Yet another school shooting

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is really insane...

One of the teachers was just being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, and she was describing what happened for her and her students (all safe). Towards the end of the interview, she mentioned that the school actually has "active shooter" drills (just like another type of fire drill). They have detailed emergency plans and code words for shooters and bomb threats. She said that, at first, they all thought it was an unannounced "active shooter" drill. She credits all of the planning and drills for the fact that *only* 17 people died today.

Yeah, this is dumb and insensitive thing to say, and it's not even correct, 17 is on par with other school mass shootings.

Anyway, I was watching Anderson Coopeer and apparently they have a policy on CNN of not showing the name or picture of the shooter. I find that interesting that they understand that, I just think they don't go far enough. CNN (and others) should try to stop covering/mentioning it completely. I would also have banned using such plots on TV/movies. But I understand that it would be hard/impossible to do.

That's an interesting idea. On the one hand they are in the business of reporting news, and this IS news. On the other, they sensationalize it and glamorize it so much that mentally deranged people may want the fame that goes with that and become more likely to do this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Only 12 of the 17 deceased have been identified so far.

I fully understand why, but how horrifying for the families still trying to find their children.

I remember the day I got a call from the school. My kid didn't show up. She'd slept in and her grandma didn't take her to school and I had to go pick her up and then explain what went wrong. That was it. That was the worst thing that happened. She didn't get to school.


I can't imagine what it would be like for her to have not come home. There are a bunch of parents dealing with that right now. They sent their kids off to school, and they didn't come home. They'll never come home.

It is hard to wrap your mind around what they might be going through.

Its an even bigger mindfuck when you meet such kids a few years later because they took the opportunity to run away from home without telling their parents or anyone, and they were presumed dead. That happened to a family I knew of when I was growing up. I didn't know her well, and never learned why she did what she did (I won't assume abuse nor judge her), but I met her briefly two decades later and she was alive and well living in another province now with her own family. I wonder if she watched her kids closely.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I thought Trump was for gun control? Didn't I once hear him talk about that? Grab 'em by the pistol?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

Only if the gun was loaded with wadcutters. A handgun with proper combat ammo makes a big mess also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is really insane...

One of the teachers was just being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, and she was describing what happened for her and her students (all safe). Towards the end of the interview, she mentioned that the school actually has "active shooter" drills (just like another type of fire drill). They have detailed emergency plans and code words for shooters and bomb threats. She said that, at first, they all thought it was an unannounced "active shooter" drill. She credits all of the planning and drills for the fact that *only* 17 people died today.

Yeah, this is dumb and insensitive thing to say, and it's not even correct, 17 is on par with other school mass shootings.

Anyway, I was watching Anderson Coopeer and apparently they have a policy on CNN of not showing the name or picture of the shooter. I find that interesting that they understand that, I just think they don't go far enough. CNN (and others) should try to stop covering/mentioning it completely. I would also have banned using such plots on TV/movies. But I understand that it would be hard/impossible to do.

This is what I've been advocating for ages.

Engage in a crime to get attention (mass shooting, terrorism etc) and the news can only provide minimal coverage of it.

I would say that any fact can be reported (while I like the idea of omitting the name & face I don't think the government should mandate that), but that it can only be reported once, or perhaps once in any 30 day period. (Unless it's necessary to reporting. You say "school shooting at xxx, 10 dead" and then they find someone who died while hiding, they aren't prohibited from saying "school shooting at xxx" in reporting that 11.)

 

[RavenSky]

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

Read this article yesterday... just horrifying. I also saw a demonstration video showing how an AR-15 bullet pulverizes a human's internal organs. They use some sort of gel material specifically designed to mimic human organs. If I can find it again, I will share it here. It was also horrifying.

Semi-automatic assault rifles are weapons of war purposely designed to KILL HUMAN BEINGS. Anyone who claims they are good for hunting deer is a fucking liar, imo, because the damage these weapons do would make the deer or other animal unfit for eating, mounting or whatever the hell else hunters do with the animals they kill.

 

[J842P]

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

Read this article yesterday... just horrifying. I also saw a demonstration video showing how an AR-15 bullet pulverizes a human's internal organs. They use some sort of gel material specifically designed to mimic human organs. If I can find it again, I will share it here. It was also horrifying.

