School shooting in Colorado


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

On Friday (close to the 1 year anniversary of the Sandy Hook school shooting), there was a shooting at a High School in Colorado (home of the big Aurora theater shooting).

The shooting made international news:

BBC: Gunman dead after Centennial, Colorado, school shooting

CNN has a pretty decent article on it:

Colorado's school shooting -- over in 80 seconds

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.

Once he learned of the threat, he ran -- accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators -- from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. "It's a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly."

The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."

Key things from where I'm standing:

* Bad guys with guns, are stopped by good guys with guns.

* Having someone armed in this High School, probably prevented a bunch of deaths.

* Colorado's recent stupid unenforceable bad-idea gun laws, which have resulted in 2 senator recalls and one senator resignation, which most of the state's elected sheriffs are refusing to enforce, of course did absolutely nothing to prevent the shooting.

* Interesting tidbit you're not finding in most news outlets: Some of his peers are describing the shooter as "very outspoken on his political views", and "very proud of being a socialist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is alful!!!!! WE need to preach the gospel more and get more people to change their lives from bad to good.

Just to put a thought out there I wonder if all these medicines they are giving our children are really healthy for them???? Maybe that should be a different threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand why so many americans are against gun control! Seems like over the last year or 2 our hearts have been torn at by the news of yet another school shooting!

In the UK we have not had a school shooting since the Dunblane tragedy in 1996. After that regulations over who could own guns legally and how they had to be stored and even enforcement of said law, along with restrictions on where and how they could be sold were enforced! Don't get me wrong we do still have gun crime but much less and certainly not in schools.

Personally I don't think that putting more guns into schools is the solution!

Since the your constitution gives you right to bare arms why not teach mandatory gun safety classes - surely that coupled with gun control would be much more effective than putting more guns into schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand why so many americans are against gun control!

Because disarming a people is a big step in dominating them.

In the UK we have not had a school shooting since the Dunblane tragedy in 1996. After that regulations over who could own guns legally and how they had to be stored and even enforcement of said law, along with restrictions on where and how they could be sold were enforced! Don't get me wrong we do still have gun crime but much less and certainly not in schools.

Do you suppose that might have more to do with cultural differences than with firearm laws?

Personally I don't think that putting more guns into schools is the solution!

Are you speaking of arming teachers? If so, it is inaccurate and less than honest to characterize this as "putting more guns in schools", as if the critical mass of firearm proximity is the determining factor (in which case there would be a mass shooting at US military installations across the globe on a daily basis). If not, please demonstrate that there are people who think that arming more students is the solution of which you speak.

Since the your constitution gives you right to bare arms

You are incorrect. The US Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms, or any other right. God gives us those rights. You have them as much as we do. The US Constitution simply enumerates them for protection.

why not teach mandatory gun safety classes - surely that coupled with gun control would be much more effective than putting more guns into schools.

You don't have any idea what many Americans are like. Many American leftists would weep and howl and gnash teeth at the very thought of mandatory gun safety classes, for, you see, Guns Are Evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun control and disarming are not the same thing! We can own guns if we choose - after we have passed appropriate background checks and proved that they will be stored properly - in securely locked gun safes!

I imagine that it may well be partly cultural - but why not learn from countries where children and go to school without having pass thru metal detectors or have the treat of armed security guards petrolling the schools! If I lived in the USA and had children I would rather home school than allow a child to go to school with armed guards! I believe their are far more effective ways.

I am talking about things that have been bandied about american citizens interviewed for UK news who are saying things like teachers should be armed or there should be armed guards in schools!

Guns are no more evil than cars or chocolate - it those who use or miss use them that are! The kind of people you talk about also are against other forms of education that fall within the scope of PSHE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun control and disarming are not the same thing! We can own guns if we choose - after we have passed appropriate background checks and proved that they will be stored properly - in securely locked gun safes!

