Another school massacre averted. Barely makes headlines.

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

BAU

Four students were arrested Friday in Tuolumne, California, after police discovered a "detailed" plan to "shoot and kill as many people as possible" at a local high school, the sheriff said.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ts-arrested-high-school-shooting-plot-n438316

 

[naturalmwa]

In a case like this I think they should release the names and make a big deal out of the losers and a bigger deal out of the people that snitched. Snitches be heroes.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

And a cash reward for the hero/snitch.

 

[stout1]

It has been the first or second story in every national news update I have heard this morning on my local NPR station.

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

"If it bleeds, it leads".

 

[MichiganManLifer]

BAU

Four students were arrested Friday in Tuolumne, California, after police discovered a "detailed" plan to "shoot and kill as many people as possible" at a local high school, the sheriff said.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ts-arrested-high-school-shooting-plot-n438316

Exactly, it shouldn't be a big story. Do you want to glorify these types of criminals or brush them aside and punish them quietly? People need to make up their damn minds if they want to start ridiculously misguided campaigns like gun control.

Now imagine if they hadn't snitched and nobody at the school had guns to help protect the students? We need the guns in the hands of good guys so criminals won't take these chances so lightly.

 

[naturalmwa]

Exactly, it shouldn't be a big story. Do you want to glorify these types of criminals or brush them aside and punish them quietly? People need to make up their damn minds if they want to start ridiculously misguided campaigns like gun control.

Now imagine if they hadn't snitched and nobody at the school had guns to help protect the students? We need the guns in the hands of good guys so criminals won't take these chances so lightly.

Yes, I'd like to glorify snitches. That sounds a lot cheaper and more productive than either alternative in the gun debate.

 

[LunchBox50]

It has been the first or second story in every national news update I have heard this morning on my local NPR station.

Also on the front page of CNN, the LA Times, NY Times and NBC News last night. Saw it on the Madison news I had on this morning. But yeah -- the story is barely making headlines anywhere and being ignored by the MSM.

 

[Joes Place]

We need the guns in the hands of good guys so criminals won't take these chances so lightly.

Except that many of the 'criminals' are mentally ill, and don't really care about 'taking chances'.

 

[MichiganManLifer]

Except that many of the 'criminals' are mentally ill, and don't really care about 'taking chances'.

Right, so add mentally unstable people to that list. Should we ban cars because there are people out there that may kill some people? We need the proper people armed and this will not be an issue. The stats are out there and I don't see how this has to be so tough. Babysitters need CPR to protect children, why shouldn't teachers be properly armed to protect children?

 

[stout1]

why shouldn't teachers be properly armed to protect children?

Many states are reducing budgets for schools, infrastructure, mental healthcare costs and a myriad of other things currently.

We really think they are going to spend the money to train and outfit thousands of teachers properly?

 

[Joes Place]

Right, so add mentally unstable people to that list. Should we ban cars because there are people out there that may kill some people? We need the proper people armed and this will not be an issue. The stats are out there and I don't see how this has to be so tough. Babysitters need CPR to protect children, why shouldn't teachers be properly armed to protect children?

...only we DO prevent people with certain medical issues from driving cars. Or flying planes, for that matter. That doesn't mean we 'ban cars' or 'ban guns', but we produce reasonable regulation of them to minimize the risks that people who are 'at risk' for abusing/misusing them from owning them.

 

[Joes Place]

Right, so add mentally unstable people to that list. Should we ban cars because there are people out there that may kill some people? We need the proper people armed and this will not be an issue. The stats are out there and I don't see how this has to be so tough. Babysitters need CPR to protect children, why shouldn't teachers be properly armed to protect children?

see my other post on this here:
http://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threa...e-suffered-from-mental-health-problems.43220/

 

[MichiganManLifer]

...only we DO prevent people with certain medical issues from driving cars. Or flying planes, for that matter. That doesn't mean we 'ban cars' or 'ban guns', but we produce reasonable regulation of them to minimize the risks that people who are 'at risk' for abusing/misusing them from owning them.

Great. Ban mental cases from owning guns, but DON'T make the rest of us pay. It needs to be mental cases that have proven they can act out, because we know the government will spy on us for dirt...and will just say pretty much everyone is a risk to own a gun because of something they've typed or said.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Where are the "detail plans"? How can we some such detail planning? Ban paper and pencil? Ban computer access to disgruntled teens?

 

[unIowa]

How did OP even discover this minimally reported on event...oh that is right, NBCnews.com a small media outfit.

 

[Joes Place]

Great. Ban mental cases from owning guns, but DON'T make the rest of us pay. It needs to be mental cases that have proven they can act out, because we know the government will spy on us for dirt...and will just say pretty much everyone is a risk to own a gun because of something they've typed or said.

There's no way that 'the government' spying would ever even work. Look at the Boston Marathon bombers as an example.

De-listing people for gun ownership only works if health professionals, families and friends are involved/engaged in a 'watch list'. Certainly, the parents of the shooters in Aurora, Sandy Hook and Oregon all knew their kids were 'off', and by simply conveying that information to doctors, who could verify it and identify warning signs, that may have been enough to put all of them on 'no guns' lists.

Unless the mother of the Sandy Hook shootings took the initiative herself, and willingly gave up her guns, it may not have prevented that incident. But the combination of the son being 'at risk' and a physician or list denoting she was a gun owner and until her son moved out, the guns had to be off premises might have.

There will never be a foolproof system; but the system we have right now is not even remotely close to a leaky bucket - it's water spilling all over the floor. If we can AT LEAST get to where we have a leaky bucket to prevent SOME incidents by having a method to convey the information and prevent (currently) legal gun purchases by 'at risk' individuals, we might be able to prevent some of these incidents.

 

[aflachawk]

"If it bleeds, it leads".

This did not bleed, however

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

How did OP even discover this minimally reported on event...oh that is right, NBCnews.com a small media outfit.

There have been double-digit threads about Roseburg. There would be none about a foiled Roseburg had I not started this thread. It was given prominent coverage by networks for about an hour.