School shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia

[Heartstrings]

It’s so disheartening.  We aren’t going to fix the gun issue, we aren’t going to harden schools, we can’t expect the school officials to act any certain way, we won’t do anything about mental health.  
 

How do we adjust to this as society?   We probably need to stop compelling attendance at location we cant/wont secure. Do we expand micro schools and online learning?  Do we need Daniel Tiger to make some special school shooting episodes?  

 

 

Edited September 8 by Heartstrings

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s so disheartening.  We aren’t going to fix the gun issue, we aren’t going to harden schools, we can’t expect the school officials to act any certain way, we won’t do anything about mental health.  
 

How do we adjust to this as society?   We probably need to stop compelling attendance at location we cant/wont secure. Do we expand micro schools and online learning?  Do we need Daniel Tiger to make some special school shooting episodes?  

 

 

At this point we have about 12,500 school districts in the US. There have been 45 school shootings in 2024 thus far, the others (342 ish) have been mass shootings but not in schools. That is a 1/.0036 chance of a school district experiencing a shooting, and the year isn't over. It looks like the kind of statistic that can be ignored. Yet, there was 1, exactly 1, school shooting in 1974. In 50 years, we have had  what can only be described as a mind boggling increase.

My brother in law and sister leave in 2 days to go home to France. He told me that he thinks this may have been his last trip to the States. He won't stop sis from visiting if she really wants to, but he just consider the USA to be so gun violent that it makes him nervous to go into high traffic areas like grocery stores and such. He said he is willing to help relatives with the cost of plane travel to France to visit them.

I don't want to live here anymore. I also am not willing to abandon my kids and grandkids here who have no feasible way out. I am feeling so down today, and I can't take the time to process this because my dear rocket team is waiting for feedback. It just is getting harder and harder and harder to bounce back from the never ending gut punches of gun violence.

 

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

It just is getting harder and harder and harder to bounce back from the never ending gut punches of gun violence.

Yes it is.  

[Sneezyone]

6 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Sigh. I keep coming back to 300 threats and staffing and thinking the result of that daily scenario is there is “written and trained protocol” and then there is the real protocol that reflects daily life.

They can’t take every call so serious bc the truth is every call is not so serious and the school flat out cannot function under the written protocols if they apply them to every threat.

It’s so easy to say this is such a cluster f up.

and it is. But also. There’s no way under the current educational environment that it isn’t going to end up a cluster f up sometimes. And if schools are getting 300 threats (and many absolutely are) the “sometimes” is going to be a daily event somewhere in the nation. This time this unlucky school got the short straw. Tomorrow it will be another school. 

I can’t see how making schools more prison-like is going to reduce how much students want to shoot the place up.  That seems.. not conductive? 

Yes, there is. You can suspend or expel every kid who makes these threats. I get that zero tolerance is controversial but kids and families will adapt. What we know about bias in policy enforcement is that discretion elimination HELPS. Stop excusing white male violent threats as NBD. Treat them the exact same way, every time, as you would rumors of gang violence. Get these kids out of class, search their homes for safety measures, and insist on follow up.

Edited September 8 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

4 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Maybe they go shoot something else up, but schools are soft targets. Gun free zones---purely on a voluntary basis.

I don’t think schools are targets because they’re gun free zones. They’re targets because the shooter either wants the notoriety and horror of one of the “worst” kinds of shootings and/or because of the pain they associate with the school environment and/or because that’s what is always talked about as a target or I’m sure a number of other reasons. But given that most school shooters either don’t expect or don’t even want to survive the act, I don’t think the fact that they are gun free zones likely has much to do with it. IOW, I don’t see any way this improves by no longer restricting guns on campuses. 

[Sneezyone]

In defense of post-event text publication? Politicos notice; the messages are breaking through. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4868568-cooper-says-hes-tired-of-seeing-texts-from-students-telling-parents-theyre-afraid-of-school-shootings/

[Terabith]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

At this point we have about 12,500 school districts in the US. There have been 45 school shootings in 2024 thus far, the others (342 ish) have been mass shootings but not in schools. That is a 1/.0036 chance of a school district experiencing a shooting, and the year isn't over. It looks like the kind of statistic that can be ignored. Yet, there was 1, exactly 1, school shooting in 1974. In 50 years, we have had  what can only be described as a mind boggling increase.

My brother in law and sister leave in 2 days to go home to France. He told me that he thinks this may have been his last trip to the States. He won't stop sis from visiting if she really wants to, but he just consider the USA to be so gun violent that it makes him nervous to go into high traffic areas like grocery stores and such. He said he is willing to help relatives with the cost of plane travel to France to visit them.

I don't want to live here anymore. I also am not willing to abandon my kids and grandkids here who have no feasible way out. I am feeling so down today, and I can't take the time to process this because my dear rocket team is waiting for feedback. It just is getting harder and harder and harder to bounce back from the never ending gut punches of gun violence.

