Another school shooting in Colorado

[gingersmom]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/12/13/two-reported-injured-in-colorado-high-school-shooting/4014393/

 

So horrible.

 

[zoobie]

In Littleton no less! Those parents must be out of their minds.

 

Edited: Sorry for the wrong town. The news I had seen at the time said it was at Centennial High School in Littleton. The victim is in Littleton Hospital. It's horrible no matter the location. :(

[Word Nerd]

In Littleton no less! Those parents must be out of their minds.

 

Centennial—but close enough. Terrible.

 

The other student was apparently wounded after confronting the shooter.

[KristenR]

Isn't tomorrow the anniversary of the Newtown shooting too?  Urgh.  Wonder if that played a role in it?

[wapiti]

The local news is reporting that the shooter was a student who had a beef with a teacher and that the shooter is dead by self-inflicted gunshot wound.

 

One of my immediate neighbors attends that school even though it is not our neighborhood school.

 

The area lockouts haven't been lifted yet (both schools my kids attend, many miles apart, are still under lockout - assuming that will soon be lifted as dismissal is in less than an hour).

[goldberry]

:crying:  :crying:  :crying:

[Dandelion]

Just heard that on the local news a bit ago.   :(

[ThisIsTheDay]

In Littleton no less! Those parents must be out of their minds.

 

Actually, neither Columbine nor Arapahoe High School are in Littleton.  Littleton is associated with Columbine, but it's just a postal address--the school is in unincorporated Jefferson County.  Arapahoe High School used to be in unincorporated Arapahoe County, also with a Littleton post office, but that area became the city of Centennial when it voted to incorporate about ten years ago.

 

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, at the time, it was the largest incorporation of a city in U.S. history.  It's also the 15th safest city in the U.S.

 

:(

 

:crying: :crying:

[poppy]

Guess folks are over his one already. School shooting , yawn.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

The only real analysis I heard was on NPR with a guy who wrote a book examining the uniquely American phenomenon. He pegged the start with that Texas tower shooter in 1964 (I think), which is farther back than I thought, but intetvals have shrunk a LOT within the last ten. He didn't have a clear answer, except to say that it's our human and media's nature to assign single causes, like only video games, when the data does not show that.

 

The teacher targeted in this one left the building, which was a smart move on all counts.

[emzhengjiu]

It's not just the initial pain and fear, but also the lingering effects that can last a long time.  I'm praying for all involved.

[Word Nerd]

The student was apparently targeting his debate coach, who had recently kicked him off the team.

[Lara in Colo]

Actually, neither Columbine nor Arapahoe High School are in Littleton.  Littleton is associated with Columbine, but it's just a postal address--the school is in unincorporated Jefferson County.  Arapahoe High School used to be in unincorporated Arapahoe County, also with a Littleton post office, but that area became the city of Centennial when it voted to incorporate about ten years ago.

 

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, at the time, it was the largest incorporation of a city in U.S. history.  It's also the 15th safest city in the U.S.

 

:(

 

:crying: :crying:

 

Yes, but the school district is Littleton for both schools

[ThisIsTheDay]

Yes, but the school district is Littleton for both schools

 

No, it's not. Columbine is within Jefferson County School District.  Arapahoe is a Littleton Public School. Two different districts.

[sixpence1978]

The best way to describe Littleton is more like an area with towns/suburbs within it.  Almost all of those towns/suburbs within it will have a Littleton address but they are separate entities to those of us living in CO.

 

Not that that really matters given the news.  CO has had it's share of sorrows over the past few years with the fires, the floods, school shootings, movie theater shootings, kidnappings...it's just sad.

[wapiti]

According to the update I just saw, the victim is not doing  well and could use prayers.  Her name is Claire.

[jewellsmommy]

:crying:  I just heard of this. So sad. My prayers will be with these families.

[Catwoman]

According to the update I just saw, the victim is not doing well and could use prayers. Her name is Claire.

I hope she will be OK. :(

[Wordsmith]

Guess folks are over his one already. School shooting , yawn.

 

Many have argued that a large part of a school shooter's goal is notoriety.  Perhaps the best long term way to combat school shootings is to deny the shooters an audience. Focus entirely on the victims, and move on as quickly as possible. 

