Hypothetical, if ISIS targeted an American High School

Six of one, half dozen of the other!

ISIS doesn't need to attack an American high school. We regularly attack our own schools.

Really? Funny I think if ISIS were responsible for as many killings in the US as the automotive industry, there'd be martial law by now. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think you missed the point.

It was a joke about the regular mass shootings.

I honestly view the majority of these school shootings as a form of a-political terrorism. Yes, there's usually mental illness involved in most of these, but when you read the stuff most of these shooters have left behind, it's all about making their mark and being remembered. For instance the Columbine killers wanted to outdo the Oklahoma City bombing in terms of casualties, and in terms of the fact that they targeted a school. And while their bombs failed to detonate as planned and they didn't get the body count they wanted, they still accomplished what they set out to do in terms of being a household name. And that guy who left a video manifesto about how he was going on a killing spree essentially because women didn't want to have sex with him? If he had a ghost, I bet he'd be laughing at all the women who got chills down their spines every time they heard someone whine about being in the friend zone after that. What makes this worse in the psyche of most people is that there is no group or country to go after, and in most cases they can't even get a trial because these people go into it with the goal of dying themselves.

This doesn't equate to me seeing a need for more gun control, and if anything the fact these people tend to target gun-free zones illustrates how pointless the existence of such spaces are unless there are at least armed guards or police officers who can be quickly on hand to deal with any would-be shooters. The downside to that is that it may have the effect of essentially turning schools into prisons, and that doesn't really sit right with me either. The other thing is that at least some of these could have been prevented by parents and friends not blowing the "jokes" about blowing up the school and such, especially in case of the Columbine killers when they were actually caught with their bomb-making materials. The mental health professionals treating that "friend zoned" killer had no excuse to not take not of similar writings and "jokes" that he made. Though even if he'd been made to flag on a background check, there's also the failure of the law to act as it should in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, who should have been prevented from legally purchasing the firearms he used, and likewise the mental health professionals treating him should have heeded the warning signs he put off through his writings and the way he acted in class - apparently so bad that an instructor threatened to quit if she had to teach one more class with him in it. I'm not advocating for the Big Brother-esque "you should police your own" surveillance that garamet advocates for, but I am pointing out that the people close to these shooters, and in some instances the institutions that later became killing grounds probably could have prevented these shootings had they heeded the many warning signs the shooters exhibited.

I am not seeing much difference. It seems you are talking about the same sort of results only Loner american right winger oing it we have a loner ISIS right winger doing it? If that is the case I am pretty much similar in what I believe should happen. I am all for charging and imprisoning people who assist our normal high school shooters, which we rarely ever do. I would be all for that with a shooter who used ISIS as an excuse. I would probably see more action done on those lines if it were ISIS doing it.

Thinking about your scenario I would make a probable guess that I would end up speaking out against a wide range anti muslim rage that would come from such an incident. I think that if such a thing were to occur there would be some people who would feel they could use it to go after muslims in general. Instead of us wondering why the roof kid is being catered to, we would probably have to hold back some mad dogs, and I am sure the cops would find some way to harm the shooter if he were to be taken alive.

As for what I would want our schools and government to do I am pretty sure would never happen. If that were to happen I would like the schools to explain what is going on in the middle east using the truth. I would like them to explain to the children about ho the radical right of Islam is fighting over religious rule. I would like them to explain how we have mucked around in there trying to use these people to influence global power and money, and that has lead to a huge problem. I would like for them to explain that many muslims live here in the US because they want a safer and better place to have their families, and that many religious groups have radicals that are not those around us who want something better. I would like our government to stop meddling around so much in the wars of the middle east and put forth a real peace effort and try to help people. This way the muslims in our community could trust our government has their best interests in mind and become more allied with us.

Oh, and your post is fucking too damn long.

How are we supposed to show you something you are purposefully blind to?

You keep peddling this, but of the deaths caused by the automotive industry, how many are accidental and how many are actual murders? Now I’m willing to accept that there will be occasions where someone does intend to kill with a car, but by and large I suspect the majority of vehicle related deaths are accidents. Even the ones which are caused by drunk, careless and dangerous drivers, the majority of those are probably accidental and whilst the drivers need to be punished, they probably have not set out to kill.

That’s in stark contrast to people who turn up at schools with a bag of guns and start blasting away, which essentially is what we are discussing.

Irony of the year.

Why does intention matter? As a driver, you are responsible for not killing other people. That's pretty much rule one.

They certainly are and the law will punish appropriately dependant upon level of intention.

I would say it depends on the context. In general, yes the driver is responsible, but he/she can’t be responsible for things outwith their control, tyre blowouts etc, crazy dude stepping infront of vehicle etc. I would also say, the terminology ‘car accident’ is quite apt hence why I’m not trying to compare car accidents with gun accidents.

There is also a grey area where both car and gun owners can kill people through dangerous behaviour. These will get jail time quite rightly, but I’m willing to bet in most of these situations for both vehicle and car related deaths due to dangerous behaviour the killer was not trying to kill someone, although they should have known better.

All of the above, is very far from walking into a school and blasting away at people, or, driving up the sidewalk trying to deliberately mow people down with your car. Intent is what I’m getting at here and it’s far too simplistic for OldFella to just package up all deaths which relate are vehicle related and compare with guns.

I think one could argue that automobile externalities cost far far more than handguns ever did or will, and yes cars should be banned. But the world is hooked on cars; they are a necessary evil that needs to be replaced.

I've lived in gun-happy US for 57 years without feeling I needed a gun for anything. Cars? I've lost count of the number of cars I've owned, rented, borrowed, lusted over...

