4 Calif. Students Arrested For Alleged Mass-Killing Plot 452
The New York Times reports that four high school students in the small California town of Tuolumne, about 120 miles east of San Francisco, have been arrested, but not yet charged, for planning an attack on their school, Summerville High School. According to the Times, three of the four were overheard discussing this plot, and a fourth conspirator was later identified. Their goal, according to Toulumne sheriff James Mele, was "to shoot and kill as many people as possible at the campus"; they had not however been able yet to obtain the weapons they wanted to carry out the attack. From NBC News' version of the story:
"Detectives located evidence verifying a plot to shoot staff and students at Summerville High School," Mele said. "The suspects' plan was very detailed in nature and included names of would-be victims, locations and the methods in which the plan was to be carried out."
I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:4, Insightful)
I come here for geek/tech news. I read stuff like this on real news sites.
Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why did you click the link? You could have spent 3 seconds reading the headline and scrolled on to the next article.
Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why did you click the link? You could have spent 3 seconds reading the headline and scrolled on to the next article.
If he hadn't click the link, the OP wouldn't have had something to bitch about. Some people need to bitch about trivial things to have a faux feeling of accomplishment.
Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:5, Insightful)
I come here for geek/tech news.
Thats odd. Most people come here to read the comments. Nobody reads TFA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd actually really appreciate a 'regular' news site that had a high-quality community and an effective moderating system like Slashdot has.
I don't think one of those exists, does it?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Nobody reads TFA.
Some folks don't even bother to read the summary.
. . . And it seems to me, that some don't read the post that they are replying to.
Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who wasn't around when Jon Katz was writing his "Voices From The Hellmouth" columns, after the LIttleton massacre when nerdy teens were suddenly public enemy #1. As an old-timer, this looks exactly like the sort of story I'd expect /. to link to and discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? If you actually read TFA, there's precisely zero information in either linked article to suggests the suspects are 'nerdy teens' or have any other reason to be linked to the /. demographic. As a /. old-timer, I'm with OP, the
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, kids: if it was the drugs that made you do it, you get no points.
Re: (Score:3)
The "world" may have forgotten about it in a week or two but schools and governments still fixated on it. That's the important part. The effects of it are still being felt in the form of "zero tolerance" policies and morons mistaking clocks for bombs.
Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:5, Insightful)
I read stuff like this on real news sites.
Not really. The only reason "terrorism" is relevant here at all, is that Americans are get so scared they shit themselves all over the Constitution whenever terrorism is mentioned. Unless your so-called news site basically says, "some insignificant statistic happened, so get ready to give up more freedoms and/or expect people to start discussing terrorism again", then it's not a real news site.
Wake me up when terrorists kill more people than peanuts. People aren't afraid of dangerous things like cars, but shit themselves over terrists.
Re: (Score:2)
People are afraid of cars, that's why they spend so much time looking at safety rating when making a purchase and teaching their kids how to cross the road safely. There are huge volumes of law in place that successfully made cars much, much safer than they otherwise would be.
Most people aren't actively soiling their pants over terrorists either, it's just that when you ask them directly if something should be done to make them safer they find it hard to argue against that. It's not fear of terrorism, it's
Re: (Score:2)
People are afraid of cars, that's why they spend so much time looking at safety rating when making a purchase
Only wealthy people can even afford to do that. Everyone else buys used what they can afford. Remember, the middle class is vanishing. Car sales are up right now because gas prices are down and consumers are feeling froggy but they will go up again the next time it suits the agenda, and then car sales will plummet once more.
and teaching their kids how to cross the road safely.
I sure wish they would do that. They clearly don't.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't come to slashdot for these stories"
Agreed. If this sort of padding continues, along with the downward slide of quality and relevance of comments, it'll be time to move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"why not just ignore it and not click on it?"
Silence implies acceptance. Response shows attitude.
Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:5, Funny)
They're remaking DS9?
Re:I don't come to slashdot for these stories (Score:5, Funny)
A: Gul Ducati
Safety (Score:4, Funny)
Even if they had the weapons, everyone at school would have been safe. The school was designated a gun-free zone. I'm pretty sure there's no way they could have gotten the guns past those "gun-free zone" signs.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
The school was designated a gun-free zone.
That totally misses the point. Planned massacres, like terrorism, make up only a very small proportion of gun deaths. The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly. It has nothing to do with the lesser problem of killing sprees.