[gingersmom]

According to the update I just saw, the victim is not doing well and could use prayers. Her name is Claire.

I just saw this also. She is only 17 and needs everyone prayers.

[unsinkable]

According to the update I just saw, the victim is not doing  well and could use prayers.  Her name is Claire.

 

Thanks for sharing this.

[wapiti]

.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

 Methinks the best way to combat school shootings is to DENY THE SHOOTERS A GUN. Then hey! Maybe we wouldn't have as many victims to focus on.

 

Yeah, but that would require legislating parental responsibility, and we know how well that works.  Maybe it will get to the point where the electorate will threaten recalls and state AGs will start suing manufacturers, but I doubt it.  The other side is smaller, but far more organized.

 

Edit -- just read that it was not the parents' weapon.  The kid is 18 and bought it legally, so there's legislation that totally makes sense.

[ThisIsTheDay]

nm 

 

Edited December 15, 2013 by Moderator
Lose the partisan politics.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

nm 

 

Edited December 15, 2013 by Moderator
The personal attack is childish and unnecessary.

[ThisIsTheDay]

Hmmm.  Well, I guess when the numbers are split 71 to 22% nationally in favor of stricter gun laws (source), it could be argued that it is not a slam dunk, per se, but then we'd have to argue why 71% does not constitute a slam dunk, which is getting into math.  Of course, then there's the money the NRA poured into the recall effort, which I'm sure is totally based on the mythical will of the voter.

 

I do appreciate your ad hominem ending, though, as it definitely moves the debate forward in it's usual fashion, which is to say, not much.

 

Huh.  Nice try, but your original comments about parents (which you later corrected), the electorate threatening recalls, and "the other side" being smaller but more organized are not remotely accurate in Colorado.

 

We can trade sources all day long, but you can compare this recent poll (as in today).  And any national poll is irrelevant regarding your comment about recalls in Colorado. There's not going to be a national electorate threatening recalls in Colorado.

 

And nice try with the NRA donation.  That same week, NY Governor Michael Bloomberg donated $350,000, and Eli Broad gave $250,000.  Giron and Morse outspent their opponents 7 to 1 and still lost.

 

Ad hominem? I don't think so.  It's an emotional issue, and you responded specifically to this event with comments that show you had no idea what you were saying. You made four statements, and the three of them were patently false. Based on what's occurred over the past year, the last statement you made will not bear out in Colorado any time soon.

 

 

 

 

[Catwoman]

Praying for Claire. :(

[Wordsmith]

 Methinks the best way to combat school shootings is to DENY THE SHOOTERS A GUN. Then hey! Maybe we wouldn't have as many victims to focus on.

The best method to eliminate crime would be to eliminate all free will, all ambition, all emotion.

 

Until that happens, banning guns is an ineffective approach to the problem. 

 

I ask you- how would you deny all would-be mass shooters a gun?

Firearms are a relatively simplistic technology. You cannot un-invent them, nor will you ever succeed in finding and destroying any significant portion of the world's current unregistered firearms. Thus, the classic argument:

What is accomplished by creating laws requiring the disarming of the populace in the hope criminals will obey them?

On another note..

Iff you can somehow eliminate firearms-

Do you think people who are willing to put days, weeks, even months, into planning an assault will be balked by having difficulty getting firearms?

Ever heard of timothy mcveigh? 

[Wordsmith]

I wonder why the state of Connecticut loves it's children more than Colorado?

 

This is the most spitefully petty comment i have ever seen.

Do you even have an inkling of how we love our children?

[Wordsmith]

Wordsmith-- did I say anything about banning guns? You're making assumptions. When a certain group of politicians can filibuster a discussion concerning expanding background checks then we're all screwed. Not banning weapons. Discussion about background checks. A huge difference.

Other than that, your excuses and assertions are old, tired, and defeatist, right where the gun lobbyists and manufacturers want you to be. I choose to have faith that America is not that gullible.

 

If all you are pushing is "expanded background checks"- the kid was perfectly capable of passing a background check.

I assumed you actually MEANT your words, that you wanted to "deny him a gun". Obviously, if the background check would not stop him from getting a gun, you'd have to do something else-ban the guns..

