School shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia

[kbutton]

15 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Finger print locking on the gun itself isn’t as important if a gun safe or trigger lock is used religiously.

There are people on here who have in the past not wanted an OR to exist in this, and over time, the baseline idea of what is safe storage seems to have lifted to “biometrics.” 

8 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

As someone who think the parents should be prosecuted, I’ll speak to that.  I don’t think *every* parent whose child shoots up a school should be prosecuted.  It’s case by case.I think a parent who takes some effort to secure weapons, even if imperfectly, should not be prosecuted.  Parents who demonstrate a reckless disregard should be prosecuted.  Why?  Well why prosecute anything ever?  But also, to help build a culture where security is the norm.  

This makes sense to me. This is not ever said on here, and there have been many times when people have implied that biometric locks are the only reasonable thing, or that safe storage laws mean you should use all the means necessary every single time for always, including biometrics.

Edited September 6 by kbutton

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

With all due respect, my opinion is that pulling a fire alarm is not a good analogy. They pull alarms to get out of class. Much different than posting about setting the school on fire so that the students burn. Maybe I’m naive, but I’ve never personally heard a child threaten to take out others in a horrific way. It’s got to be highly unusual, and that’s why I think we should give credibility to threats. How many more times should we all be wrong. 😔  (and I don’t mean to contradict myself on unusual vs. so many shootings) 

And mak8ng videos holding a gun and threatening to shoot people is a very long, deliberate and planned act. It is not the same as a careless remark of an impulsive adhd kid who speaks w/ out thinking about what he/she said and just had a really bad day but an hour later, is fine again.  Law enforcement and educational staff need to be smart enough to not throw everyone who ever says " I could kill that ..." in act6p8cal frustrated way in jail while actually protecting people fr9m the ones who are dangerous. The ones who are making videos w guns or bombs or pledging allegiance to ISIS, etc.  And not give up just because suspect isn't home or answering the doorc(Nashville guy) or parent seems sketch and yet you believe their promise.

[kbutton]

As long as I am in the hot seat, I think people are not entirely engaging with @Murphy101’s points about the school and law enforcement not being a Borg while also wishing that there was a more perfect way of getting people on the same page.

There is a soft default to what kinds of ideas people on here have to qualify so that no one uses those ideas as a jumping off point for “let’s toss up our hands” and what gets a pass as accepted as a matter of course by most people.

[TechWife]

Two high school students in Hall Co have been arrested for making threats on social media. I graduated from Johnson High School & am walking the halls in my memory. I have family in Hall Co. schools. 

ETA:   A third arrest in Hall County. This one at the middle school my great-nephew attended (he is a high school freshman this year, so not at that particular school any longer).

https://www.facebook.com/100067784194058/posts/pfbid0irHhFj24f44YTRv8FBgRucoJ9nPNhWi4jfRLa9yLVnyDcq1rX1EHitBD5jALVPkrl/?app=fbl

ETA: Two more in Forsyth Co. I also have family there. 
 

https://www.facebook.com/100067784194058/posts/pfbid0irHhFj24f44YTRv8FBgRucoJ9nPNhWi4jfRLa9yLVnyDcq1rX1EHitBD5jALVPkrl/?app=fbl

ETA: Some geography: Hall Co. is adjacent to Barrow Co and Forsyth Co is adjacent to Hall. 
There is a city in Ga named Forsyth - it is not in Forsyth Cointy. 

Edited September 6 by TechWife

[TravelingChris]

13 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Jumping in on this, with 2 thoughts. 
 

MOST people age out of violence.  Random violence, mugging, armed robbery, car jacking, even school shootings, are typically a young man’s (it’s almost always men) game.  Around 35 or 40 years old they are no longer really a threat to public safety.  Again most.  I’m sue there’s a 60 year old mugger out there somewhere. The truly heinous serial killers or serial rapists or nut cases that torture for fun are excluded, that’s a brain issue that never goes away.  
 

We wouldn’t need more money or jail space if we stopped imprisoning people for dumb stuff and started doing more with real criminals. Drug crime, petty theft, etc. etc.  are the legal systems version of busy work.

But child molesters and sex crimes in general, nobody ages out.  And how often they get minor sentences and allowed to victimized more people,

[Heartstrings]

17 minutes ago, kbutton said:

As long as I am in the hot seat, I think people are not entirely engaging with @Murphy101’s points about the school and law enforcement not being a Borg while also wishing that there was a more perfect way of getting people on the same page.

There is a soft default to what kinds of ideas people on here have to qualify so that no one uses those ideas as a jumping off point for “let’s toss up our hands” and what gets a pass as accepted as a matter of course by most people.

I think I’m just not sure how to interact with it.  Of course “the school” is being used generally.  We don’t know enough details, who got the call?  The superintendent? The secretary? The high school principal?   They SHOULD have a protocol for getting info out quickly.   