And the idea that schools in the US even need "gun-free zone" signs is bat-shit crazy. On the other side of the world, I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension. (That was before secure gun safes were mandatory.)
Re:Safety (Score:5, Interesting)
And the idea that schools in the US even need "gun-free zone" signs is bat-shit crazy. On the other side of the world, I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension. (That was before secure gun safes were mandatory.)
And that is a shame... my father took his rifle to school and kept it in his locker, they had a gun club at school and kids would often go shooting after classes were out...
And he has never owned a gun safe, and amazingly enough in 71 years none of his guns have jumped up and shot anyone... No one in any of his schools was ever shot either...
Guns didn't change, society did, for the worse...
Re: (Score:3)
And your point?
Do we now ban guns cause today's society can't handle guns?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a shame that you learned nothing about American History in school.
You're not alone of course... there is reason you want (or should want) and armed population...
Re: (Score:3)
If the citizenry are attacking the government due to a true injustice then the citizen-filled military is quite likely to side with the citizenry. There have been military coups for just this sort of thing. Just because I was enlisted does not mean that I'd have been willing to fire at my fellow citizens because I was ordered to do so. I'd have, instead, fired at those giving the orders and I was not alone. I dare say this was a pretty common sentiment.
Additionally, they're not going to use nuclear tactics
Re: (Score:2)
Why? maybe it would be better for society to think about returning to a period where people did not commit so many mass murders?
Re: (Score:3)
"Guns didn't change, society did, for the worse..."
Yep. About time that second amendment was updated to reflect the modern military prowess of the United States, and the lack of the need for 'militias'.
Yeah, society has no need of able-bodied males age 18 to 45.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Interesting)
It was different...
His parents were married all their adult lives and remained together until their death.
Corporal punishment was allowed in school, kids did not talk back to teachers and were taught respect for their elders.
He also went to an all white school of middle class Americans where everyone had a common background and understood each other.
50+ years ago was a different world, and while it was unfair to a lot of people (mostly anyone who wasn't white), it was a world in which these mass shootings were not so common.
It was also a world where you could spank other people's kids if they got out of line, kids could go out and play all day outside unsupervised, and so on...
Of course, it had other issues... but in this specific case, we were better off...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_US
its actually pretty consistent. especially considering the population at the beginning of the timeline was 1/20th the current population. now count the number of incidents per year. not 20 times as much, not even 10 times as much. in fact there is a spike in the 80s but in recent times it has gone down to late 1800's numbers. and as you say, only well off white people used to go to school.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Informative)
I couldn't find numbers for the 1950s, but recently the trend has been downwards: http://curry.virginia.edu/rese... [virginia.edu]
People think the 50s were great, but the reality is very different. There was a lot more violence back then. I'm no expert on the US, but people in the UK are often surprised to learn that during the war kids would be arrested for breaking in to bomb shelters and smashing them, or looting bombed houses, on a quite regular basis. Capital punishment never worked, and while classrooms were certainly grimmer back then a large part of that is due to the really bad kids simply not attending school at all.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Interesting)
It was also a world where you could spank other people's kids if they got out of line, kids could go out and play all day outside unsupervised, and so on...
The world is safer today than it ever has been before. Shit, there's probably less per capita killings in the Levant right now than there ever have been in history, that place has been a bloodbath since forever. The media narrative, however, is that things are more dangerous than they have ever been before. Bullshit. We simply have higher awareness of what is going on. Remember, gun killings are down. Gun deaths are holding fairly steady because suicide is up. People point to that as justification for banning guns, but there are lots of reasons why that is fallacious, among them having the right to take your own life if you choose. You don't have the right to determine that people must live a life in which they cannot be happy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Gun free zone" means there's not even a weapon locked in a safe in the office, or in a staff member's car in the parking lot. It's a soft target.
But yeah, if you don't care about mass shootings, a "no weapons" policy makes some superficial sense.
What's the rationalization? (Score:2)
The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.
While keeping knives and guns out of schools *might* reduce the chances of fights becoming deadly, it increases the number of fights overall.
Bullying happens. Subject certain kids to constant harassment with no recourse and no way out, and you get Columbine.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason for keeping weapons such as knives out of schools (or anywhere else) is to reduce the chance of fights escalating and becoming deadly.
While keeping knives and guns out of schools *might* reduce the chances of fights becoming deadly, it increases the number of fights overall.