While gun safes and responsible parents could have prevented many school shootings, it turns out that it would not have stopped this one. The shooter in this case was 18 years old and purchased his shotgun and ammo completely legally according to the laws of Colorado.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I lived in the USA and had children I would rather home school than allow a child to go to school with armed guards! I believe their are far more effective ways.

Some of us do that anyway, even if our schools don't have metal detectors. As a bonus, they get a much better education than even a good public school can give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um Smudge? Did you even read the news articles?

Personally I don't think that putting more guns into schools is the solution!
The reason this guy only managed to kill himself, was because there was a good guy with a gun in the school. When the shooting started, the good guy ran to face the shooter. When faced, the shooter quit shooting other people, and shot himself.

Without that gun in that school, the only guy with a gun would have been the bad guy, who was actively trying to kill people.

why not teach mandatory gun safety classes - surely that coupled with gun control would be much more effective
Can you explain why having this 18 yr old man go through safety classes would have stopped him from deciding to go shoot up a school and kill people?
We can own guns if we choose - after we have passed appropriate background checks and proved that they will be stored properly - in securely locked gun safes!
So, this guy legally bought a legal gun and ammo. He had no prior record, and could have passed an appropriate background check. He could have stored his legally purchased firearm in a gun safe, and then taken it out of the gun safe when it was time to go shoot up that school.

Since the things you propose wouldn't' have stopped this shooter, and since the guy in the school with a gun did, I can't say I'm too impressed with your notion that education and gun control would have been more effective than that armed resource officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I live in the USA, where things are very different. Culture, rules, constitution, history, status as citizen instead of subject, and we have a huge, HUGE gun problem that you don't have.

So perhaps if you could seek to understand why we're not in the same situation as you, maybe that would help you "honestly understand why so many americans are against gun control".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not afraid of guns - I have shot guns. I just happen to live in a country that has both gun control and no shootings in the last 17 years

I lived in a country (Philippines) without gun control (not counting Martial Law under Marcos) and no school shootings in its history. Ever. I win. Over England!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not afraid of guns - I have shot guns. I just happen to live in a country that has both gun control and no shootings in the last 17 years
And I live in the USA, where things are very different. Culture, rules, constitution, history, status as citizen instead of subject, and we have a huge, HUGE gun problem that you don't have.

So perhaps if you could seek to understand why we're not in the same situation as you, maybe that would help you "honestly understand why so many americans are against gun control".

To put a little perspective on this for Smudge, perhaps I can elaborate on the issue from the perspective of someone who favors at least some form of gun control.

Some of the complexities of the gun problem in the United States are that a lot of people have guns, and just about any kind of gun control you could implement that would curb gun violence in the short term would be either impossible to implement, impossible to enforce, or impossible to pay for. The more common ideas I have heard include (in no particular order)

  • ban all guns, but this is clearly unconstitutional. Also, we could not possibly round up all of the guns in the hands of citizens. There's no way to enforce this and no way to implement it.
  • ban all future sales of guns again, unconstitutional, and gun control advocates object to this because it leaves the millions of guns in the population available. They want immediate results (which is an entirely unrealistic goal). Also, this and the previous option would destroy a sizable sector of our economy.
  • Close loopholes for background checks at private gun sales This isn't practical for exchanges between families, and the problem isn't really the background checks. It's the screening. The Navy Yard shooter, for instance, passed all his screenings to work in the Navy Yard. More background checks won't solve much if we don't improve the evaluations.

I'm sure there are other common suggestions, but I'm not interested in taking the time to be exhaustive right now.

The gun control measures I am in favor of don't get much air time. I like the idea firearm owners who fail to properly secure their firearms should be held liable for injuries and deaths caused by those firearms. So when a 7 year old shoots his friend with the gun left in the night stand, the owner of the gun is liable for the injury. (this wouldn't prevent a lot of gun injuries, but it would at least encourage better storage of firearms).