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, TechWife said:

Children can’t give informed consent. When adults get to a point where they are no longer in shock, sure. In pursuing and airing these types of stories immediately after the fact, they are engaging in exploitation for the sake of profit, nothing more. The texts add no new facts to the story . None. They are basically deathbed declarations, the most personal of moments.  To say that kids and parents exchanged heartbreaking texts would have been sufficient, though stating the obvious & also not necessary. It costs nothing to be kind, considerate & respectful. No one should be seeking out this information and not everything that is given to a reporter has to get into the story. Reporters can still make compassionate decisions. The fact that they often do not is one of the reasons for diminishing civility in our culture. 

Children can give informed consent, they do so before judges in custody hearings all the time. They give testimony under oath. They are parenting other children and give consent for the care of their children. I know if my spouse or child dies at the hand of someone else’s negligence, I will not be silent about it, nor would I expect them to. They’re young. They’re not stupid.

[Heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

But child molesters and sex crimes in general, nobody ages out.  And how often they get minor sentences and allowed to victimized more people,

Thsts a whole other issue, women and children aren’t viewed as fully human by our society and you can see that reflected in the sentences handed down to people who transgress against us/them.  Martha Stewart got more time for insider trading then people caught red handed raping a woman, which shows where values lie.  

[Ting Tang]

31 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

And mak8ng videos holding a gun and threatening to shoot people is a very long, deliberate and planned act. It is not the same as a careless remark of an impulsive adhd kid who speaks w/ out thinking about what he/she said and just had a really bad day but an hour later, is fine again.  Law enforcement and educational staff need to be smart enough to not throw everyone who ever says " I could kill that ..." in act6p8cal frustrated way in jail while actually protecting people fr9m the ones who are dangerous. The ones who are making videos w guns or bombs or pledging allegiance to ISIS, etc.  And not give up just because suspect isn't home or answering the doorc(Nashville guy) or parent seems sketch and yet you believe their promise.

Yep.  I mean, there are things that really are not normal.  Lots of kids are bullied, come from troubled homes, etc. and they never ever even hint at doing these horrific killings.  Oh the violent sexual assault and murder I referenced earlier---carried out with the woman's own dog's leash.  He was an older teen at the time. He walks free.  Some may never commit another crime, but you know, for the sake of the victim---I feel they should be locked away.  On the other hand, I saw someone got busted for carrying drugs (I know, they kill people) but is facing 60 years in prison.  

[lauraw4321]

@kbutton I'm interested what, if any, legislation you think would a) pass 2A muster and b)  reduce mass shootings?

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

@kbutton I'm interested what, if any, legislation you think would a) pass 2A muster and b)  reduce mass shootings?

There’s no 2A prohibition against therapy and parenting classes.  
 

There’s no GOOD 2a justification for why we don’t study gun violence the way we should.  We could be putting more into studying this but we’re federally prohibited.  
 

Edited September 6 by Heartstrings

[Heartstrings]

We should be looking into the sociological factors around mass shootings. It is overwhelmingly a young white male problem.  What is going on in our society, our families, our schools to affect this population in such a way.  Generally, young black males don’t do mass killing, nor do Hispanic young males,  or young females of any race.   
 

 

[kbutton]

34 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

@kbutton I'm interested what, if any, legislation you think would a) pass 2A muster and b)  reduce mass shootings?

I actually support most of what has been mentioned but don’t think biometric locks would be feasible because some people can’t access them. I think they are great for voluntary use.

I just want protections for common sense vs. a zero tolerance policy. A zero tolerance policy factored into an incident I know about that ended with a kid killing himself because he did something stupid and couldn’t troubleshoot a way to get out of the situation. This was after some school shootings but before they were so common that they were discussed or drilled for in schools. Kid lived with a grandparent that was probably not negligent for what was standard parenting when he was parenting his own kid. There weren’t red flags involved, just probably impulsive ADHD/I want to show this to my friend behavior. Not even an accidental discharge sort of situation.

We can’t expect more from the general populace than what we expect from police officers solely because it is not realistic—the local ER treats a lot of officers who shoot themselves cleaning their service weapon at home. That said, it’s inexcusable that a police officer is unable to safely clean a gun, unless someone know something I don’t about police weapons.

My son had some good ideas about ammo and point of sale stuff for ammo, but I don’t remember details, and I think it would need to be nuanced. One thing I do remember is that he suggested a sort of returnable bottle style policy, but not for a deposit necessarily (but that could maybe be an effective layer). It would involve bringing back spent casings/shotgun shells to get more ammo and limiting how much you can get at once. Obviously casings could get lost in totally innocuous ways, so it would need to be fleshed out better. It would also need to not make recreational shooting [im]possible or penalize poor people. In rural areas, there are plenty of low income people that hunt, and they aren’t necessarily gun nuts with a stockpile, or people who make an expensive hobby out of the clothing, etc. They feed their family or donate animals to local orgs that get meat to people who need it.

I support red flag laws.

If we think about specificity vs. sensitivity with solutions—there are some situations where one prevention is more effective than another, but some not as burdensome laws are fairly easily applied across the board.

I am not fond of AR style guns being so widely used. I don’t think “makes target shooting more fun” is something that should trump safety, but that is why so many people have them. I think when people hunt with them, they tend to be modified for shot that allows you to eat the deer you kill (smaller rounds). There might be ways of regulating them that are not all or nothing, like allowing bump stocks or clips with more than three bullets only at supervised shooting ranges that have a special license for such things. The range would own the clips, etc. not the gun owner. If you want to use a clip on your back forty, you’re out of luck.