Semi-automatic assault rifles are weapons of war purposely designed to KILL HUMAN BEINGS. Anyone who claims they are good for hunting deer is a fucking liar, imo, because the damage these weapons do would make the deer or other animal unfit for eating, mounting or whatever the hell else hunters do with the animals they kill.

I don't disagree with your overall point that AR-15's are weapons of war with no good reason for the general public to be able to own/purchase easily, but I believe the cartridge is actually *less powerful* than a typical hunting rifle. An "assault rifle" is actually characterized by being of medium-range and medium power, for more dynamic engagements on the battlefield. They came about late in WW2 with the German Sturmgewehr 44, the "storm-rifle", as in to storm, i.e. to assault. Infantry rifles at the time used full-powered rifle cartridges. These types of cartridges today would be used by "battle rifles" like the American M-14, or Belgian FAL, which will nowadays have semi-automatic/fully automatic fire. Anyway, at the time the infantry rifles used in WW2 were designed, riflemen were essentially highly-trained marksmen engaging at relatively long distances. But the nature of warfare changed a lot from the late 19th century into the mid 20th. The advent of the machine gun made riflemen essentially support for the machine-gun team in a squad. Battle rifles had effective ranges of something like 500 meters, but typical engagements in WW2 were not that far, so the idea behind the assault rifle was to give the average rifleman a less powerful weapon, but one that was much more versatile, with selective fire. Essentially, assault rifles are designed to let the soldier move easily and still pack a punch, without the bulkiness/unwieldiness of a full-powered battle-rifle.

So, an assault rifle like the AR-15 would use medium size, medium-power cartridges, e.g. 5.70 mm bullet diameter. Cartridges used for hunting can be smaller/bigger depending on the game, but often bigger rounds are used because hunting rifles, like battle rifles, are meant to be used at longer distances than an assault rifle, and are designed to be accurate at these distances. So you might easily see a .260 Remington round, which is substantially bigger than an AR-15 round, with a 6.7 mm bullet diameter. or even a 0.308 Winchester round with a 7.8 mm bullet diameter.


So actually, the reason that an AR-15 isn't not a good hunting rifle is because it is *not powerful enough*. A hunting rifle is designed to be highly accurate, to fire a single, powerful shot accurately. AR-15s are designed to fire medium-power cartridges but can fire semi-automatically, allowing for a much higher sustained rate of fire for *shooting at people who would be shooting back*, at medium ranges.

Anyway, the most effective guns for a school shooting would probably a couple of semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity magazines. You don't need a lot of stopping power if you are shooting at people inside a room, without body armor or cover to shoot through. Indeed, that's what Cho Seung Hui used to kill over 30 people at Virginia Tech.

 

[jab]

Meanwhile, back in FLA.

Although details are still missing, social media updates are coming in, including one from WPLG that shows video of students scattering out of the school. Some students and staff are still reportedly locked inside.

The Margate Fire Rescue has deemed this a mass-casualty incident, which means at least 20 people have been injured. There is still no update on how many casualties there may be.

I would say maybe if lawmakers were shot, but lawmakers have been shot and still no one does shit. So this is the new normal and kids can be killed wholesale.

It must be terrifying to be a child goign to school in the USA: meanwhile, doesn't Betsy (Cruella "Wetsy") DeVos (DeVil) support home schooling?--probably with lots of guns in the home.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is really insane...

One of the teachers was just being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, and she was describing what happened for her and her students (all safe). Towards the end of the interview, she mentioned that the school actually has "active shooter" drills (just like another type of fire drill). They have detailed emergency plans and code words for shooters and bomb threats. She said that, at first, they all thought it was an unannounced "active shooter" drill. She credits all of the planning and drills for the fact that *only* 17 people died today.

Yeah, this is dumb and insensitive thing to say, and it's not even correct, 17 is on par with other school mass shootings.

