Another horrific school shooting

[mirkwood]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/26/florida-deputy-who-didnt-enter-school-during-mass-shooting-is-not-coward-lawyer-says.html

 

 

[Sunday21]

Latane & Darley are two psychologists who studied bystander interventions in violent situations. One reason why observers don’t respond is the ambiguity of the situation. I suspect that the situation of a school shooter is a difficult one to assess.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, bytebear said:

This is the research that needs to be shouted from the rooftops.  Well worth a read.

http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

 

Amen bud. Schools are actually very safe. It's because school shootings are so horrific, tragic, and yes, rare, that they get so much media coverage. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I have to say that it’s darkly amusing to see media outlets who last week were telling us that school shootings were out of control and that Something Must Be Done™, start mumbling about how school shootings are actually pretty rare and the status quo is probably OK.  Naturally, that only happens once the conversation shifts from gun grabbing to actually making school campuses more secure. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

@anatess2 said

Quote

You're trying to make a pretzel here.

There's no apple and oranges.  There's only High-Capacity Magazines.  One item.  Okay, call it Apple Trees.

When you cut down this apple tree, it causes everything that the apple tree does to be cut down.  So - it will cut down criminal activity using the apple tree and it will cut down non-criminal activity using the apple tree.  Those activities are not apples and oranges.  They are all Apple Tree activities.

Okay, let's make it into an Orange.  Guns.  You seem to indicate that lesser guns means lesser criminals who have guns and lesser need for people to have guns.  Wrong.  The equalizer between a 110 pound woman being raped by a 210 pound man is a gun pointed at the man's head.  The only time that people will have a lesser need to have guns is when Jesus comes to bind Satan.

You say not all legal citizens will turn in their guns... so WHY MAKE A LAW?  You make a law so the law-abiding citizens will have to break it so then you'll have a reason to put them in jail?

Why do people always point to gun laws for murder rates?  Like death by knife is so much better than death by guns.  Japan has a low homicide rate compared to most other countries.  This has nothing to do with gun laws and has a lot to do with Japanese culture.  Mexico with its strict gun control laws still has a high murder rate.  Same thing - this has nothing to do with gun laws and more to do with Mexican culture.  When you point at a country to try to make them poster children of gun laws, don't forget that Hitler banned guns and so did Mao and Stalin and Marcos.

The apples and oranges were the comparison of Abortion laws to gun laws.  That is what you were asking about how someone who could be for more restrictive gun laws would not be for more restrictive Abortion laws.  These are two different things.

For example, if someone said...we should restrict guns and this equals the same thing as restricting people from changing their lightbulbs...many would scratch their heads.  These are two different things.

We could use excuses and say...LFL's and mercury content are broken often and contribute to long term ailments and death.  In addition, people occasionally electrocute themselves in changing lightbulbs, and electrocution sometimes causes death.  Thus, anyone who wants to reduce the death rate must be against changing light bulbs.

The comparison is not really apt because the two items are so vastly different in practice, reason, and purpose that laws restricting or not restricting them really are apples and oranges.

Same goes for Abortion and Gun Laws, which is why one can be for the restrictions of one, but not for as many restrictions on the other.

Even many LDS are pro-abortion, just not as pro-abortion as many others.  The normal statement is that they are anti-abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger. 

This does not mean that they are for more restrictive gun laws, or against gun laws, it means that they have this opinion on abortion.  Their opinions on gun laws are separate because these are two different things which are very different in application and the reasons for the laws to exist. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest MormonGator]

I don't care if people disagree on how to stop mass shootings. That's fine, we won't agree on everything. What really bothers me is when one side thinks they have a monopoly on compassion. Because you know, if you own a gun you obviously don't care about innocent children being slaughtered. That's how it works. It's indicative of a larger problem with the ideologies-if you disagree with me, you aren't just wrong. You are morally deficient.  

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I don't care if people disagree on how to stop mass shootings. That's fine, we won't agree on everything. What really bothers me is when one side thinks they have a monopoly on compassion. Because you know, if you own a gun you obviously don't care about innocent children being slaughtered. That's how it works. It's indicative of a larger problem with the ideologies-if you disagree with me, you aren't just wrong. You are morally deficient.  

An excellent point.

The execution of both viewpoints have significant pricetags associated.  And both sides are attempting to pay for the price of their viewpoint of choice with the other person's debit card - and slinging mud toward the other person's morals when they object.  

Unfortunately, i don't think there is a perfect solution to this problem.  Not in this life anyways.  Only a slightly-improved solution that involves most of us being dissatisfied.  A bunch of warring factions trying to destroy one another that lead to some sort of balance.  And that's best-case, hardly a foregone conclusion.