 

I LIKE guns, I like shooting, I like to hunt, and I want to be able to pass all of that on to my children.  I don't give a flip about whether the gun manufacturers make money or not.

Calling an argument "tired and defeatist" is a convenient way to avoid responding to it, isn't it?

[Wordsmith]

It's so sad and tiring to read this argument again and again. It is hard for outsiders not to see a choice here - between your liberty to own and use guns, and the safety of the community's children - and the argument coming down again and again in favour of the guns.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The percentage of children killed by firearms is minute compared to other sources of danger.

 

Throwing away fundamental US rights in an attempt to "save the children" is misguided.

[Joker]

When the argument of gun ownership comes up, I always wonder what has changed. I grew up in a town where pretty much everyone owned at least one. In my house the guns were on a rack with the ammunition underneath, and neither were enclosed. My parents also kept a loaded handgun under their mattress. We were like most in our area. There was very little violence. There was never one instance of a student bringing a gun to school. There was never a single instance of someone setting out to harm someone with a gun. There was one instance close to my graduation of an accidental shooting. That was it. We knew that guns were dangerous and we knew how to use them. We didn't play with them or harm others. It's hard for me to believe banning them will make things better when I don't yet understand where/when the problems started.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

There is a difference between regulating and banning.

 

Many school shootings never make the news.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Like I said, I'm an outsider. Guns as a fundamental US right only makes sense in the US, and even then it doesn't to a lot of people. I'm posting here to support Dot.

I live in the US and I don't get it. Outside of hunting or living in a farm I don't see a need.

[TravelingChris]

I don't see what regulation would have stopped this shooting.  He was an Eagle Scout, didn't have a criminal record, apparently had done well in school, and he was an adult.  This was a shotgun he bought which is not one of the weapons anyone has been talking about regulating more strictly but exactly how would we regulate this more?  I mean I don't like it that he had Marxist Communist leanings according to his friends and classmates but we don't ask about political views and I don't think we should since there is no relationship between political views and mass murder.  There is one thing that did stop this from being a further tragedy-- an armed sheriff's deputy was at that school and he knew it and while he had more ammo and more devices, he decided to kill himself,  It was all over less than 2 minutes from the start--- much different than the Columbine tragedy or Newtown.  But that is what happens more often when there is an armed person willing to stop it.  You can take note of the shooting at a church in Colorado Springs,  and a mall in Utah.  Both were stopped by armed citizens and the killings were low.  So I guess the regulation I would support is having more armed responsible people at schools and malls and other gathering places.

 

 

[poppy]

It makes me ill to read this exactly one year after the children were slaughtered on Newtown. More guns more guns more guns! Because criminals will get them no matter what. Does no one else have a problem reconciling those two statements ?

[Word Nerd]

Colorado has tougher gun laws in effect already, including expanded background checks. Obama called them "a model of what's possible" earlier this year.

[Wordsmith]

Then get tougher.

 

Have a gun amnesty, hand them in if you're not military, police, farmer, hunter for sustenance or Olympic sportsperson.

 

Make it really, really, really hard for anyone not in the above categories to get a gun.

 

Adequately fund police to deal with crime.

 

Raise a generation not saturated in gun culture.

 

See how your school shooting rate goes then.

 

And yeah, not coming back to argue on this one so don't bother with the pro gun rhetoric. Heard it all before.

For those who are still reading:

 

LOL.

 

Yeah, surely all criminals will just turn their guns in.

 

While we are fantasizing, can I have world peace and unlimited green energy?

[Wordsmith]

Australia or the UK, sadie?

(And you came back quick :P)

[Laura Corin]

I don't see what regulation would have stopped this shooting.  He was an Eagle Scout, didn't have a criminal record, apparently had done well in school, and he was an adult.  This was a shotgun he bought which is not one of the weapons anyone has been talking about regulating more strictly but exactly how would we regulate this more? 

 

Just for comparison: the way it would work in the UK is that he could apply for a shotgun licence for hunting.  The police would then visit his house (at least this is what happens periodically to my boss, who owns guns) and inspect where he would be keeping his gun, and he would also have to state where he would be hunting.  So he would have to own land, or state which land he would be using (with permission).  Then, after a criminal record check, he would be allowed to own a gun.