Anyway, I was watching Anderson Coopeer and apparently they have a policy on CNN of not showing the name or picture of the shooter. I find that interesting that they understand that, I just think they don't go far enough. CNN (and others) should try to stop covering/mentioning it completely. I would also have banned using such plots on TV/movies. But I understand that it would be hard/impossible to do.

This is what I've been advocating for ages.

Engage in a crime to get attention (mass shooting, terrorism etc) and the news can only provide minimal coverage of it.

I would say that any fact can be reported (while I like the idea of omitting the name & face I don't think the government should mandate that), but that it can only be reported once, or perhaps once in any 30 day period. (Unless it's necessary to reporting. You say "school shooting at xxx, 10 dead" and then they find someone who died while hiding, they aren't prohibited from saying "school shooting at xxx" in reporting that 11.)

Yes! The solution to solving massacres in a democracy is to suppress the media. I can definitely see why the NRA would support that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is what I've been advocating for ages.

Engage in a crime to get attention (mass shooting, terrorism etc) and the news can only provide minimal coverage of it.

I would say that any fact can be reported (while I like the idea of omitting the name & face I don't think the government should mandate that), but that it can only be reported once, or perhaps once in any 30 day period. (Unless it's necessary to reporting. You say "school shooting at xxx, 10 dead" and then they find someone who died while hiding, they aren't prohibited from saying "school shooting at xxx" in reporting that 11.)

Yes! The solution to solving massacres in a democracy is to suppress the media. I can definitely see why the NRA would support that.

You obviously do not get the point at all.

I'm not saying to suppress the media--nothing is prohibited from being reported with what I am suggesting. Only how often they can report it is restricted. The idea is to deny the people the publicity they crave.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is what I've been advocating for ages.

Engage in a crime to get attention (mass shooting, terrorism etc) and the news can only provide minimal coverage of it.

I would say that any fact can be reported (while I like the idea of omitting the name & face I don't think the government should mandate that), but that it can only be reported once, or perhaps once in any 30 day period. (Unless it's necessary to reporting. You say "school shooting at xxx, 10 dead" and then they find someone who died while hiding, they aren't prohibited from saying "school shooting at xxx" in reporting that 11.)

Yes! The solution to solving massacres in a democracy is to suppress the media. I can definitely see why the NRA would support that.

You obviously do not get the point at all.

Why? Because I mocked a bad idea? I'm quite understanding of what you are trying to accomplish. You seem to completely have no idea as to the problems of your solution.

I'm not saying to suppress the media--nothing is prohibited from being reported with what I am suggesting.

Yes you are, and you have no idea just how far this suppression goes. The media gets to report on it once, so no interviews with the victims, no talking about how it happened, no talking about anything done to try and prevent it. You don't seem to see how the NRA would absolutely love for there to be no lingering about the deaths of over a dozen students.

Only how often they can report it is restricted. The idea is to deny the people the publicity they crave.

And maybe you could come up with code to provide what is allowed. Seriously, think about how impossible enforcing this is. Each media outlet can report on it once? Are they allowed to report updates, once? Can media outlets report on other media outlets reporting on it? The only way to make it work is to essentially ignore it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Meanwhile, back in FLA.

Although details are still missing, social media updates are coming in, including one from WPLG that shows video of students scattering out of the school. Some students and staff are still reportedly locked inside.

The Margate Fire Rescue has deemed this a mass-casualty incident, which means at least 20 people have been injured. There is still no update on how many casualties there may be.

I would say maybe if lawmakers were shot, but lawmakers have been shot and still no one does shit. So this is the new normal and kids can be killed wholesale.

It must be terrifying to be a child goign to school in the USA: meanwhile, doesn't Betsy (Cruella "Wetsy") DeVos (DeVil) support home schooling?--probably with lots of guns in the home.

It's only February. If current trends hold, we should see about 500 more people in the US gunned down in mass shootings this year.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes you are, and you have no idea just how far this suppression goes. The media gets to report on it once, so no interviews with the victims, no talking about how it happened, no talking about anything done to try and prevent it. You don't seem to see how the NRA would absolutely love for there to be no lingering about the deaths of over a dozen students.

You're listing new information--it could be reported.

However, while the NRA might like it, what I'm after is to make the shooters not like it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yup, teachers with guns is a great idea!