Since 1999 the chance a public school student being killed by a gun in school is 1 in 614,000,000

[healthmyths]

As many that are:
1) Qualified
2) Mentally and emotionally stable
3) Fully trained with periodic updates in training
4) Willing to become a target

They will definitely need to be compensated.

What if it’s one, like in Parkland. You good with that? If not then tell me what the standard is going to be?

Again... I gave you the answer to TEACHERS!!!!
Now if Parkland, et.al. want to hire more than TEACHERS that's OK but they and other schools are not going to depend on "TEACHERS" to meet the need.
The common sense statement is if a teacher wants, is qualified, is stable, is trained and WILLING to be a target... how many TEACHERS do you think that would be?
I don't know. But it is AN OPTION.... Do you understand "OPTIONS"?
It shouldn't be THE ONLY solution which I interpret your responses as what you think is the case.
Logical rational people understand the reality of the world.
Until the MSM stops putting these shooters on nightly news/headlines we'll have more regardless of how many armed teachers there are.
The point of the thread is NOT arming teachers but DISARMING the false and FAKE headlines by the MSM! Used to sell advertising.
Why is it you don't take the MSM to task for encouraging these shooters?

Yes I very much understand the realities of the world. You want to arm teachers and pay them more for taking on this responsibility. So now are schools hiring people because they will be defenders or because they are the best teachers? Schools do a lot for bumps in funding so is it possible that many will take advantage of this and the quality of our teachers takes a hit?

What if nobody in a school wants to be an armed defender? Frankly I think it is a silly idea but I’m open to the debate. I think it better to integrate more police, ex police and ex vets for security purposes. But we have people here calling Parkland a gun free zone even though there was an armed guard. So back to my original question. For a school like Parkland, how many armed defenders would you consider needed for adequate minimum security?

So if NO teacher wants to be an armed teacher Fine! BFD! Why though is is a "silly idea"? What makes it silly?
YES it would be better to integrate! But again why not have the same people at are as the latin word "Educator" meaning "to lead"
The Latin word ducere, meaning “to lead,” and its form ductus give us the roots duc and duct. Words from the Latin ducere have something to do with leading.
So why not have again
A) if the teacher is motivated
B) Qualified
C) Trained
D) Mentally and emotional stable(which would be a given wouldn't it? I mean want a mental defective teaching your kid?)

Again you are making too much of a simple idea. If the teacher wants to be armed then why not let them??? Why is it so complicated?

I’m not closed to the idea but you are making it sound much more simple then it actually is. You are talking, funding, training and safety. Teachers are there to educate first and foremost, that shouldn’t get lost. Also the fact that many parents may not feel comfortable with armed teachers. I school 20 minutes away from where I live had an ex cop doing a gun safety course and the gun was accidentally discharged earlier this year. Accidents happen because people are idiots. So yeah, not as simple as you make it all sound

Teachers are teaching subjects that were considered when I was in school totally the responsibility of the parents.
Again... it is simple. If the teacher wants to be authorized LET them have the option.
Then qualify them. It is that simple. We have teachers qualified to be driver's ed. Teachers qualified to teach kids how to cook. So what is the problem?
Why don't you let the teachers decide if they want to carry?
And by the way YES accidents happen. But you are again making the EXCEPTION drive the RULE...i.e. how many accidental deaths have happened by guns in schools over 19 years?

 

[JoeMoma]

So 50 million kids at 180 days or 9 billion kid days per year on 171 billion kid years over 19 years.

What you talking about? What is a kid day?

Obviously you weren't in school that day when multiplication was taught.
50 million kids go to school 180 days a year. That's 9 billion times during one year a kid could have been killed.
9 billion times 19 years equals 171 billion kid days when one kid could have been shot.

No. I wasn't in school the day when the phrases "kid day" and "kid year" were covered. I understand the math just fine, thank you!

 

[candycorn]

Nah, seriously, I'm all for having armed guards at schools.

If you're first phone call after the shooting starts is to the cops whom you expect to show up with guns....doesn't it make sense to have a trained, skilled armed guard there already?

My only question is where does it end? You want the guards at day care centers too? What about on school buses?

Won't work.

A school shooter will just kill the armed guard first and then he has the run of the place.