 

By which time, one hopes, his moment of teenage rage might have evaporated.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

I live in a country where massacres ceased after tough gun laws were introduced by a conservative government. It's no fantasy here.

 

I loathed that particular PM but he deserves a special place in our history for having the guts to act.

 

Similar history in the UK.  One school massacre was enough.

 

L

[[email protected]]

No politics & no NRA links, please.

 

Moderator

[poppy]

For those who are still reading:

 

LOL.

 

Yeah, surely all criminals will just turn their guns in.

 

While we are fantasizing, can I have world peace and unlimited green energy?

 

These school shootings are done with legal guns by non-criminals.

Criminals aren't the problem. 

Easy access to guns for people to buy for recreation means more of these killings will happen. It will happen again.  No question about it.  If you're comfortable with that, by all means, fight to keep the status quo.  I'm not comfortable with that.

[Word Nerd]

These school shootings are done with legal guns by non-criminals.

Criminals aren't the problem.

Easy access to guns for people to buy for recreation means more of these killings will happen. It will happen again. No question about it. If you're comfortable with that, by all means, fight to keep the status quo. I'm not comfortable with that.

:confused: School shooters aren't criminals?

[poppy]

:confused: School shooters aren't criminals?

 

You know I mean people without a criminal record, because presumably that would make it harder to purchase a gun.

OK

The argument is "well criminals will get guns no matter what", right?

Adam Lanza got a gun from his mother who bought it for pleasure shooting.

This killer got his gun at a store.

Firearms were very easily accessible to someone looking to do massive damage very fast in both cases. 

These were preventable crimes.  No "no matter what" about it.

[TravelingChris]

As I state above, this shooter was stopped because of an armed guard (I think it was a sheriff's deputy).  I think the solution is more armed people at schools, malls, etc. not less.  The evidence bears me out.   The amount of mass murders happening in each state is related to concealed carry laws.  THe states that have strict restrictions or basically don't allow concealed carry have higher rates of this. 

 

For the record, too, Australia and the UK don't have the US Constitution which protects our rights, including the right to bear arms.  I am not saying they don't have any rights but they don't have that right enshrined in the founding Constitution.  We do and good luck trying to change the 2nd amendment.

 

 

 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

With the power distribution in a parliamentary system vs. a representative repbublic, it's doubtful we'll ever muster the political will to achieve a UK/Aussie sort of ban. A national, idependent redistricting board would be a start so that eventually legislatures might come to actually reflect the shifting populace.

[Word Nerd]

You know I mean people without a criminal record, because presumably that would make it harder to purchase a gun.

OK

The argument is "well criminals will get guns no matter what", right?

Adam Lanza got a gun from his mother who bought it for pleasure shooting.

This killer got his gun at a store.

Firearms were very easily accessible to someone looking to do massive damage very fast in both cases.

These were preventable crimes. No "no matter what" about it.

He got his gun at a store in a state with universal background checks. I thought the argument was "tougher gun control laws and expanded background checks work." Colorado already has them.

[OneStepAtATime]

I was wondering if anyone local new more about the status of the teenage girl?  Is there anything we can do for her family to provide some support?

[poppy]

As I state above, this shooter was stopped because of an armed guard (I think it was a sheriff's deputy).  I think the solution is more armed people at schools, malls, etc. not less.  The evidence bears me out.   The amount of mass murders happening in each state is related to concealed carry laws.  THe states that have strict restrictions or basically don't allow concealed carry have higher rates of this. 

 

For the record, too, Australia and the UK don't have the US Constitution which protects our rights, including the right to bear arms.  I am not saying they don't have any rights but they don't have that right enshrined in the founding Constitution.  We do and good luck trying to change the 2nd amendment.

 

The shooter appeared to be attempting murder-suicide.  Aside from the one person he shot, he appeared to just fire random shots down hallways.  Then he very ineffectively set off Molotov cocktails. Then he shot himself.  The armed guard doesn't appear to be a factor at all.

The problem isn't that there weren't more armed people to stop him, the problem is that HE was armed.