Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[paperburn1]

choff I do not think you have ever been in harms way. I hope that never occurs to you , because you have the Hollywood notion of a fair fight in you head. unfortunately is does not work that way.

[ladajo]

And again, I agree, it should be he dies if he gets anyone else. Be it there (probably the best thing) or later.

But I think you two are more or less on the same wavelength with different words.

The key point being: Stop him sooner than later. And if stopping him the quickest way is by lethal force, then that is what needs to happen. In the end, killing or attempted killing of others directs a permanent exit from society. You know, death, and soon. This silly crap of hanging around for 30 years of death row appeals has to stop.

[paperburn1]

And again, I agree, it should be he dies if he gets anyone else. Be it there (probably the best thing) or later.

But I think you two are more or less on the same wavelength with different words.

The key point being: Stop him sooner than later. And if stopping him the quickest way is by lethal force, then that is what needs to happen. In the end, killing or attempted killing of others directs a permanent exit from society. You know, death, and soon. This silly crap of hanging around for 30 years of death row appeals has to stop.

I can agree with that.

[paperburn1]

I think the hysteria has reached the peak. just talked to the neighbor and he owns a gun range. They are not selling any ammo because they are out. 223,.40,.45 9mm 22 long rifle, NATO all gone and back ordered 3 to 6 weeks

[choff]

choff I do not think you have ever been in harms way. I hope that never occurs to you , because you have the Hollywood notion of a fair fight in you head. unfortunately is does not work that way.

Probably more David vs Goliath, and if you have 130,000 schools with guns in them, then you have the statistical problem of at least one being used for the purpose it was meant to prevent.

[GIThruster]

. . .if you have 130,000 schools with guns in them, then you have the statistical problem of at least one being used for the purpose it was meant to prevent.

If a teacher is going to shoot up a school, whether it's legal to carry a weapon into the school doesn't matter in the least.

[ladajo]

. . .if you have 130,000 schools with guns in them, then you have the statistical problem of at least one being used for the purpose it was meant to prevent.

If a teacher is going to shoot up a school, whether it's legal to carry a weapon into the school doesn't matter in the least.

Just curious Choff, but when was the last time a teacher went into their school and shot it up? It is not something I ever recall hearing about.

BTW, with arming the teachers & staff comes background checks and training & evaluation. Some folks just aren't good with firearms, and that does come out clearly in the process.

I really think you have run out of steam on this one. You are now grabbing at straws.

[Stubby]

I don't think he is advocating that the shooter(s) be killed at all costs. You just don't hesitate to kill them if necessary. Yes innocents might get hurt but in far less numbers than if you did nothing.

If I was not concerned about PTSD, I would suggest bringing home the troops and hiring them as teachers.

No I mean kill him, even if he surrenders, judge jury and execute .
Back in the early america they had a term called outlaw. Due to modern film and television its lost its impact and was glorified but back then an outlaw (outside the law) had no protections of society and if you killed one then nobody was held liable as they were outside the law. I think they should bring back this punishment.

I meant at the moment of the event.

[Stubby]

Charles Hudspeth
Carlos Deluna
Cameron Todd Willingham
Johnny Garrett
Timothy Evans

oops

and somehow christian america, land of turn the other cheek and forgive those who have wronged you, considers this to be moral.

[GIThruster]

How many death sentences have been carried out in the last 150 years?

I don't know this is the place to debate theology with someone who is avowedly ignorant on the subject, but I will just note that you are misrepresenting Iadajo's position, which concerned ending a conflict with lethal force, and you are misrepresenting the historic Christian position on capital punishment, to suit your own twisted view of crime and punishment.

The statement by Christ to turn the other cheek, comes from his Sermon on the Mount, the preamble to which was that "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" which is to say, he is NOT going to contradict Moses. It was Moses who taught "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" as the basis for the limits of retributive justice and Christ was not contradicting that.

It's a fine point but important to note what the text actually says. Jesus does not here say "It is written" which is a reference to the law he has said he is not going to break, but rather the specific hebraism is the euphemism "you have heard it said". This latter is an explicit reference to the teaching of the Pharisees. The religious conservatives of Jesus' time, were teaching that "an eye for an eye" should be applied to personal relationships, as result of their anxiety over Roman abuses of the citizenry. Rather, Moses was very explicit that "en eye for an eye" was never to be used in personal relationships, but reserved for courts of law. Applying the proper measure for a court in personal relationships is the fastest way to vigilante justice. It is this which Jesus was teaching against, and you are making the same mistake--confusing what is an appropriate measure for justice in the courtroom, with what is appropriate for personal relationships.

So obviously, you're in the position to be correcting no one.