Even if the guard is undercover...the students will quickly figure out that he is a guard.

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

so that makes mass shootings in schools ok?

Jillian, don't take it the wrong way. Nobody is saying school shootings are okay.

We're just saying that they are so rare that we should do everything we can to stop them without shitting on the rights of millions of others. That's all.

Except for repealing the 19th Amendment. We should definitely do that.

 

[Slade3200]

Why not just keep the doors locked like they already are?

Did you have trouble comprehending my post? I don't think I advocated any changes, just pointed out possibilities.


.

Correcting a problem that does not exist is liberal-level stupidity.

I see denial ain't just a river in Egypt. A problem definitely exist, it's just not with the shiny object the regressives are using to try to deny Americans their constitutional rights. It's with the decaying society the regressives have created over the last 7-8 decades. The current manifestations of that decay are proof positive of that fact.

Regressives create problems and then pretend to be the white knight with the only solutions. Of course those solutions never include reversing the policies that created the problem in the first place, it always involves more government control and a consistent chipping away at personal freedom.


.

What was the golden era when everything was peachy and great before the regressives took over and started degrading it?

If you're over 50 and can't recognize the decline in the moral fabric of this country over the years, just says you're part of the problem. The programed destruction of the nuclear family, removing discipline from the schools and the home and encouraging deviant behavior, trying to portray it as somehow normal are just a few of the examples. It's all part of the regressive utopian vision, own it, but spare me the crocodile tears when undisciplined kids kill other kids.


.

You didn’t answer my question. What was this golden era you want to progress back to?

 

[Slade3200]

What if it’s one, like in Parkland. You good with that? If not then tell me what the standard is going to be?

Again... I gave you the answer to TEACHERS!!!!
Now if Parkland, et.al. want to hire more than TEACHERS that's OK but they and other schools are not going to depend on "TEACHERS" to meet the need.
The common sense statement is if a teacher wants, is qualified, is stable, is trained and WILLING to be a target... how many TEACHERS do you think that would be?
I don't know. But it is AN OPTION.... Do you understand "OPTIONS"?
It shouldn't be THE ONLY solution which I interpret your responses as what you think is the case.
Logical rational people understand the reality of the world.
Until the MSM stops putting these shooters on nightly news/headlines we'll have more regardless of how many armed teachers there are.
The point of the thread is NOT arming teachers but DISARMING the false and FAKE headlines by the MSM! Used to sell advertising.
Why is it you don't take the MSM to task for encouraging these shooters?

Yes I very much understand the realities of the world. You want to arm teachers and pay them more for taking on this responsibility. So now are schools hiring people because they will be defenders or because they are the best teachers? Schools do a lot for bumps in funding so is it possible that many will take advantage of this and the quality of our teachers takes a hit?

What if nobody in a school wants to be an armed defender? Frankly I think it is a silly idea but I’m open to the debate. I think it better to integrate more police, ex police and ex vets for security purposes. But we have people here calling Parkland a gun free zone even though there was an armed guard. So back to my original question. For a school like Parkland, how many armed defenders would you consider needed for adequate minimum security?

So if NO teacher wants to be an armed teacher Fine! BFD! Why though is is a "silly idea"? What makes it silly?
YES it would be better to integrate! But again why not have the same people at are as the latin word "Educator" meaning "to lead"
The Latin word ducere, meaning “to lead,” and its form ductus give us the roots duc and duct. Words from the Latin ducere have something to do with leading.
So why not have again
A) if the teacher is motivated
B) Qualified
C) Trained
D) Mentally and emotional stable(which would be a given wouldn't it? I mean want a mental defective teaching your kid?)

Again you are making too much of a simple idea. If the teacher wants to be armed then why not let them??? Why is it so complicated?