Bullying happens. Subject certain kids to constant harassment with no recourse and no way out, and you get Columbine.
What are you proposing, teenager open carry in school to deter bullying?
Obviously, because that's the smart person's conclusion.
I would never consider addressing bullying by other means.
In comparison to letting teens carry weapons, all the other options seem kind of... silly?
(And for the record, why do I have to propose a solution anyway? Don't social scientists and psychologists read this board?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When I was in elementary school in MN, I remember it being not uncommon for the high schoolers to bring (cased) shotguns on the bus, because there was some class where they did shooting.
It was no big deal, and not one single shooting (of a person) or massacre transpired.
It's not the guns in school that are the problem.
Re: Safety (Score:2)
Yes let's arm school children. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Try teachers and other staff.
Many schools used to have rifle teams and hunter safety programs in which student would bring guns to school, and somehow there wasn't mass carnage. Any ideas about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those schools are not in downtown Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, LA, etc. Care to try letting kiddies bring in guns to schools in those cities?
Re: Safety (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup. This is why I no longer live in the white trash neighborhood that I grew up in. I don't want my children to feel so unsafe at school that they feel compelled to arm themselves (like I did).
Despite the liberal gun hysteria, I feel VERY safe in my America despite the fact that it is also very well armed. My neighbors are not animals. I can't say that about the neighborhood I grew up in.
If any blacks want to flee that crap, I will happily welcome them with open arms.
The problems in the hood won't be fixed with a successful gun confiscation program. They will just be easier to ignore because liberals won't have gun murder statistics to fixate over anymore.
Re: Safety (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in my high school days, I and plenty of my fellow students frequently went armed, some with considerably more lethal weapons than are customarily allowed in the US. I fired my first machine gun when I was seventeen.
Mind, we were only so armed during our nights/weekends with our reserve units, but we were still, technically, armed school children.
Aside from the occasional shoulder/cheek bruise (from not holding it properly while firing - a 7.62 FN packs a bit of a kick), I don't recall any gun-related injuries.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?
I mean, we have laws against murder, but murder still happens, so I guess we should do away with the law. People drive over the speed limit, and speed in school zones, I guess we should get rid of those laws too.
There might be reasons to get rid of that law, but this reason is stupid.
Perhaps I can explain (Score:2, Insightful)
Laws are a good thing when they punish the guilty and don't target the innocent. A law against murder only causes problems for murderers, and therefore isn't very controversial.
A law against owning certain types of firearms (a victimless crime) does not only target future killers, but also the 99% of owners who would never misuse them. You are talking tens of millions of people.
Additionally - if you are going to ignore the rule against murder, why would you care about firearms restrictions?
A law that crimin
Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score:4, Informative)
A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding people in jail, is a bad law.
That's all true. Most of the other stuff you wrote also all seems true, but it doesn't really form a cogent argument about anything. No one said if someone ignores the rule about murder they would care about firearm restrictions. I'm not sure anyone has ever said that ever, let alone in this conversation. I don't think anyone who passed the law banning guns in schools said that. That's what I don't get about gun control debates. One side can't get past this notion that it's only about this theoretical criminal in their minds, and that if it doesn't stop these villains, the law is no good.
I apologize, silly facts and historical context are about to get in the way of the ideology of the moment.
Those "signs" that are being debated here have nothing to do with stopping school shootings of the kind being discussed here. The ban on guns in schools comes from "The Gun Free Schools Act" a law first passed way back in 1990. The idea was not that signs would stop people determined to come in and shoot up a school. That was barely even a concept at the time. The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools.
Re: (Score:3)
You say: "The idea was not that signs would stop people determined to come in and shoot up a school. That was barely even a concept at the time. The idea was that if merely having a gun on you near a school would carry a harsher penalty than elsewhere it would drive gang and drug activity away from schools."
Ok. But you also agree that THIS is true: "A law that criminals will probably ignore, and won't care about in the least (they will be dead or in jail for murder), but will put otherwise law-abiding pe
Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score:4, Interesting)
" I can logic too."
Just not very well. Owning, carrying and handling a gun in ways that are against the law are victimless crimes -- unless of course, those guns are used to commit OTHER crimes which are not victimless (like murder or theft).
People, for the most part, will obey gun laws -- except the burglars and killers. Really, the only people who will obey the limits on ownership and carry are the ones who would never use a gun in such a way.
