School shooting in CO

[Gumbo4x4]

Very few people have real assault rifles. Most people, including incompetent dishonest politicians, have co-opted the term to mean just about every gun.

And in all honesty, there is nothing magical about a real assault weapon, much less an assault style weapon. The military switched from battle rifles to assault rifles to save weight so soldiers could carry more gear. Having such a weapon is important if you're going to be shot at, but if shooting at defenseless victims, almost any centerfire gun will have the same effect.

All that said, Domo brings up a fair point about sanity. If we look at Gifford's shooter, Aurora, Va Tech, and Newtown, these were clearly disturbed individuals (and its been rumored all were on various meds). But, there are many other cases of sane people doing awful things.

 

[luvmy3]

I know you guys think I'm nuts about this but rise in drugging children has seen rise in school shootings and higher violence rate in teens.

You can ignore it all you want but I swear the adhd Meds are part of it.

Have all the kids who have committed school shootings been on medication to treat ADHD?

 

[declansdad]

No more mental illness, I have never seen a gun kill someone.

Maybe it's time to arm teachers, not ban guns

I know you guys think I'm nuts about this but rise in drugging children has seen rise in school shootings and higher violence rate in teens.

You can ignore it all you want but I swear the adhd Meds are part of it.

We are talking school shootings. Which are 90 plus percent students.

It's really funny how armed commercial flights don't get high jack in pre 9/11 know terrorist countries!

 

[AndyLL]

Colorado also has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and even stricter ones were enacted this year after the Aurora theater shooting.

We have had 2 legislators recalled and another resign before she was recalled due to them supporting the new incredibly strict gun laws.

Magpul has threatened to leave the state, although they are still here.

And yet, even with the incredibly strict gun laws, we have another school shooting.

I don't know what you are talking about...

Colorado has fairly lax laws:

There are no gun bans
We have a 'make your day' law
Lax conceal laws
Open carry allowed

The 'new incredibly strict gun laws' you refer to are universal background checks ( which over 80% of NRA members support ) and the restriction of large magazines.

 

[Anastasi]

I know you guys think I'm nuts about this but rise in drugging children has seen rise in school shootings and higher violence rate in teens.

You can ignore it all you want but I swear the adhd Meds are part of it.

Hmmm.. wonder if there were ADHD drugs in 1764, the first documented school shooting, where a headmaster and 10 children were shot.

or

the 2 in the 1850s (1853 and 1859)

School Shootings by Decade - (a few were accidents, but most were anger incidents)


1860's - 3
1870's - 4
1880's - 5
1890'a - 11
1900-1909 - 26
1910's - 9
1920's - 4
1930's - 12
1940's - 13
1950's - 21
1960's - 16
1980's - 24
1990's - 34
2000 - 40
2010's - 46 so far.

When you take into account the population growth, school shootings are pretty consistent per decade since the 1800's.

This decade is awfully high, but since adhd drugs have been around since the 70's, you cannot blame it on the drugs. Especially since 1900 - 1909 had a huge amount in relation to the population of students and there were no adhd drugs at that time.

I really wish you would stop your campaign on adhd meds. I have adhd. I take adhd meds as does one of my children (it is familial.) It is just as legitimate a chemical imbalance as my thyroid not working and having to take synthroid to compensate.

The way I feel with the meds is incredible compared to when I don't take them

You are making kids that need their meds feel like outcasts.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The 'new incredibly strict gun laws' you refer to are universal background checks ( which over 80% of NRA members support ) and the restriction of large magazines.

If like to know where you get that stat. 100% of NRA members know there is no effective way to enforce universal background checks without registration. And the % of NRA members who support registration is very, very small.

 

[skatalite]

If like to know where you get that stat. 100% of NRA members know there is no effective way to enforce universal background checks without registration. And the % of NRA members who support registration is very, very small.

Here's where the information about NRA members and universal background checks comes from:

Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s organization, Luntz Global, conducted a May 2012 poll of 945 gun owners nationwide, half of whom were gun owners who were "current or lapsed" members of the National Rifle Association and half of whom were non-NRA gun owners. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The poll found that 82 percent of gun owners were in favor of required background checks on all firearm purchases, including 74 percent of individuals with current or former memberships in the NRA.