I’m not closed to the idea but you are making it sound much more simple then it actually is. You are talking, funding, training and safety. Teachers are there to educate first and foremost, that shouldn’t get lost. Also the fact that many parents may not feel comfortable with armed teachers. I school 20 minutes away from where I live had an ex cop doing a gun safety course and the gun was accidentally discharged earlier this year. Accidents happen because people are idiots. So yeah, not as simple as you make it all sound

Teachers are teaching subjects that were considered when I was in school totally the responsibility of the parents.
Again... it is simple. If the teacher wants to be authorized LET them have the option.
Then qualify them. It is that simple. We have teachers qualified to be driver's ed. Teachers qualified to teach kids how to cook. So what is the problem?
Why don't you let the teachers decide if they want to carry?
And by the way YES accidents happen. But you are again making the EXCEPTION drive the RULE...i.e. how many accidental deaths have happened by guns in schools over 19 years?

You are dismissing all the other factors that I brought up which tells me you don’t really want to think this thing through.

 

[Pop23]

so that makes mass shootings in schools ok?

Jillian, don't take it the wrong way. Nobody is saying school shootings are okay.

We're just saying that they are so rare that we should do everything we can to stop them without shitting on the rights of millions of others. That's all.

Except for repealing the 19th Amendment. We should definitely do that.

Not that I want to get into the minutia of this whole discussion, but just running the numbers of the odds of this happening, using only public school enrollment and the total number of either incidents, deaths or injuries, the odds are so fantastically low, it ain't going to make me worry to much.

If they did, I probably would never leave my house, as just about any other way I could die has far greater odds of happening.

Trying to make tragic events more than they are may paralyze some, but they are rare, and as horrible as they are, making them appear to be more than a tragic event, is simply trying to sow paranoia.

 

[healthmyths]

Again... I gave you the answer to TEACHERS!!!!
Now if Parkland, et.al. want to hire more than TEACHERS that's OK but they and other schools are not going to depend on "TEACHERS" to meet the need.
The common sense statement is if a teacher wants, is qualified, is stable, is trained and WILLING to be a target... how many TEACHERS do you think that would be?
I don't know. But it is AN OPTION.... Do you understand "OPTIONS"?
It shouldn't be THE ONLY solution which I interpret your responses as what you think is the case.
Logical rational people understand the reality of the world.
Until the MSM stops putting these shooters on nightly news/headlines we'll have more regardless of how many armed teachers there are.
The point of the thread is NOT arming teachers but DISARMING the false and FAKE headlines by the MSM! Used to sell advertising.
Why is it you don't take the MSM to task for encouraging these shooters?

Yes I very much understand the realities of the world. You want to arm teachers and pay them more for taking on this responsibility. So now are schools hiring people because they will be defenders or because they are the best teachers? Schools do a lot for bumps in funding so is it possible that many will take advantage of this and the quality of our teachers takes a hit?

What if nobody in a school wants to be an armed defender? Frankly I think it is a silly idea but I’m open to the debate. I think it better to integrate more police, ex police and ex vets for security purposes. But we have people here calling Parkland a gun free zone even though there was an armed guard. So back to my original question. For a school like Parkland, how many armed defenders would you consider needed for adequate minimum security?

So if NO teacher wants to be an armed teacher Fine! BFD! Why though is is a "silly idea"? What makes it silly?
YES it would be better to integrate! But again why not have the same people at are as the latin word "Educator" meaning "to lead"
The Latin word ducere, meaning “to lead,” and its form ductus give us the roots duc and duct. Words from the Latin ducere have something to do with leading.
So why not have again
A) if the teacher is motivated
B) Qualified
C) Trained
D) Mentally and emotional stable(which would be a given wouldn't it? I mean want a mental defective teaching your kid?)

Again you are making too much of a simple idea. If the teacher wants to be armed then why not let them??? Why is it so complicated?

I’m not closed to the idea but you are making it sound much more simple then it actually is. You are talking, funding, training and safety. Teachers are there to educate first and foremost, that shouldn’t get lost. Also the fact that many parents may not feel comfortable with armed teachers. I school 20 minutes away from where I live had an ex cop doing a gun safety course and the gun was accidentally discharged earlier this year. Accidents happen because people are idiots. So yeah, not as simple as you make it all sound

Teachers are teaching subjects that were considered when I was in school totally the responsibility of the parents.
Again... it is simple. If the teacher wants to be authorized LET them have the option.
Then qualify them. It is that simple. We have teachers qualified to be driver's ed. Teachers qualified to teach kids how to cook. So what is the problem?
Why don't you let the teachers decide if they want to carry?
And by the way YES accidents happen. But you are again making the EXCEPTION drive the RULE...i.e. how many accidental deaths have happened by guns in schools over 19 years?

