americans can be unless a very dramatic change in the paradigms of Americans happens there may not be many other options.
Personally, I favor mandatory gun safety classes, especially if and for kids if an applying owner has any.

America is different from Canada, but the improved training & storage standards I've proposed would likely benefit both.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not consider Gary Kleck an unbiased researcher in these debates.

Do you dispute it?
You're welcome to present other data.

I think that you hit the nail on the head earlier when you suggested that we needed guns to protect against the vast number of stolen and lost guns.

I've never made that argument.

The existence of the vast pool of legal guns is what keeps so many criminals so well-armed. The solution provides a positive feedback loop to the problem. Kleck doesn't tend to see any side but the pro-gun side.

You're welcome to present other data.
At some point, to do more than impugn my source is useful for discussion.

I will just re-emphasize my point about arming teachers. I agree that MOST teachers would make an effort to behave responsibly with a gun, but it is pure fantasy to think that someone who is untrained in the use of firearms and unfamiliar with violent situations would tend to behave rationally in the face of an armed individual.

That's not my "fantasy".

Even soldiers have been known to freeze under fire, and they are very highly trained and well-armed. Moreover, the presence of a firearm in every classroom would almost certainly lead to cases where irresponsible students got their hands on the weapon. The chances of that happening would probably be far more likely than the chance of the school being attacked by a gun brought in from outside. Finally--and I suspect this argument will carry more weight with you--the expense of arming every teacher and providing firearms training would really turn this idea into a taxpayer boondoggle. It just isn't feasible.

That's a rather fanciful & extreme proposal. I think something more reasonable is in order.

One of the problems with statistical arguments is that you really need to have a reliable method for collecting data. Vigilantism is related to the idea of a "citizen militia" of the "minuteman" variety. I think that George Washington had it right about that kind of armed citizen. He found such militias poorly trained and unreliable. They had one big success in the Revolutionary War, but they were mainly a distraction that seldom performed as well as Colonial and French regulars. Similarly, armed teachers and civilians make very unreliable performers under violent conditions that they are ill-prepared to respond to.

The self-defense vs war analogy doesn't sway me.
To face the risk of an armed intruder, I'd rather be armed.
I respect your right to be unarmed because you don't trust yourself.

Well, this isn't my favorite Supreme Court, but I think that their judgment on such issues is informed more by your style of libertarianism than my style of federalism. Scalia wrote the majority opinion on that, and I consider him the worst right wing ideologue on the Court. That ruling notwithstanding, the police can and will act to protect innocent lives. Civilians with guns are confusing in such situations, because the police cannot know whether someone with a gun is a friend or a foe. They have little choice but to treat any armed person in a dangerous situation as a potential foe. Armed citizens always perform well in our fantasies, but reality does not always perform as well as our fantasies.

You like that word "fantasy" to describe the thoughts of others.

And some legal carriers. Why do you assume that all legal gun owners behave as intelligently or responsibly as you?

I don't presume that (in the artful way you worded it).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not my "fantasy".

You implied that arming teachers would be a good idea, even though it is a highly stressful job in which many get burnout very quickly. Combined with other factors, such a racial bias in decision making, hesitation to actually draw or use a fire arm, and to be a teacher you should not be expected to have to potentially shoot someone. And what if the teacher where to be disarmed? And not to mention it would be very costly to train and arm teachers. And just even thinking there is a gun in class would be a detriment to many students and teachers.

 

[Revoltingest]

You implied that arming teachers would be a good idea, even though it is a highly stressful job in which many get burnout very quickly.

I envisioned that teachers who are interested & qualified would be allowed to carry in the school.
Certainly, this would require a lot of thought to implement for best results.
I know teachers who aren't stressed or burned out.
I recall one I knew who did burn out.
But I also know cops who were stressed & burned out too.

Combined with other factors, such a racial bias in decision making, hesitation to actually draw or use a fire arm, and to be a teacher you should not be expected to have to potentially shoot someone. And what if the teacher where to be disarmed? And not to mention it would be very costly to train and arm teachers. And just even thinking there is a gun in class would be a detriment to many students and teachers.

We cannot deny self-defense capability to people just cuz some might be racist.
Cops are likely as racially biased (perhaps more so) than teachers, yet we let them have far more power than mere self-defense.

 

[Copernicus]

Do you dispute it? You're welcome to present other data.

I'm not disputing Kleck's data, which are based on opinion surveys rather than more objective methods of gathering statistics. That is, people are asked about their subjective experiences with guns. Other experts on criminal statistics (e.g. Hemenway) have criticized his interpretation statistics on defensive use, and I myself am no expert on the data. You brought up the point that there is always a cost-benefits analysis to be done. Kleck typically talks about the benefits of gun ownership and almost never about the costs. Like John Lott, he is well known as a very partisan advocate for NRA causes. His motives do not make his arguments wrong, but I think that his unwillingness to look at both sides of the statistics makes him unreliable as an interpreter of the data.

That's a rather fanciful & extreme proposal. I think something more reasonable is in order.

I do, too. What kind of less extreme proposal did you have in mind?

The self-defense vs war analogy doesn't sway me. To face the risk of an armed intruder, I'd rather be armed. I respect your right to be unarmed because you don't trust yourself.

Don't get me wrong. I would rather not be unarmed if faced with an armed intruder, but I do probably trust my own instincts less than you trust yours in a potentially violent situation. I'm simply not used to firearms. Those who argue in favor of very widespread private gun ownership (which you have not necessarily done) tend to forget that not every individual is going to behave responsibly. The question is not just what the potential benefits of gun ownership are, but also the potential costs. In general, statistics suggest that guns in homes are more often used against acquaintances than strangers and intruders.

You like that word "fantasy" to describe the thoughts of others.

Only when I believe their apparent thoughts to be unrealistic. I realize that you think I have been misunderstanding your position, and I am happy to stand corrected. However, you tend to go in for denial without explaining what it is that you think instead.