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

@anatess2 said

The apples and oranges were the comparison of Abortion laws to gun laws.  That is what you were asking about how someone who could be for more restrictive gun laws would not be for more restrictive Abortion laws.  These are two different things.

For example, if someone said...we should restrict guns and this equals the same thing as restricting people from changing their lightbulbs...many would scratch their heads.  These are two different things.

We could use excuses and say...LFL's and mercury content are broken often and contribute to long term ailments and death.  In addition, people occasionally electrocute themselves in changing lightbulbs, and electrocution sometimes causes death.  Thus, anyone who wants to reduce the death rate must be against changing light bulbs.

The comparison is not really apt because the two items are so vastly different in practice, reason, and purpose that laws restricting or not restricting them really are apples and oranges.

Same goes for Abortion and Gun Laws, which is why one can be for the restrictions of one, but not for as many restrictions on the other.

Even many LDS are pro-abortion, just not as pro-abortion as many others.  The normal statement is that they are anti-abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger. 

This does not mean that they are for more restrictive gun laws, or against gun laws, it means that they have this opinion on abortion.  Their opinions on gun laws are separate because these are two different things which are very different in application and the reasons for the laws to exist. 

It's Apples and Oranges if the comparison was Abortion Laws vis-a-vis Gun Laws.  That's not what the statement was.  The statement was that the same people who use the reason that banning abortion causes women to get back-alley abortions are the same people who say banning guns will stop mass shootings.  The Apple is the BAN - not abortion law nor gun law.

[lostinwater]

An interesting video - from just a few days ago.

 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

An interesting video - from just a few days ago.

 

 

Holy context-less propagandizing batman!

[zil]

And how is it the video is crystal clear at the start and then suddenly (at 0:28) the camera angle changes, things go out of focus, and the audio goes "fuzzy"?  Why not keep the original video the whole time (even if someone was walking across the camera's path)?

I can't tell whether his lip movement really matches what he's saying, and I can't clearly understand what he says at the end (after "God allows us to have our agency").  I understand some words, I think I know what I'm supposed to hear, but it took listening to it several times, and I'm not confident it's a true representation of the event.

All that makes me extremely suspicious of the rest of the video.  It is not so hard for people to splice, edit, replace audio, etc. with personal computing equipment (it doesn't take a Hollywood studio to do that stuff).  Nor would it have been hard to use both videos in full or inset a video from one while maintaining the original audio, or any other combination.  That the maker chose to have the critical portion be blurry and audio-challenged does not inspire confidence.

I find the obvious disregard for priesthood instruction (to not record, let alone publish proceedings at events like this) worrisome.  And the credit at the end seems to imply something mildly disturbing about the video maker.  And reviewing the YouTube channel where the video is published proves that the publisher is no friend to the Church.  There is nothing in the least bit trustworthy here.

Finally, if President Nelson wants his political views known, broadcast, acted-upon-by-members, he's got no shortage of ways to make that happen, so I'm quite content to continue mistrusting that video and maintaining my own opinions until such time as President Nelson publishes his counsel to the saints.

[lostinwater]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

And how is it the video is crystal clear at the start and then suddenly (at 0:28) the camera angle changes, things go out of focus, and the audio goes "fuzzy"?  Why not keep the original video the whole time (even if someone was walking across the camera's path)?

I can't tell whether his lip movement really matches what he's saying, and I can't clearly understand what he says at the end (after "God allows us to have our agency").  I understand some words, I think I know what I'm supposed to hear, but it took listening to it several times, and I'm not confident it's a true representation of the event.

All that makes me extremely suspicious of the rest of the video.  It is not so hard for people to splice, edit, replace audio, etc. with personal computing equipment (it doesn't take a Hollywood studio to do that stuff).  Nor would it have been hard to use both videos in full or inset a video from one while maintaining the original audio, or any other combination.  That the maker chose to have the critical portion be blurry and audio-challenged does not inspire confidence.

I find the obvious disregard for priesthood instruction (to not record, let alone publish proceedings at events like this) worrisome.  And the credit at the end seems to imply something mildly disturbing about the video maker.  And reviewing the YouTube channel where the video is published proves that the publisher is no friend to the Church.  There is nothing in the least bit trustworthy here.

Finally, if President Nelson wants his political views known, broadcast, acted-upon-by-members, he's got no shortage of ways to make that happen, so I'm quite content to continue mistrusting that video and maintaining my own opinions until such time as President Nelson publishes his counsel to the saints.

Interesting take on things.  Thank-you.

i imagine this will be either disproved or confirmed by multiple sources in the near future.  

[Guest MormonGator]

19 hours ago, lostinwater said:

An excellent point.

Thank you my friend. 