You are dismissing all the other factors that I brought up which tells me you don’t really want to think this thing through.

Of course I'm dismissing them!
Because they are NOT relevant!
A) You have rogue cops carrying guns! So it is possible some mentally deranged teacher could be armed. Odds??
B) Parents aren't comfortable around "armed teachers"...? Risk reward ratio here at play... how many uncomfortable?
C) You read the headlines about teacher with gun discharged right? Again... you ONLY paid attention to the headlines!
Here are the facts: School district officials told the Monterey County Weekly that Alexander was not authorized to carry a firearm on school grounds.
3 teens hurt when California teacher fires gun during safety course
So please state your facts not the headlines!

AGAIN AND AGAIN I have pointed out to you the Occam's razor approach is better....and I suggest you look up what is Occam's razor... lex parsimoniae!

 

[healthmyths]

so that makes mass shootings in schools ok?

Jillian, don't take it the wrong way. Nobody is saying school shootings are okay.

We're just saying that they are so rare that we should do everything we can to stop them without shitting on the rights of millions of others. That's all.

Except for repealing the 19th Amendment. We should definitely do that.

Further more we are pointing out that by blowing out of proportion these events as the MSM has done... we are actually exacerbating the problem!
Jillian needs to explain this:
In a blog post the 26-year-old who killed 10 students at Umpqua Community College in Oregon in 2015 wrote
about the television journalist who killed two of his former colleagues in Virginia earlier that year,,
“I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown,
yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are.
A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone.
His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day.
Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Now from researchers:
Writing in The Atlantic in 2012, sociologist Zeynep Tufekci argued that the news media ought to tone down coverage of shooting sprees in the same way they modulated their coverage of suicides when it was feared that such deaths had become “contagious” in the 1980s. Among Tufekci’s recommendations:
Avoid specifying the killer’s choice of weapons, avoid quoting his writings or utterances, delay releasing the suspect’s name
and, to not add to the traumatizing of victims and their loved ones, resist the urge to interview victims and loved ones.

Does media coverage of mass murders encourage others to kill?

The totally missed point that the MSM wants to hide and I and others are asking Jillian et.al. to be aware of is the hucksters known as "journalists"/MSM love these events!
They build ratings which sells advertising.
Don't fall for it!

 

[healthmyths]

Widespread media coverage contributing to rise in mass shootings, say psychologists
The media must stop trying to 'keep viewers eyeballs glued to the screen' with mass murder
Widespread media coverage of mass shootings is contributing to their rise by giving perpetrators the fame they "desire", according to researchers.

By spreading the names and faces of mass shooters, social media and the mainstream media can be linked to a rising trend in school shoot-outs and public mass murder, psychologists have said.

And the number of shootings in the US, which now occur at a rate of one every 12 days, would be reduced by one third if journalists, bloggers and social media users "made a pact" not to spread the news.
Researchers at Western New Mexico University also said the media drive to cover mass shootings because of ratings and advertiser sales needed to stop.

The warning comes after a young mass shooter in Munich was found to have been "obsessed" with Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. The US also saw the deadliest shooting in its history this year with the massacre of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando.

"Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them," said Jennifer Johnston, a psychology researcher at Western New Mexico University.
"At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?"

Dr Johnston emphasised the media's responsibility not to be beholden to online traffic and newspaper sales, in a paper presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention.

"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their number one ratings and advertising boosters," she said
Rising trend in mass shootings 'linked to widespread media coverage'

 

[OKTexas]

Did you have trouble comprehending my post? I don't think I advocated any changes, just pointed out possibilities.


.

Correcting a problem that does not exist is liberal-level stupidity.

I see denial ain't just a river in Egypt. A problem definitely exist, it's just not with the shiny object the regressives are using to try to deny Americans their constitutional rights. It's with the decaying society the regressives have created over the last 7-8 decades. The current manifestations of that decay are proof positive of that fact.

Regressives create problems and then pretend to be the white knight with the only solutions. Of course those solutions never include reversing the policies that created the problem in the first place, it always involves more government control and a consistent chipping away at personal freedom.