So, the information AndyLL mentioned is nearly correct (his number is a bit off), within context of this poll of 945 people.

But there's also this poll that AndyLL might be referring to: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512?query=featured_home&

Or, and most possibly, this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/poll-shows-school-shooting-sways-views-on-guns.html?_r=0

 

[goofy!]

I don't know what you are talking about...

Colorado has fairly lax laws:

There are no gun bans
We have a 'make your day' law
Lax conceal laws
Open carry allowed

The 'new incredibly strict gun laws' you refer to are universal background checks ( which over 80% of NRA members support ) and the restriction of large magazines.

Ok..You tell that to all my gun toting friends who are up in arms (pun intended) about all the regulations and new restrictions on gun ownership that went into effect in July.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Here's where the information about NRA members and universal background checks comes from:

Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s organization, Luntz Global, conducted a May 2012 poll of 945 gun owners nationwide, half of whom were gun owners who were "current or lapsed" members of the National Rifle Association and half of whom were non-NRA gun owners. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The poll found that 82 percent of gun owners were in favor of required background checks on all firearm purchases, including 74 percent of individuals with current or former memberships in the NRA.

So, the information AndyLL mentioned is nearly correct (his number is a bit off), within context of this poll of 945 people.

But there's also this poll that AndyLL might be referring to: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512?query=featured_home&

Or, and most possibly, this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/poll-shows-school-shooting-sways-views-on-guns.html?_r=0

NRA members only constitute ~5-6% of the gun owners in the US, so I would find it a little odd that half the guns owners are "current or former" members. Makes the #'s pretty suspect.

Now, that said, the IDEA of universal background checks makes sense on every level. That's why it's required of any new firearm purchase, any sales from a dealer (new or used), or any private sales that involve shipment of the firearm (which must be facilitated by a dealer).

The reality of it though is that to carry that over to private, face to face sales of used guns (the only category not currently covered), would be unenforceable without registration. There is simply no other way for it to work. And when you ask how gun owners feel about registration and the fees that are sure to accompany these transactions (NRA members or not), you're gonna get an entirely different answer.

 

[AndyLL]

Ok..You tell that to all my gun toting friends who are up in arms (pun intended) about all the regulations and new restrictions on gun ownership that went into effect in July.

Because they are idiots that listen to the fear mongering of Fox News?

I don't know what to tell you... you even pointed out in a PP that the requirements for a CC are a joke.

There were other proposed laws that were much stricter that were voted down by the legislature.

 

[marlynnp]

We are talking school shootings. Which are 90 plus percent students.

It's really funny how armed commercial flights don't get high jack in pre 9/11 know terrorist countries!

What exactly is "really funny"?
There's nothing remotely funny about this topic or terrorism.
I suppose one could say that your constant lack of an ability to form a coherent post is funny; but sad and pathetic is actually what comes to mind.

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

We can talk all we want about how we need stricter gun control laws but all you have to do is look at Chicago (strictest in our nation) and compare that to Salt Lake City (most lenient in our country) to see that making stricter laws that will only be followed by the law-abiding citizens (because, by definition, they are the ones of follow laws) does not make a hill of beans difference. So then we have to ask our selves why Chicago, with its incredibly strict gun control laws, has such high gun violence crime rates and Salt Lake City, with it very lax gun control laws has such a low gun violence crime rate. Now, I'm not saying that correlation is causation here. But this does make quite the argument that stricter laws do not lead to lower rates in gun related crimes and more lenient gun control laws do not lead to higher rates of gun related crimes. So what else could be the cause? Why is the rate so much lower in Salt Lake City than in Chicago? Answer that question and you are well on your way to helping get gun related violence under control.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Taking away guns won't solve the problems, and better mental health treatments may not help either. People don't have to be "sick" to want to do damage to people, things, etc. When I was in high school, way back in early 1980s three of the boys in my school decided to make a bomb, with timer, real gun powder and shrapnel and everything. Why? Because they wanted to see if they could. There was no motive beyond, let's make a bomb and see what happens when we set it off. There was no mental illness, no desire to kill any specific people, no political motivations. Just three of the smartest kids in the school with a desire to test the limits of their scientific knowledge and a desire to see what happens when you blow things up. Oh, and it blew up. In a big way. The FBI was involved and the ATF. Happy days around here. The only people injured were the kids who made the bomb but it could have been sooo much worse.