So, when the original poster noted that it's a bad law because it puts otherwise law-abiding people in jail he was right. And by you trying to equivocate his statement to removing "all laws" actually suggests you can't "logic" very well.
Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score:5, Insightful)
In the meantime you have criminalized not only a legal act, but more importantly a Constitutionally protected right.
The law solves nothing while taking rights from people not guilty of anything.
It adds more harsh punishment to existing criminal activity, yes. But the very same people trumpeting the fact that gun free schools laws are great are also trumpeting the unfairness and racism inherent in the judicial system which puts 1000's of minority and underprivileged young people in prison at a starkly incongruous rate to others.
So which is it? Is it incumbent upon us to more harshly punish these gang members and make it more easy to imprison then and for longer? Or is the judicial system unfairly attacking and too harshly punishing them?
Re: (Score:2)
What "law"? Perhaps you could like to it.
Re:Safety (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you trying to cleverly imply that since the presence of the law doesn't stop people from breaking it, the law should go away?
No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not. The laws are there so that there's a mechanism by which to punish people who do such things, should they be apprehended. The laws don't actually stop evil little shits from being evil little shits.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's pointing out that people who want to kill other people for notoriety are going to do it, laws or not.
Like any other crime, there are a few people who will commit the crime regardless of any law, and there are of course many people who would never commit the crime, even if they were 100% guaranteed to get away with it. The law's deterrent effect is seen only in the third group of people: those who would commit the crime if they thought they could get away with it, but won't actually do it because of the risk of being caught and punished.
It sounds like you are arguing that the third group does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you are arguing that the third group does not exist. If so, I think you are wrong about that.
It sounds like you are arguing that the third group does exist. If so, I think you are wrong about that. In the context of mass shootings the are almost always murder suicides or the individual is so insane they are either not capable of or at least not applying that kind of logic to their actions, like the Aurora CO. shooter.
Its not like we are talking about embezzlement, speeding, drug use, or even armed robbery here. There is little to suggest these mass murders give any thought at all to a future pas
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Murder laws don't prevent people from saving lives. Anti-gun laws do.
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
There might be reasons to get rid of that law, but this reason is stupid.
I'm certainly with you there. But to solve the problem, I think one has to look at the deeper causes and find out why it is that so many people become outsiders, who then end up hating the world and their society enough to want to kill indiscriminately. And I think it is necessary to have an open-minded discussion about *ALL* the issues, even gun ownership and -control, as well as issues like the increasing inequality, disenfranchisement and hopelessness that too many people feel trapped in. If people would talk to each other with an honest view to solve the problems, it would without a doubt be solved; what keeps this from happening must be nothing better than narrow, abysmal egotism. I think that is deeply shameful.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The page you linked to does not support any assertion of the class "guns are the problem in the USA."
That page shows that the actual problem is homicides per 100,000 population. And it shows that it is worse here than in other countries. It also shows that the problem comes to a head using guns -- pretty obviously because yes, we have guns. It does not show, in any way, that guns cause the problem. It does not show that taking guns away will solve the problem. It does not show that guns are the problem.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> why target defenseless school or college kids?
You answered your own question with the word defenseless.
Re: Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But either way it is a win for the NRA. They love to see children die because it is so profitable for them. They make money coming and going.
No, you've got it backwards. It's the gun control lobby and the lefty nanny state types that love to see children die. Because that's just the sort of thing they leverage in order to get more power over you. "Never waste a good crists," remember? The control freaks LOVE this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the Left is the problem.
We have murder rates and mass shootings far beyond that of any other Western nation. The Left (and many moderates to give due credit) say "maybe we should do more to reign back these problems" and suggest a variety of possible solutions. Meanwhile the NRA backing portion of the Right suggests flooding even more and more powerfull guns onto the market in the hopes that even more guns will reverse the trend of gun violence in this country.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The Left (and many moderates to give due credit) say "maybe we should do more to reign back these problems" and suggest a variety of possible solutions."
No, actually, they don't.
The changes they are proposing would, in no way, prevent the issues we are facing as a Nation. All they are proposing is violating the Rights of law-abiding citizens and placing them in a position where they cannot defend themselves and their loved ones, cannot enjoy the traditions and past-times they grew up with, and, for some,
Re: (Score:3)
We have murder rates and mass shootings far beyond that of any other Western nation.