.

What was the golden era when everything was peachy and great before the regressives took over and started degrading it?

If you're over 50 and can't recognize the decline in the moral fabric of this country over the years, just says you're part of the problem. The programed destruction of the nuclear family, removing discipline from the schools and the home and encouraging deviant behavior, trying to portray it as somehow normal are just a few of the examples. It's all part of the regressive utopian vision, own it, but spare me the crocodile tears when undisciplined kids kill other kids.


.

You didn’t answer my question. What was this golden era you want to progress back to?

Golden era, your term, not mine. Others may allow you to set the vernacular for a discussion, I chose not to. I'll discuss things the way I chose, you're not obligated to respond.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes I very much understand the realities of the world. You want to arm teachers and pay them more for taking on this responsibility. So now are schools hiring people because they will be defenders or because they are the best teachers? Schools do a lot for bumps in funding so is it possible that many will take advantage of this and the quality of our teachers takes a hit?

What if nobody in a school wants to be an armed defender? Frankly I think it is a silly idea but I’m open to the debate. I think it better to integrate more police, ex police and ex vets for security purposes. But we have people here calling Parkland a gun free zone even though there was an armed guard. So back to my original question. For a school like Parkland, how many armed defenders would you consider needed for adequate minimum security?

So if NO teacher wants to be an armed teacher Fine! BFD! Why though is is a "silly idea"? What makes it silly?
YES it would be better to integrate! But again why not have the same people at are as the latin word "Educator" meaning "to lead"
The Latin word ducere, meaning “to lead,” and its form ductus give us the roots duc and duct. Words from the Latin ducere have something to do with leading.
So why not have again
A) if the teacher is motivated
B) Qualified
C) Trained
D) Mentally and emotional stable(which would be a given wouldn't it? I mean want a mental defective teaching your kid?)

Again you are making too much of a simple idea. If the teacher wants to be armed then why not let them??? Why is it so complicated?

I’m not closed to the idea but you are making it sound much more simple then it actually is. You are talking, funding, training and safety. Teachers are there to educate first and foremost, that shouldn’t get lost. Also the fact that many parents may not feel comfortable with armed teachers. I school 20 minutes away from where I live had an ex cop doing a gun safety course and the gun was accidentally discharged earlier this year. Accidents happen because people are idiots. So yeah, not as simple as you make it all sound

Teachers are teaching subjects that were considered when I was in school totally the responsibility of the parents.
Again... it is simple. If the teacher wants to be authorized LET them have the option.
Then qualify them. It is that simple. We have teachers qualified to be driver's ed. Teachers qualified to teach kids how to cook. So what is the problem?
Why don't you let the teachers decide if they want to carry?
And by the way YES accidents happen. But you are again making the EXCEPTION drive the RULE...i.e. how many accidental deaths have happened by guns in schools over 19 years?

You are dismissing all the other factors that I brought up which tells me you don’t really want to think this thing through.

Of course I'm dismissing them!
Because they are NOT relevant!
A) You have rogue cops carrying guns! So it is possible some mentally deranged teacher could be armed. Odds??
B) Parents aren't comfortable around "armed teachers"...? Risk reward ratio here at play... how many uncomfortable?
C) You read the headlines about teacher with gun discharged right? Again... you ONLY paid attention to the headlines!
Here are the facts: School district officials told the Monterey County Weekly that Alexander was not authorized to carry a firearm on school grounds.
3 teens hurt when California teacher fires gun during safety course
So please state your facts not the headlines!

AGAIN AND AGAIN I have pointed out to you the Occam's razor approach is better....and I suggest you look up what is Occam's razor... lex parsimoniae!

Yes Alexander was not permitted to have the gun and that’s why he was placed on leave however he is a reserve officer with the local PD and was a teacher and accidentally discharged a weapon in front of a classroom of kids. That has to give you pause as you push to allow more teachers to arm up.

Have you ever worked at a school and really seen how parents act? My girls school just went to war with the parents over a dress code that didn’t allow girls to wear leggings, the parents got it over turned. You think armed teachers is going to be an easy landing? I don’t think so.