I don’t disagree that lobbyists and money are a problem. Many gun owners are bothered by the big gun rights orgs too, but they are drowned out.

I think that inevitably there will be some pushback that some of the “fun stuff” is available only to people with money, but that is life—I don’t get to do the kinds of vacations many people do because we have expenses other people don’t have. As long as basic gun rights are preserved for low income folks, it might be possible to get past that at some point.

Edited September 6 by kbutton
Typos

[Heartstrings]

11 minutes ago, kbutton said:

just want protections for common sense vs. a zero tolerance policy. A zero tolerance policy factored into an incident I know about that ended with a kid killing himself because he did something stupid and couldn’t troubleshoot a way to get out of the situation. This was after some school shootings but before they were so common that they were discussed or drilled for in schools. Kid lived with a grandparent that was probably not negligent for what was standard parenting when he was parenting his own kid. There weren’t red flags involved, just probably impulsive ADHD/I want to show this to my friend behavior. Not even an accidental discharge sort of situation.

We can’t expect more from the general populace than what we expect from police officers solely because it is not realistic—the local ER treats a lot of officers who shoot themselves cleaning their service weapon at home. That said, it’s inexcusable that a police officer is unable to safely clean a gun, unless someone know something I don’t about police weapons.

Somehow we need more education around this, but I’m not sure how.  In my mind it’s “you are not as safe or smart as you think you are” training, but that message probably needs to be finessed by nicer people.  Everyone thinks they are safe, they know what they are doing, and then they get hurt or hurt others.   We need “anti hubris training”.  

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, kbutton said:

I wouldn’t disagree that this could potentially be foolproof.

I don’t think this will pass simply because lots of people can’t get into their iPhones with their own fingerprints. 

I won't use fingerprinting my gun or my phone.  We have locks on our guns.  We owned one gun when my kids were younger. We kept it locked and had no ammo.

[kbutton]

8 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Somehow we need more education around this, but I’m not sure how.  In my mind it’s “you are not as safe or smart as you think you are” training, but that message probably needs to be finessed by nicer people.  Everyone thinks they are safe, they know what they are doing, and then they get hurt or hurt others.   We need “anti hubris training”.  

Yes! I can make a guess about a couple of factors in the general populace. Some people get more cautious with age and experience, and others get more cavalier. The split makes sense to me in that expertise is gained over time, but it’s also true that executive functions are the last to develop but then often the first to go. And hubris is definitely a factor!

[Heartstrings]

27 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I won't use fingerprinting my gun or my phone.  We have locks on our guns.  We owned one gun when my kids were younger. We kept it locked and had no ammo.

Even if every new gun had biometrics there would still be 100s of millions of guns in circulation.  I’m not really sure biometrics solves as much of the problem as people think.  

[prairiewindmomma]

3 hours ago, kbutton said:

Not disingenuous questions:

1. Biometric locks get mentioned a lot, and I assume they are fingerprint driven. I can’t get into my iPhone with my fingerprints—I have smoother than normal fingertips. Are there multiple kinds of biometric locks to get around denying second amendment rights to someone that has a problem like this. (BTW, I don’t own a gun or want one.)

3. Shoot a gun at a range? Hunt with one? Or do you mean that some kind of shooting happened that involved an unsecure weapon?

 

 

.

 

1. We have the technology for biometric weapons that can fire immediately when gripped and lock to prevent fire as soon as released. Obviously there are already millions of guns in circulation, but we could move forward with manufacturer requirements that dealers verify. Biometric technology includes facial recognition, it doesnt have to be fingerprint only. 
 

Re: 3. to be licensed, you should have to pass a range test. We dont let people drive without passing a driver’s test. You should be required to show you can manage a gun if you want to carry one. I see way too many moms carrying unlocked guns in their purses in grocery stores where kids can reach in and too many dudes in boots without trigger discipline. 

Most states used to require a multi-hour mandatory safety course to be permitted to carry. Then we lost our collective minds as a nation. We should have universal requirements for the safety course and include a live fire test component done on a range with a minimum proficiency rating.

ETA: I say this as someone who has done hours of coursework and range practice.

Edited September 6 by prairiewindmomma

[prairiewindmomma]

1. Every who owns a gun “should” know to store it safely but they don’t. Most won’t do trigger locks because they cant immediately access their gun in the rare case of a live breakin. Many think their kids “know better” than to touch an unsecured gun. I dont think you are going to see much change in this area unless:

1. Changes come from the manufacturer requiring change and 

2. jail time penalties begin to become enforced

2A is subject to wide interpretation. If people want to carry 1791 (when 2A passed) style musket or flintlocks—no restrictions at all—go for it. You cant mass kill people with a musket or a flintlock. All guns of that era had really low accuracy in firing and really short ranges. They are nothing like what people have access to today.

[prairiewindmomma]

Most people do support something short of unfettered access to guns.

Most people think 5 year olds should not have the ability to purchase and utilize a gun against their parent’s wishes.