Likewise, those who carry weapons should be held liable for the injuries caused to those who are not the target. So if the deputy in this school shooting goes in and starts firing at the shooter and accidentally hits people behind the shooter, he should be liable for those injuries. (this isn't a perfect system, but I would hope it would at least encourage better training for those carrying firearms)

But realistically, there is no way to implement any form of gun control in this country and expect it to reduce gun violence in less than 30 years. Anything that would do it quicker is going to meet too much resistance even if it is constitutional.

While I don't like the idea of more guns to prevent gun violence (for instance, I don't care much for the idea of having armed guards or teachers in every school), realistically it is the only short term solution. The question is what kind of long term controls can we implement that are both constitutional and will gradually reduce gun violence?

Because American politics is a conversation of extremes, no one is interested in talking about those kinds of ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun control and disarming are not the same thing! We can own guns if we choose - after we have passed appropriate background checks and proved that they will be stored properly - in securely locked gun safes!

I imagine that it may well be partly cultural - but why not learn from countries where children and go to school without having pass thru metal detectors or have the treat of armed security guards petrolling the schools! If I lived in the USA and had children I would rather home school than allow a child to go to school with armed guards! I believe their are far more effective ways.

I am talking about things that have been bandied about american citizens interviewed for UK news who are saying things like teachers should be armed or there should be armed guards in schools!

Guns are no more evil than cars or chocolate - it those who use or miss use them that are! The kind of people you talk about also are against other forms of education that fall within the scope of PSHE

Every single case of weapons registration in human history has led to disarmament. If yours hasn't YET, then good for you. If it never does, you will be an anomaly. Worse, every single case of disarmament in human history has led to genocide eventually. Not always by the people who did the disarmament, but always against the disarmed. A leads to B, ALWAYS. B leads to C ALWAYS. Sure it MIGHT not, but if things keep happening the same way again and again, chances are they'll keep happening that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gun control measures I am in favor of don't get much air time. I like the idea firearm owners who fail to properly secure their firearms should be held liable for injuries and deaths caused by those firearms. So when a 7 year old shoots his friend with the gun left in the night stand, the owner of the gun is liable for the injury. (this wouldn't prevent a lot of gun injuries, but it would at least encourage better storage of firearms).

So if I leave my car keys on the night stand am I liable if a punk kid broke into my house, stole my car and ran over five people? We do not need anymore laws restricting and punishing firearm owners. There are thousands of firearm laws on the books that simply just need to be enforced.

What we really need to do is get rid of many of these gun free zones. They do nothing.

School and other mass shootings are rare and very sensationalized. Meanwhile about 25,000 people die every year in car accidents in the United States. These shootings really are not an issue but the media wants to make it one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I live in the USA, where things are very different. Culture, rules, constitution, history, status as citizen instead of subject, and we have a huge, HUGE gun problem that you don't have.

So perhaps if you could seek to understand why we're not in the same situation as you, maybe that would help you "honestly understand why so many americans are against gun control".

The term British Subject is defunct now. British people are British Citizens and have been for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking mass shootings as being more than a couple of people killed - but including all the incidents that don't make the world media - according to USA Today they aren't that rare: USA TODAY Investigation: Database of mass shootings, 2006-2013

And since Sandy Hook there have been 23 - that is nearly 2 a month: Interactive graphic: the 23 US mass-shootings since Sandy Hook - Telegraph (this article only looks at shootings with multiple deaths - so doesn't include shootings like LAX where only one person died but lots of people where injured)

In comparrison the last recorded mass shooting I can find for the UK was 2010 and that wasn't in a School!

I think that what anatess says has some validity - because if you look at the make on the second link the bible belt states and Utah/Idaho are among the states with no mass shootings. But breaking the family is part of Satans plans to disrupt Heavenly Fathers plans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I leave my car keys on the night stand am I liable if a punk kid broke into my house, stole my car and ran over five people? We do not need anymore laws restricting and punishing firearm owners. There are thousands of firearm laws on the books that simply just need to be enforced.