Occams Razor in this case would say. To reduce the chances of gun violence in school the simple solution would be to reduce the amount of guns in school... not add more.

 

[Slade3200]

Correcting a problem that does not exist is liberal-level stupidity.

I see denial ain't just a river in Egypt. A problem definitely exist, it's just not with the shiny object the regressives are using to try to deny Americans their constitutional rights. It's with the decaying society the regressives have created over the last 7-8 decades. The current manifestations of that decay are proof positive of that fact.

Regressives create problems and then pretend to be the white knight with the only solutions. Of course those solutions never include reversing the policies that created the problem in the first place, it always involves more government control and a consistent chipping away at personal freedom.


.

What was the golden era when everything was peachy and great before the regressives took over and started degrading it?

If you're over 50 and can't recognize the decline in the moral fabric of this country over the years, just says you're part of the problem. The programed destruction of the nuclear family, removing discipline from the schools and the home and encouraging deviant behavior, trying to portray it as somehow normal are just a few of the examples. It's all part of the regressive utopian vision, own it, but spare me the crocodile tears when undisciplined kids kill other kids.


.

You didn’t answer my question. What was this golden era you want to progress back to?

Golden era, your term, not mine. Others may allow you to set the vernacular for a discussion, I chose not to. I'll discuss things the way I chose, you're not obligated to respond.


.

Call it whatever you want. You blame liberals for destroying our country and I’m simply asking which decade you would revert back to before the libs destroyed it? We can learn a lot from history so let’s look at it. Which decade was America Great before the liberal takeover? Simple question

 

[McRocket]

nd

Nah, seriously, I'm all for having armed guards at schools.

If you're first phone call after the shooting starts is to the cops whom you expect to show up with guns....doesn't it make sense to have a trained, skilled armed guard there already?

My only question is where does it end? You want the guards at day care centers too? What about on school buses?

Won't work.

A school shooter will just kill the armed guard first and then he has the run of the place.

Even if the guard is undercover...the students will quickly figure out that he is a guard.

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

And your post is ignorant in the extremis.

Where is your proof from unbiased sources that my statement is stupid?

What exactly is 'stupid' about it?


I mean think...if an armed guard is in school, the students will almost instantly know who and what he is doing there.

Now tell me why a shooter will not kill the armed guard first, before he goes on his rampage...DUH?

And once he kills the guard, he will have the run of the school.

Your idea is totally idiotic and all it will do is guarantee the guard will be the first to be killed.


The ONLY way your idea would work is if the guard actually taught classes and kept his weapon completely concealed. Or...unless there were several guards ...but that is getting silly and costly.

There are about 100,000 schools in America (not counting daycare facilities). An armed guard worth a plug nickel is going to cost at least $50,000. And the only way your idea will work is to have at LEAST 3 or 4 of them per school. That is about $200,000 per school. That is a total of $20 billion.
Now add in all the daycare facilities and you are probably talking about double that.
Oh brilliant....NOT.

Since you were blunt, I will be as well...your idea sucks.

 

[Pop23]

Widespread media coverage contributing to rise in mass shootings, say psychologists
The media must stop trying to 'keep viewers eyeballs glued to the screen' with mass murder
Widespread media coverage of mass shootings is contributing to their rise by giving perpetrators the fame they "desire", according to researchers.

By spreading the names and faces of mass shooters, social media and the mainstream media can be linked to a rising trend in school shoot-outs and public mass murder, psychologists have said.

And the number of shootings in the US, which now occur at a rate of one every 12 days, would be reduced by one third if journalists, bloggers and social media users "made a pact" not to spread the news.
Researchers at Western New Mexico University also said the media drive to cover mass shootings because of ratings and advertiser sales needed to stop.

The warning comes after a young mass shooter in Munich was found to have been "obsessed" with Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. The US also saw the deadliest shooting in its history this year with the massacre of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando.

"Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them," said Jennifer Johnston, a psychology researcher at Western New Mexico University.
"At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?"

Dr Johnston emphasised the media's responsibility not to be beholden to online traffic and newspaper sales, in a paper presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention.

"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their number one ratings and advertising boosters," she said
Rising trend in mass shootings 'linked to widespread media coverage'

Nobody wants to hear the truth behind these school shooting.