Most people think convicted felons who are domestic abusers shouldnt be able to access a gun.

Most people think mentally ill people threatening mass violence shouldnt be able to purchase guns.

If you believe that those people should be restricted, then you believe 2A isnt a truly unlimited right to bear arms.

What does bearing arms even mean? Arguably it could go as narrow as it was originally written. The 2A originally only applied to the federal government—ie—the federal government is allowed to keep and bear arms…meaning have a standing military (which it did not at the time). 

[kbutton]

26 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Re: 3. to be licensed, you should have to pass a range test. We dont let people drive without passing a driver’s test. You should be required to show you can manage a gun if you want to carry one. I see way too many moms carrying unlocked guns in their purses in grocery stores where kids can reach in and too many dudes in boots without trigger discipline. 

Most states used to require a multi-hour mandatory safety course to be permitted to carry. Then we lost our collective minds as a nation. We should have universal requirements for the safety course and include a live fire test component done on a range with a minimum proficiency rating.

Thank you for answering!

I feel like I am missing a reference point for some of the parts of this answer in the context of when you listed as the statement I asked about—I didn’t understand the context and then asked about some potential contexts.

It sounds like you are speaking solely about hand guns in your answer. A lot of places people use shotguns and rifles like tools—they don’t go out in public with them, and they use them like tools at home or carefully for recreation (hunting and targets). It’s like they are a parallel category of typical use and handling. The kinds of people who do this do, indeed, have kids driving without a license doing farm work, just as a benchmark of practicality, not to be argumentative.

I support requiring safety classes for young hunters—those have traditionally been low cost and often volunteer taught (a qualified volunteer). I have a hard time swallowing not allowing teens to hunt or requiring a lot of expense to be able to do so.

Hand guns I feel differently about. There are barriers that would bother a lot of people who support restrictions (they are fun for target shooting, so getting licensed to shoot once a decade at a family reunion on the back forty would be missed), but they are somewhat less of a tool (except for putting down animals humanely—not everyone pays a vet if the situation is straightforward, especially if getting a vet would prolong the suffering of a gravely injured/trapped farm animal, so a small caliber pistol to the ear is not unusual). But there are smarter people than me to argue about hand guns around self-protection. I am not convinced that even with training, I would necessarily be effective at defending myself with a gun except in close quarters where I am just as likely to have an accident. 

[Heartstrings]

23 minutes ago, kbutton said:

lot of places people use shotguns and rifles like tools—they don’t go out in public with them, and they use them like tools at home or carefully for recreation (hunting and targets).

You might have an idealized version of this.  In places where open carry is legal you will indeed find people walking around with shot guns and rifles strapped to their backs.   

[prairiewindmomma]

I do think people who are handling rifles should be required to take a safety course and do a proficiency test on a range.  I grew up hunting, I have no problems with responsible hunting culture.  I think they do a huge service in providing food for families and in thinning deer and other herds which keep them in balance.  I grew up on a ranch, and I understand putting down animals humanely and protecting flocks.  I grew up in a world where most people had rifle racks in their trucks, and where when a rancher kid accidentally brought his truck with rifles still in it to school, no one raised an eyebrow except to think he had to have been tired from 3 am milking and patching fence before school to forget to leave his guns at home. Seriously, I am not anti-gun.  I'm pro-responsible gun handling...and it's just in the current cultural context, that seems anti-gun because we've swung too far out of common sense rules.

There was a dude in our neighborhood when we lived in TX who went out daily with his AK-47 to march around demonstrating his right to bear arms. You'd see him in the park and in the grocery store and everywhere else. It's because of people like him that I think that everyone should have mandated safety and proficiency coursework. It was in that same grocery store where I saw toddlers digging into mama's purses where I saw handguns and that same store where I saw dudes post Hurricane Harvey fighting in the checkout lane over supplies, all with their guns.  Pretty much every other week some kid was shot from getting into guns when they shouldn't in their homes.  Not all died, but it was pretty regular.  I moved across the country, and I think I've maybe seen five pistols on people who weren't in uniform in the several years we've lived here. It's a very different culture....and yet we've still had gun incidents in my kids' schools. 

If we're going to live in a world where people are carrying everywhere, then they need to be trained to carry responsibly and there need to be swift and strict penalties when they do idiotic things with their guns. 

[Ting Tang]

Let's stop guns from getting into schools.  There are physical ways of helping guns not get through the doors of a school.  I bet we could shuffle around money in various budgets and make that happen.  Yes, we need to fortify our schools.  It doesn't solve all of the problems in our world, but at least kids could be safe in their classrooms.  Teachers wouldn't have to rely on code red drills to save kids' lives.  Thank goodness some teachers handle these moments in a way that saves lives, but I am not even sure I could be relied upon to be that quick on my feet...not fair to them.  They shouldn't have to be the reason someone lives or dies.

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Let's stop guns from getting into schools.  There are physical ways of helping guns not get through the doors of a school.  I bet we could shuffle around money in various budgets and make that happen.  Yes, we need to fortify our schools.  It doesn't solve all of the problems in our world, but at least kids could be safe in their classrooms.  Teachers wouldn't have to rely on code red drills to save kids' lives.  Thank goodness some teachers handle these moments in a way that saves lives, but I am not even sure I could be relied upon to be that quick on my feet...not fair to them.  They shouldn't have to be the reason someone lives or dies.