And if you were to remove from those stats the four municipalities in the US that have the most gang-related crime, the US murder rate would be fourth from the BOTTOM of the stats pile. And the four municipalities where all of that mayhem takes place? Some of the tightest gun control laws in the country, and the places are run by Democrats and have been for decades. Not to trouble you with facts or anything.
Bullying (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But if they were nerds they were pretty pathetic. I'd have expected plans on how to handle the bullies that did NOT end on the evening news with the statement "before turning the weapon on himself".
And talking about it where other students can hear? Not smart.
Re:Bullying (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not forget that much of public education (or culture for that matter) has become a cesspool of incompetence, questionable agendas, and dehumanization. Even if kids lack the emotional maturity to name exactly what is being done to them, they are certainly aware the authority over them is lacking in mutual respect.
Add in a surge of hormones, and you've got a wicked circumstance.
"When inward life dries up, when feeling decreases and apathy increases, when one cannot affect or even genuinely touch another person, violence flares up as a daimonic necessity for contact, a mad drive forcing touch in the most direct way possible." -Rollo May
Re: (Score:2)
Schools do bear some of the blame. But let's not forget the sainted American people who have no problem letting Johnny do whatever the hell he pleases until he gets caught by the police. Or the parents who are busy praising Johnny no matter what trouble he gets into because they don't want to cause self-esteem issues. Or the parents that are too busy with their own lives to bother paying attention to their sprogs. Or parents who figure it is the schools' job to raise and discipline their sprogs so they can
Re:Bullying (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect a big part of the problem is teenagers should not spend quite so much time with other teenagers. Teens certainly need some time with each other but I really think they should be spending a larger part of their day surrounded principally but adults, in a more vocational context. That isn't 30 of their peers and 1 grown up in the room, with long periods like lunch with little to no adult interaction. Put a bunch of immature people together with no one to emulate but each other and its no surprise we get really strange emergent behavior.
Adolescents need to be working with watching and learning to emulate how adults behave, and interact with one another solve problems etc. A couple hundred years ago if you were 14 you'd have been working on your fathers farm with him or in the kitchen around your mother and the other ladies. You'd spend your Sunday interacting at church etc again where there would be more adults around most of the time than other children. I think as a society we should look at teaching higher maths and reading levels sooner, it works in other parts of the world. If we could push algebra etc down to the Junior high level and wrap up primary and secondary education by 14 we could then send kids out into the workforce for awhile during their formative years. Maybe make it a normal thing to assist your parent at their job etc. When kids get to be 18, 19 etc then they go back to higher education if that is their path.
Re: (Score:3)
And shortsightedness of youth. It's hard to see past your immediate problems.
There's no particular reason for them to see past the people actually abusing them. Take them out and people will notice. The people who trained them to be shitheels, mostly their parents, will notice. It's sad for the kids who get shot, only the parents really deserve punishment since raising decent people is their job #1.
People love picking on nerds. Even teachers do it. We didn't stop bullies until the nerds started packing heat...
Yep. I was horribly depressed in high school, I was I think literally the lowest scum on the totem pole. And so I was dysfunctional in class. But rather than try to find out what my probl
Re: (Score:2)
1. There are a lot of people there
2. You get on the news and the President mentions what you did
3. Everyone went to school. It's a familiar place. Shooters probably don't have happy memories of school.
4. Kids don't know how to fight back. Most of the staff are women. It's a gun free zone. If you do it there, you have the maximum relative power over everyone else.
5. When something bad happens at a school, they go on lockdown and all your victims are stuck in the building. When someone shoots up a mall,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a big, big part of it. These guys are small men in the making who've realized they'll never be the kind of people who make the papers for something good. And they desperately want to force everyone to hear their primal scream. Just like suicide clusters, the more it happens the more unbalanced people think about it and start to think it might be a good idea. It's a price we pay for a free press. I'd bet any amount of money if these t
Re: (Score:2)
Or when the kids turn on the TV or their video games, violence is glorified as a way of solving whatever "problems" the little bastards think they have.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Because the "defenseless" bullies have been humiliating you and attacking you for the past 5 years whereas politicians are just a bunch of boring old men.
Looks like a success for ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Looks like a success for "see something, say something."
Let's keep publicising these sorts of things... (Score:2)
It really seems to help them self-propagate.
In fact, I'd rather have less TSA security at the airport and more stringent laws about reporting on mass shootings (and drug commercials too)!
Obligatory. (Score:2)
must have been (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they have a clock? (Score:3)
If guns are banned... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I came in assuming this as well, but it looks like they confessed.