The left are too busy using them to attack the 2nd Amendment and demanding gun restrictions, and the right is too busy defending their ownership of weapons.

But watch this video, by someone who is uber left and uber Progressive........



It is incredible that this is so highly ignored. WE CAN STOP THESE SHOOTINGS IF WE WANT. The question is WHY NOBODY REALLY WANTS TOO!

 

[JoeMoma]

Widespread media coverage contributing to rise in mass shootings, say psychologists
The media must stop trying to 'keep viewers eyeballs glued to the screen' with mass murder
Widespread media coverage of mass shootings is contributing to their rise by giving perpetrators the fame they "desire", according to researchers.

By spreading the names and faces of mass shooters, social media and the mainstream media can be linked to a rising trend in school shoot-outs and public mass murder, psychologists have said.

And the number of shootings in the US, which now occur at a rate of one every 12 days, would be reduced by one third if journalists, bloggers and social media users "made a pact" not to spread the news.
Researchers at Western New Mexico University also said the media drive to cover mass shootings because of ratings and advertiser sales needed to stop.

The warning comes after a young mass shooter in Munich was found to have been "obsessed" with Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. The US also saw the deadliest shooting in its history this year with the massacre of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando.

"Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them," said Jennifer Johnston, a psychology researcher at Western New Mexico University.
"At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?"

Dr Johnston emphasised the media's responsibility not to be beholden to online traffic and newspaper sales, in a paper presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention.

"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their number one ratings and advertising boosters," she said
Rising trend in mass shootings 'linked to widespread media coverage'

Will journalist make adhere to a pack not to spreed the news when there is a mass school shooting? I doubt it, the ratings are more important to them.

 

[OKTexas]

I see denial ain't just a river in Egypt. A problem definitely exist, it's just not with the shiny object the regressives are using to try to deny Americans their constitutional rights. It's with the decaying society the regressives have created over the last 7-8 decades. The current manifestations of that decay are proof positive of that fact.

Regressives create problems and then pretend to be the white knight with the only solutions. Of course those solutions never include reversing the policies that created the problem in the first place, it always involves more government control and a consistent chipping away at personal freedom.


.

What was the golden era when everything was peachy and great before the regressives took over and started degrading it?

If you're over 50 and can't recognize the decline in the moral fabric of this country over the years, just says you're part of the problem. The programed destruction of the nuclear family, removing discipline from the schools and the home and encouraging deviant behavior, trying to portray it as somehow normal are just a few of the examples. It's all part of the regressive utopian vision, own it, but spare me the crocodile tears when undisciplined kids kill other kids.


.

You didn’t answer my question. What was this golden era you want to progress back to?

Golden era, your term, not mine. Others may allow you to set the vernacular for a discussion, I chose not to. I'll discuss things the way I chose, you're not obligated to respond.


.

Call it whatever you want. You blame liberals for destroying our country and I’m simply asking which decade you would revert back to before the libs destroyed it? We can learn a lot from history so let’s look at it. Which decade was America Great before the liberal takeover? Simple question

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

 

[candycorn]

nd

Nah, seriously, I'm all for having armed guards at schools.

If you're first phone call after the shooting starts is to the cops whom you expect to show up with guns....doesn't it make sense to have a trained, skilled armed guard there already?

My only question is where does it end? You want the guards at day care centers too? What about on school buses?

Won't work.

A school shooter will just kill the armed guard first and then he has the run of the place.

Even if the guard is undercover...the students will quickly figure out that he is a guard.

You’re making assumptions that are both unsupported and frankly stupid

And your post is ignorant in the extremis.

Oh no…not in the extremis!!!!

Where is your proof from unbiased sources that my statement is stupid?
What exactly is 'stupid' about it?