I don't think that's comparable. Stealing a car is an act of theft, and obviously you shouldn't be held accountable for things people do with your stuff that they stole. That's way different from kids tragically injuring and/or killing themselves or their siblings by playing with guns that have been left unsecured. These tragic events are not an act of theft. I think MoE's proposal strikes a good balance because it doesn't mandate personal responsibility, it simply encourages it (and personal responsibility is something that American culture needs desperately right now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smudge, these are a couple of pretty good examples of why nothing can get done about gun control in the US. The minute the subject comes up, someone always jumps to the extreme ends.

Every single case of weapons registration in human history has led to disarmament. If yours hasn't YET, then good for you. If it never does, you will be an anomaly. Worse, every single case of disarmament in human history has led to genocide eventually. Not always by the people who did the disarmament, but always against the disarmed. A leads to B, ALWAYS. B leads to C ALWAYS. Sure it MIGHT not, but if things keep happening the same way again and again, chances are they'll keep happening that way.

Some countries that require registration:

Austria, Brazil, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Honduras. Would you care to hypothesize which of those countries is going to fall into genocide first?

The fact is that gun registration and gun control are relatively new ideas in Democratic societies.

But it's tough to argue with the logic of "it hasn't YET" because we can wait forever and still not be able to prove that it won't happen. So how long does registration have to exist without disarmament and genocide before it can called effective? Yes, I'm directing that question at you kapikui. *

So if I leave my car keys on the night stand am I liable if a punk kid broke into my house, stole my car and ran over five people? We do not need anymore laws restricting and punishing firearm owners. There are thousands of firearm laws on the books that simply just need to be enforced.

What we really need to do is get rid of many of these gun free zones. They do nothing.

School and other mass shootings are rare and very sensationalized. Meanwhile about 25,000 people die every year in car accidents in the United States. These shootings really are not an issue but the media wants to make it one.

If you're going to try to make a comparison, at least try to put it over a common denominator. If a "punk kid" breaks into your house, steals your car keys, and runs over five people, no you won't be held liable. Unless, of course, that "punk kid" happens to live in your house. In that case, you're very likely to see lawsuits and insurance claims against your assets.

Furthermore, the CDC estimates about 33,000 gun deaths per year and estimates on the number of guns in the US run at about 300 million. That amounts to .11 deaths per 1,000 firearms.

There are about 250 million automobiles in the US resulting in about 35,000 deaths per year. That turns out to .14 deaths per 1,000 automobiles.

On the face, your claim that gun deaths aren't actually an issue seems somewhat reasonable, given that the rates of death per gun and per vehicle are so similar. But if you start to factor in that about 60% of Americans own cars and only about 37% of Americans own a gun (actually, 37% of Americans report that they or someone in their home owns a gun).

If we assume a population of 300 million Americans, there are 0.29 deaths per 1,000 gun owners and only 0.19 deaths per 1,000 vehicle owners. I'm sure the death toll per 1,000 hours of gun operation is far higher than the death toll per 1,000 hours of vehicle operation.

Another way of phrasing all of this information: when Bobby leaves his house carrying a gun, there is a much higher risk of someone dying than when Bobby leaves his house driving his car.**

* This is probably the right time to split this thread. If we really want to discuss gun-control suggestions, we should probably take it elsewhere and let this thread focus on the events of Colorado.

** I'm not necessarily saying these aren't tolerable risks. Just saying that claim that the risk of death from automobile related causes is similar to or greater than the risk of death from firearms won't hold up to much scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way of phrasing all of this information: when Bobby leaves his house carrying a gun, there is a much higher risk of someone dying than when Bobby leaves his house driving his car.**

MoE, the statistics of .11 and .14 is still not related, I think. Because there is the matter of intent. I didn't look this up, but I'm thinking there are lot more people using a gun with the intention of killing somebody with it than taking their car with the intention of killing somebody with it. I think the relationship would have to take out the number of intentional deaths by gun and the number of intentional deaths by car to make it match up. Yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoE, the statistics of .11 and .14 is still not related, I think. Because there is the matter of intent. I didn't look this up, but I'm thinking there are lot more people using a gun with the intention of killing somebody with it than taking their car with the intention of killing somebody with it. I think the relationship would have to take out the number of intentional deaths by gun and the number of intentional deaths by car to make it match up. Yes?