I agree.  This week the teacher with the locked door lived and so did his class.  A simple lock.  

[kbutton]

9 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

You might have an idealized version of this.  In places where open carry is legal you will indeed find people walking around with shot guns and rifles strapped to their backs.   

No, I am not sure how to categorize it. Concealed carry in states I am familiar with is for hand guns. I am not sure if it is legal to walk around with a rifle in all of those places. I know open carry is a thing, but I thought long guns open tests was limited to just a few states. I guess my problem is it sometimes goes together in general conversation and sometimes doesn’t, but concealed carry or just “carrying,” seems to default mean concealed handguns in places I live or in discussions IRL. I don’t think all open carry places include long guns, but maybe I completely misunderstand that aspect. It’s not an intentionally rosy statement!

I think all hand guns should require a CCL. 

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

No, I am not sure how to categorize it. Concealed carry in states I am familiar with is for hand guns. I am not sure if it is legal to walk around with a rifle in all of those places. I know open carry is a thing, but I thought long guns open tests was limited to just a few states. I guess my problem is it sometimes goes together in general conversation and sometimes doesn’t, but concealed carry or just “carrying,” seems to default mean concealed handguns in places I live or in discussions IRL. I don’t think all open carry places include long guns, but maybe I completely misunderstand that aspect. It’s not an intentionally rosy statement!

I think all hand guns should require a CCL. 

It is hard to speak in generalities.  One thing that I find annoying is that most Americans seem to confuse the rules for a concealed carry license with the rules to own a gun.   A lot don’t realize that open carry is legal in some states, or that open carry requires no license, even for long guns.  

[kbutton]

27 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Seriously, I am not anti-gun.  I'm pro-responsible gun handling...and it's just in the current cultural context, that seems anti-gun because we've swung too far out of common sense rules.

I just wondered at the specifics of some of your initial statements, and this context helps. I agree about common sense and that if we loose it, we loose the ability to not have rules that shouldn’t have to be made! If I could not go to a grocery store without seeing guns, I would be motivated to move if at all possible. I would not feel like I lived somewhere where rules would solve the problem because that would be the tip of the iceberg!

[kbutton]

2 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

It is hard to speak in generalities.  One thing that I find annoying is that most Americans seem to confuse the rules for a concealed carry license with the rules to own a gun.   A lot don’t realize that open carry is legal in some states, or that open carry requires no license, even for long guns.  

It can be confusing! Even trying to explain my own understanding of what goes together and doesn’t goes south in my mind quickly.

That’s why I asked a lot of questions while trying to state what I think is long-standing and traditional in many places that would cause people to bristle—I definitely hear carrying around here as applying specifically to hand guns, but didn’t quite go so far as to say so directly because of my emphasis on what I think would make people bristle in states where my experience is the law/norm. I was trying to be clear but came out rosy unintentionally. Not at all what so meant to do!

 

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Children can give informed consent, they do so before judges in custody hearings all the time. They give testimony under oath. They are parenting other children and give consent for the care of their children. I know if my spouse or child dies at the hand of someone else’s negligence, I will not be silent about it, nor would I expect them to. They’re young. They’re not stupid.

There are a host of other instances when they cannot give informed consent. When kids give testimony under oath, it is customary for them to have a guardian ad litem that looks out for their interests (at least here it is). When they themselves are parents, its another thing entirely. In some states they become emancipated minors (with the privileges & responsibilities of an adult), in some states they don't.

It is your prerogative to talk. It is your prerogative to allow your kids to talk to the press. I would hope you wouldn't do so in a state of shock, nor allow your kid to do it in a state of shock. If you do, I hope there's someone there to look out for your interests when you cannot.

ETA: I don't think people should never talk, I think that making what are essentially deathbed declarations public the day of the shooting is exploitative and unethical. I cannot imagine any scenario (though I'm not a doctor) where the kids who sent those texts were not in shock and remained in shock for a period of time longer than the few hours it took those text messages to hit the news. The thing about shock is that people who are in shock often don't realize it and try to carry on as usual.

Edited September 6 by TechWife

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, kbutton said:

As long as I am in the hot seat, I think people are not entirely engaging with @Murphy101’s points about the school and law enforcement not being a Borg while also wishing that there was a more perfect way of getting people on the same page.

There is a soft default to what kinds of ideas people on here have to qualify so that no one uses those ideas as a jumping off point for “let’s toss up our hands” and what gets a pass as accepted as a matter of course by most people.

I completely agree with @Murphy101's earlier statement. It's so easy for us to engage in judgmental "Monday morning quarterbacking" and neglect to acknowledge the complexity of these situations, which exists on multiple fronts that converge in a split second. I'm pretty amazed the school resource officer arrived quickly and was able to take him into custody so quickly.