Well, for one thing, your assumptions are that there is one guard for the whole school. Secondly, you assume that she or he is in a softened position with no intel about what may happen. While it is true that attacks can come from anywhere at any time without warning, there is often some sort of indication; a threat made, a look that is given etc… Retail store security guards can usually spot someone who is pinching merchandise. Thirdly, the shot itself if they do shoot the security guard first will give the rest of the school some sort of warning that there is an intruder on the campus. Now if the shot is fatal, that is one thing although it will still act as a warning. If the guard is able to push a panic button or some similar device, the authorities have that much more of a jump on the situation, they can lock down the school, etc…

There are about 100,000 schools in America (not counting daycare facilities). An armed guard worth a plug nickel is going to cost at least $50,000. And the only way your idea will work is to have at LEAST 3 or 4 of them per school. That is about $200,000 per school. That is a total of $20 billion.
Now add in all the daycare facilities and you are probably talking about double that.
Oh brilliant....NOT.
Since you were blunt, I will be as well...your idea sucks.

I will be the first to say that it is a bad idea. It is the quintessential reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

The bottom line is that whatever scenario you want to enlist, police involvement will be on the menu. Now why do you call the police? To take care of the shooter. Having someone there who can take care of the shooter at the outset just makes sense. Using your logic…”The killer will be able to recognize the cops and they’ll be shot!!! Really?

 

[candycorn]

What was the golden era when everything was peachy and great before the regressives took over and started degrading it?

If you're over 50 and can't recognize the decline in the moral fabric of this country over the years, just says you're part of the problem. The programed destruction of the nuclear family, removing discipline from the schools and the home and encouraging deviant behavior, trying to portray it as somehow normal are just a few of the examples. It's all part of the regressive utopian vision, own it, but spare me the crocodile tears when undisciplined kids kill other kids.


.

You didn’t answer my question. What was this golden era you want to progress back to?

Golden era, your term, not mine. Others may allow you to set the vernacular for a discussion, I chose not to. I'll discuss things the way I chose, you're not obligated to respond.


.

Call it whatever you want. You blame liberals for destroying our country and I’m simply asking which decade you would revert back to before the libs destroyed it? We can learn a lot from history so let’s look at it. Which decade was America Great before the liberal takeover? Simple question

You're assuming I think any particular decade was somehow perfect, I haven't made any such claim. What I've said, there have been government policies put into place over time that have had a detrimental effect on our society as a whole. I provided examples of some of those policies, you can either agree with my assessment or not. If you wish to discuss why I hold the opinion on those policies, fine. Don't try to put me in a hole you define.


.

Yeah, equal rights were such a buzzkill for some.

 

[healthmyths]

Widespread media coverage contributing to rise in mass shootings, say psychologists
The media must stop trying to 'keep viewers eyeballs glued to the screen' with mass murder
Widespread media coverage of mass shootings is contributing to their rise by giving perpetrators the fame they "desire", according to researchers.

By spreading the names and faces of mass shooters, social media and the mainstream media can be linked to a rising trend in school shoot-outs and public mass murder, psychologists have said.

And the number of shootings in the US, which now occur at a rate of one every 12 days, would be reduced by one third if journalists, bloggers and social media users "made a pact" not to spread the news.
Researchers at Western New Mexico University also said the media drive to cover mass shootings because of ratings and advertiser sales needed to stop.

The warning comes after a young mass shooter in Munich was found to have been "obsessed" with Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. The US also saw the deadliest shooting in its history this year with the massacre of 49 people at a gay club in Orlando.

"Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them," said Jennifer Johnston, a psychology researcher at Western New Mexico University.
"At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?"

Dr Johnston emphasised the media's responsibility not to be beholden to online traffic and newspaper sales, in a paper presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention.

"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their number one ratings and advertising boosters," she said
Rising trend in mass shootings 'linked to widespread media coverage'

Will journalist make adhere to a pack not to spreed the news when there is a mass school shooting? I doubt it, the ratings are more important to them.

It is NOT a specific journalist I'm sure you understand.

While a vast majority of so-called "journalists" are liberal/democrat supporters it is their editors/producers that are really responsible for the sensationalization of the news.
The evolution of the MSM is occurring now. This thread is just one of hundreds of ways of educating more and more people to be just skeptical of what the MSM brings as "news".
If the majority of us when reading a headline/ or hearing a sound bite simple react by NOT responding to the FIRST news blast as life threatening or as the world is ending which the
MSM does with events like these we will be more educated in our responses. Read/listen with skepticism is my suggestion definitely before doing any emotional marching/protesting etc. that the vast majority that do this seem to think is the solution.