I totally agree with you, that the solution to this problem (if one exists, which it doesn't in my view) will never satisfy everyone. To me, this issue is like abortion. Constantly being debated with no end in sight. 

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Interesting take on things.  Thank-you.

i imagine this will be either disproved or confirmed by multiple sources in the near future.  

Here's a couple articles from more mainstream sources.

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/lds-president-russell-m-nelson-comments-on-the-recent-florida-school-shooting

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/23/us/ap-us-mormon-president-gun-laws.html

And honestly, this wasn't meant to propagandize.  It just seemed very relevant.  And i actually agree with what he said.  Does anyone disagree?   i guess i'm just not as emotionally vested in the hidden meanings people are inferring.

Edited March 1, 2018 by lostinwater

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Here's a couple articles from more mainstream sources.

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/lds-president-russell-m-nelson-comments-on-the-recent-florida-school-shooting

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/23/us/ap-us-mormon-president-gun-laws.html

And honestly, this wasn't meant to propagandize.  It just seemed very relevant.  And i actually agree with what he said.  Does anyone disagree?   i guess i'm just not as emotionally vested in the hidden meanings people are inferring.

Then-Elder Nelson was also the one who, in his first post-9-11 Conference talk, spoke on “blessed are the peacemakers” and cited the scriptural injunction to renounce war and proclaim peace.  He may yet surprise us hard-line conservatives.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Here's a couple articles from more mainstream sources.

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/lds-president-russell-m-nelson-comments-on-the-recent-florida-school-shooting

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/23/us/ap-us-mormon-president-gun-laws.html

And honestly, this wasn't meant to propagandize.  It just seemed very relevant.  And i actually agree with what he said.  Does anyone disagree?   i guess i'm just not as emotionally vested in the hidden meanings people are inferring.

If President Nelson begins a full-throated roar and campaign to limit certain types of firearm ownership, he will have my full support. I do not interpret the above articles as being anything close to that. We all agree that the murderer should not have had a firearm; the disagreement comes in how that prohibition is to be carried out. This is a problem that stems from broken families. The '60s love-and-drug hippies have done their darndest to redefine the family out of existence, and appear to have been largely successful. They have sown the wind, and the so-called "mass shootings" are just one aspect (small but highly visible) of the whirlwind we are reaping.

[zil]

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Here's a couple articles from more mainstream sources.

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/lds-president-russell-m-nelson-comments-on-the-recent-florida-school-shooting

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/23/us/ap-us-mormon-president-gun-laws.html

And honestly, this wasn't meant to propagandize.  It just seemed very relevant.  And i actually agree with what he said.  Does anyone disagree?   i guess i'm just not as emotionally vested in the hidden meanings people are inferring.

I'm probably getting old.  The speech that isn't clear to me in the video sounded slightly different from the KUTV quote.  I don't really have any issue with what he said (per the KUTV quote).  I still find the video-maker not trustworthy.

Personally, I don't think there's a way for man's laws to solve or prevent this problem.  We can't (or don't) enforce the laws we have, and I don't see a way to enforce new ones any better...  The solution lies in solid families as outlined in the "family proclamation".

Meanwhile, the good news is one day, the world will end. (Aaah, it's been far too long since I had an excuse to say that.)

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

If President Nelson begins a full-throated roar and campaign to limit certain types of firearm ownership, he will have my full support.

I wonder how many people agree with you-not a challenge, a genuine question. If President Nelson said tomorrow "No LDS can own a gun. Give them up right now." what percentage would give them up? 

Again, not a challenge to @Vort or leadership. Just a thought. 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I wonder how many people agree with you-not a challenge, a genuine question. If President Nelson said tomorrow "No LDS can own a gun. Give them up right now." what percentage would give them up? 

Again, not a challenge to @Vort or leadership. Just a thought. 

I am a believer in and a supporter of the Second Amendment. I am more of a believer in and more of a supporter of the kingdom of God and its leaders. The choice you propose would be clear, at least for people like me.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am a believer in and a supporter of the Second Amendment. I am more of a believer in and more of a supporter of the kingdom of God and its leaders. The choice you propose would be clear, at least for people like me.

I am 100% sure you would, and that's wonderful. I admire your faith. 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I wonder how many people agree with you-not a challenge, a genuine question. If President Nelson said tomorrow "No LDS can own a gun. Give them up right now." what percentage would give them up? 

Again, not a challenge to @Vort or leadership. Just a thought. 

I have no idea on the answer.  I highly doubt he would say that.  But I would remember the story of Elisha and his servant, obey the prophet, and trust the Lord.  The theoretical is far more a mental struggle for me than the practical (practically speaking, I don't think I've ever felt like I needed a gun; I have them because there are possible scenarios where I would want and use one).