Best wishes to everyone at the school. So sad this happened so close to the anniversary of Sandy Hook.

But no one who is mentally healthy would want to do something like that. Mental health is just like all other areas of health, you can be slightly ill or severely ill. Just because someone is sane or functional, or undiagnosed, it doesn't mean they're healthy mentally.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

We can talk all we want about how we need stricter gun control laws but all you have to do is look at Chicago (strictest in our nation) and compare that to Salt Lake City (most lenient in our country) to see that making stricter laws that will only be followed by the law-abiding citizens (because, by definition, they are the ones of follow laws) does not make a hill of beans difference. So then we have to ask our selves why Chicago, with its incredibly strict gun control laws, has such high gun violence crime rates and Salt Lake City, with it very lax gun control laws has such a low gun violence crime rate. Now, I'm not saying that correlation is causation here. But this does make quite the argument that stricter laws do not lead to lower rates in gun related crimes and more lenient gun control laws do not lead to higher rates of gun related crimes. So what else could be the cause? Why is the rate so much lower in Salt Lake City than in Chicago? Answer that question and you are well on your way to helping get gun related violence under control.

Yup, it's a socio-economic issue.

I read a statistic (of course you know what they say about those) claiming somewhere around 2/3 of firearms related homicide "victims" in the US are criminals engaged in criminal activity at the time of being shot - shot by the police, their intended victims, or (most often) rival criminals. I do know that nearly 70% of the homicides (of all types) in my state take place within the city limits of Kansas City or St Louis despite those cities accounting for less than 15% of the population and less than 1/2 of 1% of the land mass of the state. And even within those cities, the violent crime is mostly confined to a handful of relatively small neighborhoods. It gives pause for thought.

Now, as pro-gun as I am, I'm not one who subscribes to the theory of sticking a gun in the hands of EVERYONE as something that would solve crime anymore than trying to take guns FROM everyone would. But, clearly there is more to this issue than guns.

 

[LSmith]

.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But no one who is mentally healthy would want to do something like that. Mental health is just like all other areas of health, you can be slightly ill or severely ill. Just because someone is sane or functional, or undiagnosed, it doesn't mean they're healthy mentally.

Well, I can't argue that as I've always felt the same. Still, there is a difference between someone who does evil and someone who does evil without really knowing what they're doing. There probably isn't any way to regulate the former, but the latter? I don't know. Maybe we could do more there.

 

[3boymthr]

But no one who is mentally healthy would want to do something like that. Mental health is just like all other areas of health, you can be slightly ill or severely ill. Just because someone is sane or functional, or undiagnosed, it doesn't mean they're healthy mentally.

But they weren't "mentally ill", in any way shape or form. Unless you count a desire to watch things explode as being mentally ill. And if you do then all the people on myth busters need to be medicated as does everyone who watches that show and goes "that is sooo coool." That's about 2 million people, more if you count the ones who watch it on netflix or on demand or you tube. If these kids had been mentally ill or evil then things would have gone south in a much worse way because we had some serious geeks in the group.

 

[Liberty Belle]

But they weren't "mentally ill", in any way shape or form. Unless you count a desire to watch things explode as being mentally ill. And if you do then all the people on myth busters need to be medicated as does everyone who watches that show and goes "that is sooo coool." That's about 2 million people, more if you count the ones who watch it on netflix or on demand or you tube. If these kids had been mentally ill or evil then things would have gone south in a much worse way because we had some serious geeks in the group.

I completely disagree. No, not everyone who likes to watch explosions is significantly or necessarily mentally ill (though again, mental illness, just like other illness, is on a spectrum ranging from low self esteem or mild anxiety, etc to psychosis), but everyone who would purposefully set off an explosion without regard to property or people is significantly mentally ill. It doesn't mean they are insane or don't know right from wrong, but they are most certainly mentally ill.

 

[julieannboo]

YouTube Robbie Parker from last years shooting,

 

[julieannboo]

This needs to end. No more guns.

That is what the government and the upper 1% want: take away your guns, reduce your liberties, bring in Marshall law and control you.

I don't know any info about this shooting but has anyone ever noticed when something like this happens it always seems to be a drill that goes live.