Not being Borg is something that will always exists between agencies, systems and other organizations. It's easy enough for "everyone" to slam the school for not having him under some type of observation without having any idea what information, if any, was communicated between schools when he transferred or among people at his school. It's  entirely possible that if he was brand new at that school, his records from his previous school had not even arrived yet. We (general we) have developed this misplaced expectation of perfection and  and are so intolerant of any variation between our expectations, wrong though they may be, and reality.

I truly have no idea what your second paragraph means, though @kbutton.

[Annie G]

5 hours ago, TechWife said:

Two high school students in Hall Co have been arrested for making threats on social media. I graduated from Johnson High School & am walking the halls in my memory. I have family in Hall Co. schools. 

ETA:   A third arrest in Hall County. This one at the middle school my great-nephew attended (he is a high school freshman this year, so not at that particular school any longer).

https://www.facebook.com/100067784194058/posts/pfbid0irHhFj24f44YTRv8FBgRucoJ9nPNhWi4jfRLa9yLVnyDcq1rX1EHitBD5jALVPkrl/?app=fbl

ETA: Two more in Forsyth Co. I also have family there. 
 

https://www.facebook.com/100067784194058/posts/pfbid0irHhFj24f44YTRv8FBgRucoJ9nPNhWi4jfRLa9yLVnyDcq1rX1EHitBD5jALVPkrl/?app=fbl

ETA: Some geography: Hall Co. is adjacent to Barrow Co and Forsyth Co is adjacent to Hall. 
There is a city in Ga named Forsyth - it is not in Forsyth Cointy. 

Channel 11 is reporting threats have also been made in Clarke, Bartow, and Franklin counties, with several students identified and arrested. One student admitted to posting a threat on social media and said he thought it was funny.  Gwinnett schools/police are sifting through nearly 300 social media threats. 300.  

Edited September 6 by Annie G

[Hilltopmom]

8 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

With all due respect, my opinion is that pulling a fire alarm is not a good analogy. They pull alarms to get out of class. Much different than posting about setting the school on fire so that the students burn. Maybe I’m naive, but I’ve never personally heard a child threaten to take out others in a horrific way. It’s got to be highly unusual, and that’s why I think we should give credibility to threats. How many more times should we all be wrong. 😔  (and I don’t mean to contradict myself on unusual vs. so many shootings) 

It is Not unusual. We have so many children in DIRE need of mental health services.

I had a 7 year old last year draw and threaten daily that he wanted to burn the school down with his peers and teachers inside & threaten to shoot us daily. 

We hooked his family up with mental health support (consisting of counseling 1x week, that’s all there is locally). His doctor dismissed our concerns & as a school you can’t  kick a kid out for that. Our social worker asks if he has access to weapons but that’s all we can really do.

In our small rural school we’ve had at least 5 kids I can think of I know of who make threats like that regularly in the last couple of years. We’re a K-5 school.

[kbutton]

55 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I truly have no idea what your second paragraph means, though @kbutton.

I feel like some statements have to be qualified and other statements get a soft pass that are probably just as much in need of qualification. 

[mommyoffive]

Just saw this one pop in my news

https://people.com/student-15-killed-in-school-bathroom-16-year-old-suspect-in-custody-8707998

 

First week of school in a small town.   I know it is different from the other one, but no less tragic to everyone there.  I read an article months ago about how there is a group of principals/teachers that reach out to each school where shootings happen to help them deal with it.   The principals at schools where the shootings are small like this still have so much to deal with.  I just want to puke.   This life we have in America is horrible that we all deal with this and have this touch our lives.  Every year they get closer and closer to home.  It blows my mind that so many boardies on here that I know who have been touched by a school shooting.   I wish I could move to another country.  

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

I wish I could move to another country.  

Right there with you on that!

[Ting Tang]

56 minutes ago, Hilltopmom said:

It is Not unusual. We have so many children in DIRE need of mental health services.

I had a 7 year old last year draw and threaten daily that he wanted to burn the school down with his peers and teachers inside & threaten to shoot us daily. 

We hooked his family up with mental health support (consisting of counseling 1x week, that’s all there is locally). His doctor dismissed our concerns & as a school you can’t  kick a kid out for that. Our social worker asks if he has access to weapons but that’s all we can really do.

In our small rural school we’ve had at least 5 kids I can think of I know of who make threats like that regularly in the last couple of years. We’re a K-5 school.

Dismissal of your concerns… terrible. It’s just a game of odds at this point whether we will die in mass shootings. 

[Corraleno]

40 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Not being Borg is something that will always exists between agencies, systems and other organizations. It's easy enough for "everyone" to slam the school for not having him under some type of observation without having any idea what information, if any, was communicated between schools when he transferred or among people at his school. It's  entirely possible that if he was brand new at that school, his records from his previous school had not even arrived yet.

Even if this school had no information whatsoever on this particular kid, if someone calls in a threat to shoot up the school, why wouldn't you immediately summon the resource officers assigned to that school, instead of waiting until after 13 people were shot? Why wouldn't you notify the teachers that a threat had been called in and ask them to keep their doors locked, report anything suspicious, and minimize the number of students who were outside the classroom? 