I would presume you are correct about that. And so if you were able to quantify intent into the calculation somehow, I think you'd still find risk of gun-related death higher than auto-related death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, MOE, thank you. I probably disagree with a substantial amount of the things you're proposing, but I appreciate your even tone, and your practical description of issues that always plague such discussions.

You know what my suggestion is to reduce gun violence? Bring the family unit together again.
Yeah, anatess wins the thread. You're correct. I've known it too for a while. So at the end of the day, I can only do two things:

1. Support efforts to strengthen the family in my own home and with those I may be able to influence.

2. Argue against misguided gun control opinions and suggestions and mindsets to keep people from doing more dumb things that don't work, like we did in Colorado this year.

The term British Subject is defunct now. British people are British Citizens and have been for many years.
Well what do you know! Wikipedia: "On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen." Well, ok. That's one invalid argument out of my toolbox - thanks for letting me know.
And since Sandy Hook there have been 23 - that is nearly 2 a month: Interactive graphic: the 23 US mass-shootings since Sandy Hook - Telegraph (this article only looks at shootings with multiple deaths - so doesn't include shootings like LAX where only one person died but lots of people where injured)
Wow smudge - do you see how these links support my point?

Worst mass shootings section:

#1 - Virginia Tech (gun free zone - no guns allowed)

#2 - Sandy Hook (gun free zone - no guns allowed)

#4 - McDonalds CA (California has severe restrictions on concealed carry - tantamount to a gun free zone)

#5 - University of Texas (gun free zone - no guns allowed)

#12 - Navy yard (gun free zone - no guns allowed)

Look at the largest bubble on the map - Washington DC - the bubble with triple the amount of recent deaths than most other bubbles. Home of some of the strictest gun control laws anywhere in the US.

The jury is pretty much out on this subject - the vast majority (not all of them, but the vast majority) of mass shootings, occur in areas where guns aren't allowed. This is what happens when the US tries gun control - the good guys obey the law, the lawbreakers break the law. So when a bad guy shows up with a gun, by definition, the good guys are all unarmed.

You want to reduce media-frenzy mass shooting events? Get rid of gun free zones. That means you allow good guys to carry guns in schools. That means the solution is, despite your emotional response screaming otherwise, more guns in schools.

In comparrison the last recorded mass shooting I can find for the UK was 2010 and that wasn't in a School!
It seems like you still don't get it. When you are comparing the US and the UK, you are making an invalid, useless comparison. It's apples and oranges. It's like looking at people from a country suffering from the plague, and telling them "Well, we don't have the plague here in the UK, have you tried being more like us?" I mean, if you're trying to win, or score a "we're better than you because we have low gun violence", I guess you can keep score that way. But if you're going to come into a thread about a Colorado problem and make a bunch of points, it would be nice if any of them would help Colorado.
I think that what anatess says has some validity - because if you look at the make on the second link the bible belt states and Utah/Idaho are among the states with no mass shootings.
By the way - Utah is one of the very few states that actually allows private citizens and teachers with permits to carry in schools. Utah's Firearm Laws expressly prohibit public schools from making or enforcing any rule restricting firearms. So yeah, no gun free zones at schools in Utah, no mass shootings of schools in Utah. And Idaho is a state where the school administrator can grant exemptions to specific people so they can carry. About half of the states in the US allow teachers to carry under certain conditions. I'm not aware of any mass shootings in those schools.

Honestly smudge, you and I want the same thing - more safety for innocent people, less shootings, less violent gun crime. Congratulations on living in the UK, where this is not much of a problem. But if you're going to make suggestions about what the US should do, please come to grips with the fact that your advocated solution of "gun control" just plain simply won't work here.

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share