I'm not going to hijack your thread to talk about how many car "accidents" are caused by driver error--and could have been prevented. If your country actually charges people for killing other people with cars, , but here in the US it's shockingly regular how a person can be an inattentive driver, kill someone, make a lame excuse and not even be charged.

Especially if they have killed a cyclist. Such drivers are usually feted with a parade.

I was going to say "kettle says your pot is too damn black."

Cyclists? That's about like running over a squirrel.

Really? So until you find the causes, methods & means to prevent a recurrence (how's that working out so far?) you'll limit guns/freedoms from the law abiding just to be on the "safe" side? That doesn't seem too effective really. Back to the question of ISIS I can't believe they haven't attacked a school yet. But yes I probably would be more alarmed/upset because (if successful) this would encourage ISIS to do it more often. Not good!

We are discussing causes, methods and means to prevent a recurrence. The legislatures, not me, will limit guns. The political process is slow, but NRA backed resistance to common sense legislation is losing support with every gun related atrocity.

Here are some of my personal favorites:

Utilize the "no-fly" list in gun background checks.
Require proof of extensive, credible gun use/safety training from an accredited organization before allowing a gun to be purchased. Require a higher level of training for concealed carry permits.
Mandate gun safes or trigger locks, and bring criminal penalties against those whose guns were used in crimes that did not have proof of owning such safeguards.
Encourage civil lawsuits against those who bought or sold guns that were used in crimes.
​

What are you doing to help the problem?

There's apparently a chance of false positives with the no-fly list. I discovered my name was on it once, although it was cleared up at the check-in desk by checking my birthdate against the person with my name they were looking for. I'm for adding the list to the NICS database, but I'd hope for the ability to clear up such mistakes quickly.

Where does one get this training? Will there be training facilities/personnel set up? Who pays for it, the state or the federal gov't? Taxes? Or private contractors who charge the licensee? I'm not against it, mind you, but there may not be places to get the training. Carry permits already require training. Also, dropping momentarily into civil rights mode - what other rights under the Bill of Rights require training and licensing to exercise?

Gun safes and trigger locks are an okay idea, but if one's guns are already inside one's house, which is already locked up, I think that should be enough. I have most of my guns in a safe and with trigger locks, but not all of them. The point of keeping a gun for home defense is, of course, keeping it ready and handy. This particular measure smacks of punishing the victim (of the robbery) for the actions of the criminal.
I'm also fairly sure if a bad guy steals a gun with a trigger lock, that lock won't last any longer than it takes him to get to a power drill. It's mostly a feel-good thing, not a real deterrent.

If I've bought a gun and used it in a crime, then, sure, penalty the hell out of me. If I've SOLD a gun legally which is then used in a crime, I have no more culpability than if a car I've sold (or a frying pan, baseball bat, antique hat pin, kitchen knife...) was used in a crime.

I'm not shooting people.

Yet.

Yes, I remember you talking about that. False positives should be cleared up quickly with legislation requiring this. I don't know what the rules are for the no-fly list.

An accredited agency (accreditation by the ATF ). It should be paid for by the purchaser. It should be rigorous enough that the instructor/examiner can assess the student's mental state and not pass someone exhibiting aberrant behavior.

What other rights involve lethal weapons?

No, it's not enough in houses with unstable people.

The legal sale of a gun should include verification the purchaser has passed gun training by the ATF. The burden for verification is the seller's.

Why would you want to mandate gun training for all the Muslims? Can we also require literacy tests for voting?

As the Supreme Court ruled n Heller, the government cannot make gun ownership burdensome.

And what should be done to strengthen French gun laws so that terrorists can't get AK-47's and explosives?

I'll tolerate a brief safety quiz when purchasing a gun, but having to take training/get certified in order to exercise a right? No f**kin' way. On the off chance that such training did become law? The state would have to pay for it. You can't have a financial burden placed on someone in order for them to exercise their rights.

You can't require me to keep my guns locked up and inaccessible in my home. The main purpose of keeping a gun at home is for home defense. The Supreme Court already ruled that Washington D.C.'s storage laws were unconstitutional on that basis. If you want to require special storage requirements in homes where people with certain diagnosed mental disorders are living, that would be okay with me.

The "no fly" list is, to me, unconstitutional. It represents a punitive restraint placed on an individual without giving them due process. Using the "no fly" list to also deprive people of their 2nd Amendment rights? Nope. If the state thinks a person is that big a threat, the state needs to give them their day in court.

Agreed, and I'd happily have that paid for by the tax payers with some restraint for people who keep not passing the quiz. At a certain point, there needs to be some leverage to get them to actually try harder of their own accord.

I'd add homes with children. I'd also argue for criminal negligence if a gun is not properly secured and then used in a crime. But to outright say that it is illegal to not have it locked is going a bit too far in my opinion.

I'm not sure that it's unconstitutional as a no fly list, but you probably have a point regarding the 2nd amendment. However, being on the list is something that you can correct through due process, so it's a bit gray. It's a bit like the way the IRS can put a lien on your house without that day in court, but you can get it removed if they acted improperly.

Rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness have been burdened in many ways by the government. Your right to have firearms should be restricted by your training.

...the court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring that so-called long guns — including rifles and shotguns — be registered along with handguns. The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course.
​

source: link

Whereas other states might choose to require that all citizens age 17 and over have AR-15's or M-14's, an .45, 9mm, or 10mm pistol, and 3,000 rounds of ammunition at all times, along with a sniper rifle of at least .308 caliber with a 10 power scope or higher.