How differently might this have played out if there were resource officers walking the halls at the time this kid managed to go get the gun from his locker or wherever it was hidden? How many fewer people might have died if every classroom was locked like the first one he tried to get into? 

 

40 minutes ago, TechWife said:

We (general we) have developed this misplaced expectation of perfection and  and are so intolerant of any variation between our expectations, wrong though they may be, and reality.

I think the frustration is less about the expectation of perfection and more about the lack of even basic common sense. Pretty much everyone involved in this case dropped the ball, from the FBI and Sheriff's office to the kid's father and the school system. We cannot, ever, afford to shrug off potential threats as "probably no big deal this time," because when it IS a big deal, thousands of children and families and entire communities are left devastated. We are traumatizing an entire generation of children by refusing to fix this.

I'm increasingly skeptical that we will ever fix it from the gun access side, because a significant percentage of the population feel like the death of school children (other people's children of course) is now just a "fact of life" and an acceptable price to pay for their right to own whatever weapons they want without any restrictions, including safe storage requirements. And a whole lot of politicians and media folks are happy to exploit those folks to retain power and make money. But even if that battle is likely futile (at least for the time being), we should be doing everything humanly possible to keep guns, and the kids who want to use them to kill people, out of schools. And I don't want to hear that it's "too expensive" — what is the social and emotional cost of having millions of children walk into school every day knowing they are at risk of ending up dead on the floor before the day is over? What is the psychological impact on young children when they have to practice hiding from a bad man who might burst through the door any minute and try to kill them?

 

 

[Terabith]

Hardening our local public schools simply won’t work.  
 

I know this because my kid graduated in June.  Her entire high school career, every couple months something would happen that would inspire the schools to wheel out the portable metal detectors and set them up at the entrances.  Our high school has two main entrances.  School has just under 2,000 students.  Every time they broke out the metal detectors, they would start running kids through at 8 am, when doors opened, and at noon, 3.5 hours into the instructional day, kids would still be in line.  That doesn’t take into account the about half the students who would see the line and nope out of the whole process.  It just simply wouldn’t work without more entrances, more metal detectors, and more staff.  

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Even if this school had no information whatsoever on this particular kid, if someone calls in a threat to shoot up the school, why wouldn't you immediately summon the resource officers assigned to that school, instead of waiting until after 13 people were shot? Why wouldn't you notify the teachers that a threat had been called in and ask them to keep their doors locked, report anything suspicious, and minimize the number of students who were outside the classroom? 

Yes!!!  Why is there not a soft lockdown protocol?  They do active shooter drills I’m sure.  Why not an “extra precaution” protocol?   They had a threat called in and seem to have ignored it.  It’s not asking for perfection for schools to have a plan of some sort.  

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

Hardening our local public schools simply won’t work.  
 

I know this because my kid graduated in June.  Her entire high school career, every couple months something would happen that would inspire the schools to wheel out the portable metal detectors and set them up at the entrances.  Our high school has two main entrances.  School has just under 2,000 students.  Every time they broke out the metal detectors, they would start running kids through at 8 am, when doors opened, and at noon, 3.5 hours into the instructional day, kids would still be in line.  That doesn’t take into account the about half the students who would see the line and nope out of the whole process.  It just simply wouldn’t work without more entrances, more metal detectors, and more staff.  

Then maybe we need to buy more metal detectors and hire more staff. Require clear bags/backpacks. Treat every threat as serious, including identifying (and, where appropriate, arresting) students who make threats — and then keep track of them. Make it easier to divert students who are violent or who make persistent threats to alternative ed programs. Hire a LOT more counselors (real, trained counselors, not "chaplains" with zero mental health training like Texas and Florida are doing). I realize that people don't want to pay for these things, but we either need to reduce access to guns outside of school or reduce the ability of disturbed kids to bring them into school. Maybe if we present these as the only two options, the folks who oppose any restrictions on guns will see spending tax money on protecting schools as the lesser of two evils. Of course that won't reduce your chances of being gunned down in a mall parking lot or shot for turning around in the wrong driveway, but at least children can know they are safer in the one place outside of home where they spend the most time.

[Corraleno]

7 hours ago, KSera said:

Plenty of these shooters have been hunting kids though; I don’t think being introduced to guns as a useful tool for hunting reduces the risk that a kid will commit a crime with the gun. Or suicide. I don’t see a benefit in desensitizing other kids to handling a gun though.  Teach what to do if they encounter one, but I don’t think learning gun skills appears to be a thing that would reduce shootings in any way. 

Yeah Colt Gray's father told the FBI that he introduced his son to guns to "get him outdoors and away from video games." He said that Colt had recently shot his first deer and had deer blood smeared on his cheeks and "it was the best day ever."  Meanwhile the kid is in his bedroom posting threats and gun pics online under the name LANZA and making written notes about previous school shootings, especially Parkland.

Adam Lanza's and Ethan Crumbley's parents also bought them guns and took them to the shooting range so they'd have a nice hobby to distract them and keep them occupied.

The idea that teaching kids how to use a gun will somehow make them less likely to use them illegally is nuts.  It just means that the kids who are disturbed enough to want to shoot people not only have access to the means to do it, they are also likely to be better shots.