 

There is some evidence that there were a ton more serial killers in the 70s and 80s than there are now.  I'm not saying gun violence isn't an issue.....it 100% is.  But there is some sort of sociological thing whereby the kinds of people who might have become serial killers in previous decades become mass shooters now.  

[hshibley]

29 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

In defense of post-event text publication? Politicos notice; the messages are breaking through. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4868568-cooper-says-hes-tired-of-seeing-texts-from-students-telling-parents-theyre-afraid-of-school-shootings/

Cooper’s a Democratic governor who supports gun control. Unfortunately in NC Republicans have a veto proof majority in the state legislature so gun control is never happening here. Democrats aren’t the ones who need convincing. Personally I support releasing the text messages. It’s as close to an Emmitt Til moment as we can get. Hopefully we can get common sense gun control without having to release pictures of what remains of a dead student after being shot and killed by an AR15. But who knows. 

[Heartstrings]

38 minutes ago, Terabith said:

There is some evidence that there were a ton more serial killers in the 70s and 80s than there are now.  I'm not saying gun violence isn't an issue.....it 100% is.  But there is some sort of sociological thing whereby the kinds of people who might have become serial killers in previous decades become mass shooters now.  

Interesting.  That’s gonna be something I have to ponder now.  

[Terabith]

https://www.salon.com/2018/02/20/swapping-one-evil-for-another-have-mass-shooters-replaced-serial-killers/

[knitgrl]

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

There is some evidence that there were a ton more serial killers in the 70s and 80s than there are now.  I'm not saying gun violence isn't an issue.....it 100% is.  But there is some sort of sociological thing whereby the kinds of people who might have become serial killers in previous decades become mass shooters now.  

It could be that the serial killers in the 70s and 80s had (in part) issues due to the effects of lead gasoline contaminating the air.

[Catwoman]

29 minutes ago, knitgrl said:

It could be that the serial killers in the 70s and 80s had (in part) issues due to the effects of lead gasoline contaminating the air.

I'm not buying that argument and have never heard of such a thing until you just mentioned it.

Wouldn't all of us who were alive back then (and way before the 70s and 80s as well) have those same serial killer tendencies if leaded gasoline was contaminating the air to that degree?

 

Edited September 9 by Catwoman
Autocorrect is not my friend tonight!

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Terabith said:

There is some evidence that there were a ton more serial killers in the 70s and 80s than there are now.  I'm not saying gun violence isn't an issue.....it 100% is.  But there is some sort of sociological thing whereby the kinds of people who might have become serial killers in previous decades become mass shooters now.  

Were AR-15 type weapons available to the general public at that time? 

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, knitgrl said:

It could be that the serial killers in the 70s and 80s had (in part) issues due to the effects of lead gasoline contaminating the air.

I'm sure that was a factor.  It definitely lowered IQs and there is evidence that it increased aggression.  However, it's unlikely that it created psychopaths.

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

Were AR-15 type weapons available to the general public at that time? 

They were not.  That is 100% a reason for the increase in mass shootings, but so was the notoriety and fame that came from Columbine.  

[knitgrl]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

I'm not buying that argument and have never heard of such a thing until you just mentioned it.

Wouldn't all of us who were alive back then (and way before the 70s and 80s as well) have those same serial killer tendencies if leaded gasoline was contaminating the air to that degree?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis

Of course there are numerous factors. But an interesting possible piece.

[Heartstrings]

3 hours ago, Catwoman said:

I'm not buying that argument and have never heard of such a thing until you just mentioned it.

Wouldn't all of us who were alive back then (and way before the 70s and 80s as well) have those same serial killer tendencies if leaded gasoline was contaminating the air to that degree?

 

You should look into it, it’s fairly well documented.   It would affect different people in different ways.  Not everyone that lives in a cancer ally gets cancer, or the same kind of cancer.  

 

2 hours ago, Terabith said:

They were not.  That is 100% a reason for the increase in mass shootings, but so was the notoriety and fame that came from Columbine.  

The media circus after Columbine is definitely partly to blame and we’ve learned little since then. 

[Laura Corin]

14 hours ago, Terabith said:

There is some evidence that there were a ton more serial killers in the 70s and 80s than there are now.  I'm not saying gun violence isn't an issue.....it 100% is.  But there is some sort of sociological thing whereby the kinds of people who might have become serial killers in previous decades become mass shooters now.  

I've heard it said that the reason for the decline in serial killers is that forensic developments mean that it is much harder for them to operate anonymously for long.

[MercyA]

14 hours ago, hshibley said:

 Hopefully we can get common sense gun control without having to release pictures of what remains of a dead student after being shot and killed by an AR15. But who knows. 

I honestly think this could be helpful. 😞 

[Heartstrings]

54 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I honestly think this could be helpful. 😞 

I don’t think it would matter.  They would just say it was crisis actors or AI or the cost of freedom or something.  A lot of people do not care.  It’s not they don’t understand the cost, they do not care.  