Meanwhile, the good new is, one day, the world will end.

[zil]

Just now, zil said:

I have no idea on the answer.  I highly doubt he would say that.  But I would remember the story of Elisha and his servant, obey the prophet, and trust the Lord.  The theoretical is far more a mental struggle for me than the practical (practically speaking, I don't think I've ever felt like I needed a gun; I have them because there are possible scenarios where I would want and use one).

Meanwhile, the good new is, one day, the world will end.

Hmm.  I might use this as an excuse to buy that sword I like though.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

I have no idea on the answer.

Oh, neither do I. And I agree, I'm sure it won't come to that.  Still an interesting thought/question though. That would be a very practical test of faith that would be very difficult for many people. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by MormonGator

[SpiritDragon]

On 2/22/2018 at 1:29 PM, MormonGator said:

@Godless, as someone who has honorably served our country and has been trained with firearms, do really think this will work, or is it more of a deterrent? After all, it takes years of training to become proficient at firing a gun, much less under great stress like an active school shooting would certainly create.  

Don't get me wrong-I'm sort of for that too. But I'm not naive. This isn't the movies.

 @mirkwood and @Carborendum, your thoughts on this too please. 

I can't help but think that while allowing teachers with the desire to concealed carry who undergo training to do so, if the idea of non-lethal force for most teachers isn't a better option. Would it not be possible to put down a shooter with tranquilizer darts, tasers, pepper spray balls (like paint balls fired from a gun that blow up into a chemical mist to put someone down). I can't help but wonder with how suicide is so often associated with mass shootings if a non-lethal approach where the shooter is actually taken into custody and lives through consequences of the action wouldn't be a better deterrent than getting shot to death. This is in no way meant to suggest that I think killing an active shooter is an inappropriate response if it saves lives. I just have concerns about having more lethal weapons in the schools that may be just as likely to cause harm as to prevent it, like guns at homes unfortunately tend to be more likely to be used in a suicide or get a kid shot by an "unloaded" weapon. If someone has different stats on this I'm open to those of course, but my understanding has been that guns in the home are more likely to cause harm to the family than to protect it - of course this can be mitigated with proper training and storage.

My concern with non-lethal weapons in the schools is the potentially greater likelihood that these tools will be abused simply due to the less permanent effect. It won't be a comforting day in the news to hear about students getting tazed or tranquilized on account of some peaceful protest against authority... or whatever reason. Even so I'd rather that headline than a kid being fatally shot. I'm also aware that not all gun shots are lethal, and that a poorly (well?) placed shot from a weapon not intended to be lethal can still have fatal and/or other permanent life altering effects. I'm not claiming to have the answers, just putting my thoughts into the mix.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm probably getting old.  The speech that isn't clear to me in the video sounded slightly different from the KUTV quote.  I don't really have any issue with what he said (per the KUTV quote).  I still find the video-maker not trustworthy.

Personally, I don't think there's a way for man's laws to solve or prevent this problem.  We can't (or don't) enforce the laws we have, and I don't see a way to enforce new ones any better...  The solution lies in solid families as outlined in the "family proclamation".

Meanwhile, the good news is one day, the world will end. (Aaah, it's been far too long since I had an excuse to say that.)

FWIW, KUTV is the Utah television equivalent to the Salt Lake Tribune.  I don’t know that they’re under the same ownership, but they cater to the same audiences. 

@zil, your proposed solutions remind me of something I wrote to a friend in a Facebook exchange the other day:

In evaluating the specific solutions that you propose, it seems to me that most of these fall into the larger umbrella of a general lack of social cohesion.  Racism, religion, and bullying all existed in 1955; but it seems we didn’t have school shootings going on then—at least, apparently not with the same sort of frequency.  Social conservatives do have some proposals for building social unity; but they’re the proposals that progressives have been laughing at for fifty years—the reinforcement of the nuclear family as a cultural ideal; a renaissance of American exceptionalism and pride in our common adopted ideological heritage; the advancement of Judeo-Christian religious and ethical precepts and the celebration of those precepts at all levels of our civil society; acknowledging and working with churches, synagogues, and mosques as necessary hubs of a vibrant community fabric; and a re-emphasis on federalism that affirms universal basic individual rights while also granting states and counties the latitude to cultivate and enshrine regional values and identities.  Any informed conservative would tell you that none of this would be really easy to implement, given current attitudes and (to some extent) constitutional jurisprudence.  The simple fact is that a lot of progressive Americans seem to want the safety and stability of the 1950s, but with none of the social constraints on which that safety and stability seem to have been founded—and then they’re blaming conservatives for being unable to square the circle.