"The investigation has so far been based on interviews with the suspects, during which they gave a detailed confession, Sheriff Mele said."
Yeah, but why were they being interviewed by police? Because somebody overheard something and told the cops. Exactly a see/say situation.
Re:does anybody do proofreading here? (Score:5, Interesting)
We'll probably never learn much about this case of any real meaning, but that the conspirators supposedly had a list, and that list as-reported contained the names of other students specifically, leads me to believe that the conspirators felt that they had been done injustice by these other students and that they felt they had no recourse beyond such a violent act. It could also be that there was never any serious intention to actually pull-off a spree killing, and that fantasizing about doing it was a way of blowing-off steam about how they felt.
My guess as to why they haven't been charged yet is that they're in that as minors without ready access to the implements needed to actually carry-out such a shooting it's difficult to know if there actually is anything to charge them with. Conspiracy generally requires an ability to carry out the ends of the conspiracy. People want to do harm to others, usually specific people and specific others, all of the time, but that doesn't mean that they're guilty of a crime because of a want.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice wookie defense, straw men all. The problem is the American he-boy is taught that he's got a big dick if he has a big gun.
Re:Kids needed to check with the president first. (Score:5, Insightful)
You tried to do your blame Obama bit
No, I'm not blaming Obama for what these kids wanted to do. I'm pointing out that his speech blaming the NRA for it was completely off base.
Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political
You obviously didn't watch his speech. He came right out and said he thought the issue should be made political. His words. On the same day the students were killed. Try to get your rant at least aligned with current events and Obama's own words, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Even as the kids are dead you still tried to turn it political
You know how to find out if some situation has political ramifications? If it contains any plurality of people, there will be politics.
You know who "turned the situation political" first? Obama. Because he made the first public political statement, right? From a politician?
Or maybe, just maybe, nobody made the situation political, because it was already political.
Maybe someday you'll have an idea worth associating with an identity, and on that day you'll log in and share it with us. Until then, your use of
Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a sensible requirement for gun ownership would be that you can't live with your parents and you can't have an adolescent child living with you where you keep a gun. Because teens are idiots. If you're paying rent then you're responsible enough to have a gun, otherwise tough luck.
So you'd obviously be in favor of adults not being allowed to own cars if they have teenagers in the house, right? Because teenagers kill WAY more people with cars than they do with weapons of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a terribly strong comparison because
A) Teenagers use their parents cars at far greater rates then they use their guns so gross number comparisons are irrelevant
B) Cars are tools whose intended purpose is to move people about. Guns, aside from hunting rifles, are tools designed first and foremost for killing people. Sure, cars can and do kill people but so can just about anything. Guns are singled out because they dont have any other use and they do it so much better then anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
"Guns, aside from hunting rifles, are tools designed first and foremost for killing people."
So .01 of Americans have a side use for them. What's your point?
Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have something wrong with your brain?
No. Do you have a problem with people pointing out logical inconsistencies, mixed premises, and hypocrisy?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.
You want to look up the percentage of gun-owners whose gun has killed people and the percentage of car owners whose car has killed people. When less than a fraction of a percent of gun-owners are irresponsible one has to be clinically insane to suggest that we remove the guns from the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Do you think that cars are as useful for self-defense as guns are?
Stories That Happened In MI [gunssavelives.net]
There are many people that harvest wild game to eat. Cars don't work well for that. Guns on the other hand ....
It seems to me that you might be hasty in suggesting someone else get a new brain. Maybe you should start closer to home.
Re: Teens shouldn't have access to guns... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Parents' discretion. If the kids are disciplined, it doesn't matter if they're idiots. From age 5 onward I knew better than to fool around with firearms. Even the antique shotgun on the wall was off-limits. .22 rifle at age ten and by age 15, I had a shotgun and deer rifle and was allowed to shoot alone and unsupervised. I've never shot anyone or had a firearms-related accident.
I received my first
Parents should be held responsible for recklessness and negligence which results in their kids causing injur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll lay money that you've never actually talked with any real people of that religion, and only have your conception of them based on what you see in the media.
Wrong
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
An interesting bet. How many of the high-school / college mass killings in USA were done by the religion of peace, do you reckon?
Not many, but this one is a conspiracy of four. While its possible that four lone loonies found each-other it is much more likely that they were all muslim, and that way knowing that they would at least not get reported for telling each other their plans.
Re: (Score:2)