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, Annie G said:

Channel 11 is reporting threats have also been made in Clarke, Bartow, and Franklin counties, with several students identified and arrested. One student admitted to posting a threat on social media and said he thought it was funny.  Gwinnett schools/police are sifting through nearly 300 social media threats. 300.  

Do you have any idea of the time frame of when the threats were made? Are they working their way backwards or have all of the threats occurred in the past 48 hours? 

[Corraleno]

7 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Do you have any idea of the time frame of when the threats were made? Are they working their way backwards or have all of the threats occurred in the past 48 hours? 

They've all been after the Apalachee shooting

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/georgia-teens-charges-online-school-threats/85-133573ba-666c-48f6-a01c-b5691a2b004a

[Ting Tang]

All that is really going to happen is we will sit back and wait for the next one.

 

😞   I realize we can't have kids waiting in line for hours to be screened, but there must be something that could be done to help sooner than later.  

 

[fairfarmhand]

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

Hardening our local public schools simply won’t work.  
 

I know this because my kid graduated in June.  Her entire high school career, every couple months something would happen that would inspire the schools to wheel out the portable metal detectors and set them up at the entrances.  Our high school has two main entrances.  School has just under 2,000 students.  Every time they broke out the metal detectors, they would start running kids through at 8 am, when doors opened, and at noon, 3.5 hours into the instructional day, kids would still be in line.  That doesn’t take into account the about half the students who would see the line and nope out of the whole process.  It just simply wouldn’t work without more entrances, more metal detectors, and more staff.  

Apparently some people in Chicago know how to do it! Of course if this is an intermittent thing it’s going to take a long time. Kids will bring pocketknives and have to be pulled out of line. Once it’s an every day thing nobody brings anything they’re not supposed to, everyone knows the procedure, and it becomes more efficient. And yes it would take more money, staff and equipment for sure.

[Terabith]

7 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

Apparently some people in Chicago know how to do it! Of course if this is an intermittent thing it’s going to take a long time. Kids will bring pocketknives and have to be pulled out of line. Once it’s an every day thing nobody brings anything they’re not supposed to, everyone knows the procedure, and it becomes more efficient. And yes it would take more money, staff and equipment for sure.

For us it would require rebuilding the buildings to have more than two entry points.  

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Even if this school had no information whatsoever on this particular kid, if someone calls in a threat to shoot up the school, why wouldn't you immediately summon the resource officers assigned to that school, instead of waiting until after 13 people were shot? Why wouldn't you notify the teachers that a threat had been called in and ask them to keep their doors locked, report anything suspicious, and minimize the number of students who were outside the classroom? 

How differently might this have played out if there were resource officers walking the halls at the time this kid managed to go get the gun from his locker or wherever it was hidden? How many fewer people might have died if every classroom was locked like the first one he tried to get into? 

 

I think the frustration is less about the expectation of perfection and more about the lack of even basic common sense. Pretty much everyone involved in this case dropped the ball, from the FBI and Sheriff's office to the kid's father and the school system. We cannot, ever, afford to shrug off potential threats as "probably no big deal this time," because when it IS a big deal, thousands of children and families and entire communities are left devastated. We are traumatizing an entire generation of children by refusing to fix this.

I'm increasingly skeptical that we will ever fix it from the gun access side, because a significant percentage of the population feel like the death of school children (other people's children of course) is now just a "fact of life" and an acceptable price to pay for their right to own whatever weapons they want without any restrictions, including safe storage requirements. And a whole lot of politicians and media folks are happy to exploit those folks to retain power and make money. But even if that battle is likely futile (at least for the time being), we should be doing everything humanly possible to keep guns, and the kids who want to use them to kill people, out of schools. And I don't want to hear that it's "too expensive" — what is the social and emotional cost of having millions of children walk into school every day knowing they are at risk of ending up dead on the floor before the day is over? What is the psychological impact on young children when they have to practice hiding from a bad man who might burst through the door any minute and try to kill them?

 

 

That "fact of life comment was taken completely out of context, He said the opposite, we should not take it as a fact of life.  Then he talked about measures like metal detectors, etc.

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, Terabith said:

Hardening our local public schools simply won’t work.  
 

I know this because my kid graduated in June.  Her entire high school career, every couple months something would happen that would inspire the schools to wheel out the portable metal detectors and set them up at the entrances.  Our high school has two main entrances.  School has just under 2,000 students.  Every time they broke out the metal detectors, they would start running kids through at 8 am, when doors opened, and at noon, 3.5 hours into the instructional day, kids would still be in line.  That doesn’t take into account the about half the students who would see the line and nope out of the whole process.  It just simply wouldn’t work without more entrances, more metal detectors, and more staff.  

If they wanted to they could.  It would get faster once they got used to it.  Some kids would get there early, they would prep their stuff the way we all do at airports, it would be routine.  
 

People with schools that have more than 2 entrances say they couldn’t possibly check kids coming in because it’s too many entrances.  

Edited September 7 by Heartstrings

[fairfarmhand]

I will say that schools with spread out campuses and lots of buildings (I remember Florida schools being like this) would have to completely revamp their campuses in some way.