[paperburn1]

And just to bring up one more thing, Nowhere in the bible does it say thou shall not kill. that is a addition brought by transliteration . Every scholar know the real translation is "thou shall not commit murder". Murder as defined under Jewish law it is the unlawful taking of life. The old and new testament left lots of room for tribunals and court punishment as well as war.

[choff]

. . .if you have 130,000 schools with guns in them, then you have the statistical problem of at least one being used for the purpose it was meant to prevent.

If a teacher is going to shoot up a school, whether it's legal to carry a weapon into the school doesn't matter in the least.

Just curious Choff, but when was the last time a teacher went into their school and shot it up? It is not something I ever recall hearing about.

BTW, with arming the teachers & staff comes background checks and training & evaluation. Some folks just aren't good with firearms, and that does come out clearly in the process.

I really think you have run out of steam on this one. You are now grabbing at straws.

Actually I've had dealings with both teachers and staff who were Batshit crazy, but had excellent union protection and should never have been anywhere near children, let alone teaching them. They were the last people on earth I would want to see carrying guns.

If .01% of 130,000 schools have unintended gun incidents with these self defence weapons that just about cancels out any protective benefit. Just because no teachers have shot up a school yet doesn't mean it will never happen.

By the way, if teachers have a right to keep and bear arms in schools, what's to stop students from insisting on the same rights. Mitt Romney might not be around to run for president if his high school bully victim was allowed to defend himself under the full force of the 2nd amendment.

[GIThruster]

Wow choff, you're off in loonie land now. Just saying again, a law against carrying in a school is not going to stop a crazy from carrying a weapon into the school. You seem to be having trouble with such very elementary logic and it's your anxieties that are getting in the way of thinking soberly on the issue.

Yes indeed, those who get concealed carry permits get far more screening than the average high school teacher, so your observations that some of them are bat shit crazy does not pertain. You are having a fear reaction and not thinking soberly on this issue. There are already several states that allow/promote teachers and staff carry concealed in their schools and there is a 0.0000000% accident rate. Had CT had that law, those 26 people would probably all be alive today.

[paperburn1]

n May 2002 the Secret Service published a report that examined 37 US school shootings. They had the following findings:
Incidents of targeted violence at school were rarely sudden, impulsive acts.
Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker's idea and/or plan to attack.
Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.
There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.
Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Moreover, many had considered or attempted suicide.
Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack.
Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.
In many cases, other students were involved in some capacity.
Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.[83]

[ladajo]

Cross posted from other thread to keep it here...

More straws Choff.

The police officer was having lunch in the parking lot when they started up. He then was called on the radio by a school staffer, and drove around to where they were shooting. He then engaged one of the shooters from the parking lot. The shooter eventually ran inside the building, but stayed near the doorway. He then engaged with the officer again from the doorway. The range was about 60 yards. During this time, this shooter was not rampaging the school and shooting undefended. Folks found cover and/or escaped. Of the 2,000 odd folks in the school when this started, the TWO heavily armed (guns and bombs) shooters only managed to injure 34. Of these 34 they only managed to kill 13. I would say the presence of an armed person on scene had a definate impact on the outcome. Upon being confronted, they quickly moved to the library, where they killed 10 of the 13 total death victims, and then killed themselves. Had there not been an armed engagement early on (almost the outset), odds are they would have continued to feel empowered to move more freely about the school and seek out more of the 2,000 potential victims.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columb ... S_TEXT.htm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columb ... T_TEXT.htm

Now consider this event had there been more than the one assigned police officer, who was there in an ongoing "Community Service Liaison" position and not as full up Security. Or, just for fun consider the option that the faculty and staff had an option to be trained and armed as Concealed Carry security augment.

I think the outcome would have been even less damaging as it was. I also think that if it was public knowledge that staff & faculty carried weapons, and/or there was an active armed security patrol that even though these two cowards were a little more motivated than average to "show everyone", that they would have even reconsidered trying in the first place. And if they did, probably some folks still would have been shot by them, but more than likely far less than the comparitive few they managed (out of 2,000 targets), and it would have been over much sooner. Either they got dropped, or were motivated sooner to off themselves when they felt they got cornered.

Your argument is again weak and vacuous. the idea here is to prevent if possible, but also minimize if it happens. Letting these cowards cruise around at will inside a target zone is how more folks get shot than should.
That is also why the standard practice of police was changed to an immediate entry in the wake of Columbine. The police (at large) finally figured out something others of us already knew. Quick Decisive action to remove option chains from the opponent is required to seize the initiative. Or, in simpler terms I go back to my younger days, "Violence of Action" is not just a motto, it is a method.