[TravelingChris]

On 9/7/2024 at 3:01 PM, Murphy101 said:

 

Here is what I think. I think reporters should be on the site of the news but not allowed to show faces or names of anyone at all at the site unless those people step up and ask to talk to them. I’d be okay with that.  Let them share their pain publicly if they want. Give them the chance to make that choice for themselves. Blur all faces unless they say they are okay with it. Same for names. Don’t go putting microphones in their sobbing faces.  But do state that anyone who wants to talk can come up to the reporters. 

You would have to get rid of the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights section of the US  Constitution.  Under that, press has protections.  Us Supreme Court rulings have long ruled that privacy ends when you are out in public and even to the point that you allow yourself to be seen in public- like unshaded windows.

They could do the blurr8ng voluntarily.

As to  your comment about trauma last8ng acl9ng time.  That is partially based on genetics. Apparently, I have a higher propensity to develop ptsd and did -but not about violence and crime.  For that k8nd of stuff - I haven't had problems but bureaucratic messed-ups cause panic attacks as do medical incompetency nightmares and bothbof those being leveled at me by an incompetent nurse and clueless PA ledcto me basically losing almost a year and a half of sane life.nnSonO totally get anyone being very affected.However, most don't get Ptsd., andceven w/ genetic tendency towards anxiety and/or depression- none of my family got it f4om crime or terrorism - brains are super complicated and we know so very little.

 

 

[Murphy101]

 

12 hours ago, Terabith said:

They were not.  That is 100% a reason for the increase in mass shootings, but so was the notoriety and fame that came from Columbine.  

The lack of immediate access to high round guns and large quantities of ammo is bottom line the increase of shootings. There’s just zero ifs or buts about that. 

1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

I've heard it said that the reason for the decline in serial killers is that forensic developments mean that it is much harder for them to operate anonymously for long.

This. And only this. Like the salon article, I’m not seeing real evidence of any other reason. Basicly the number of serial killers did not actually decline. We got better at catching them and catching them faster before they could become serial. 

31 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

You would have to get rid of the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights section of the US  Constitution.  Under that, press has protections.  Us Supreme Court rulings have long ruled that privacy ends when you are out in public and even to the point that you allow yourself to be seen in public- like unshaded windows.

and I think that’s BS that needs to change.  Much like right to bear arms was never intended to allow for hundreds of people to mow down dozens of there fellow citizens at a school, the freedom of the press was never meant to include cameras and identity exposure in every situation.  And we do have limits in that they typically don’t show mutilated bodies or outright nudity.  I know some do not believe there is a right to citizen privacy in the constitution and whether I agree or not, I think there should be.  For one thing, I think it undermines innocent until proven guilty to have names and faces publicized.  

I think both these need to change. 

31 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

They could do the blurr8ng voluntarily.

they could and I would commend it. But alas voluntary corporate decency is not the norm or we wouldn’t need unions and EPA and workers rights. 

[Ting Tang]

22 hours ago, KSera said:

I don’t think schools are targets because they’re gun free zones. They’re targets because the shooter either wants the notoriety and horror of one of the “worst” kinds of shootings and/or because of the pain they associate with the school environment and/or because that’s what is always talked about as a target or I’m sure a number of other reasons. But given that most school shooters either don’t expect or don’t even want to survive the act, I don’t think the fact that they are gun free zones likely has much to do with it. IOW, I don’t see any way this improves by no longer restricting guns on campuses. 

Oh no, I think schools should remain gun free zones, with the exception perhaps being security detail at entrances.  I don't believe in arming teachers or requiring that.  My point wasn't too deep.  These kids are bringing their guns into the school, and the only people who obey are the victims.  But they are soft targets.  They are easy targets.  These people can kill children easily.  They know they can cause a lot of damage quickly.  We've got to ensure the schools are gun free zones.  Nothing is preventing them from being gun free. We can't trust a sign that says gun-free to protect these students.

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

But they are soft targets.  They are easy targets.  These people can kill children easily.

Yes. They can do this easily because it's easy to get high powered weapons that fire a lot of shots quickly and don't require skill to do so. I was listening to a podcast in the car today that was talking about this "soft target" issue and I didn't realize it had been a thing that was said by a prominent person last week. I pretty much agreed fully with everything the host said in response to that (though he used many more expletives than I would have, but I couldn't really blame him). I'm tempted to find a transcript and share an edited version here.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Yes. They can do this easily because it's easy to get high powered weapons that fire a lot of shots quickly and don't require skill to do so. I was listening to a podcast in the car today that was talking about this "soft target" issue and I didn't realize it had been a thing that was said by a prominent person last week. I pretty much agreed fully with everything the host said in response to that (though he used many more expletives than I would have, but I couldn't really blame him). I'm tempted to find a transcript and share an edited version here.

It’s amazing how quickly  talking points migrate to the forums.

[Bambam]

In our little pocket of East Texas, we've already had one case of a kid making a threat against a school. Police immediately investigated and now the person they believe responsible has been arrested for felony terroristic threat.  We had this same thing happen at the beginning of school last year, and I think 4-6 juveniles were arrested.   I don't remember seeing any account of trials for the ones arrested last year, but I think they were all juveniles, so I don't know if that would have been reported in the papers.