Report: Yet another shooting at a US high school, this one in Kern County, CA

Discuss

97 Responses to “Report: Yet another shooting at a US high school, this one in Kern County, CA”

  1. capnmarrrrk says:

    The NRA would like you to know that guns aren’t the problem…Dicks.

    Edit: Tuesday Night’s Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-january-8-2013-stanley-mcchrystal

    • nvlady says:

      Saw that last night. One of the best Daily Shows in years.

    • gracchus says:

      30 years ago, the NRA chose to define American gun culture in terms of Bircher paranoia and machismo, and they’ve been riding the same crazy train to this date. At this point they’re about as credible as the school-shooting troofers who’ve popped up with their false-flag theories and their “photographic evidence” of one of the Newtown victims sitting on Obama’s lap (spoiler: it was the victim’s sister).

  2. Navin_Johnson says:

    This must be another one of those “rare” events that the guy in the other gun related thread was talking about a couple days ago….

    • Wreckrob8 says:

      ‘Rare’ as in ‘Millions of American schoolchildren were not shot in school today’. What’s all the fuss about?

  3. zantony says:

    For those of you keeping track, the clock has been reset. It is once again too soon to talk about gun control.

  4. xian says:

    If only every child was armed with an assault riffle in that school, this shooting would have been prevented.

  5. Adam Watson says:

    too soon, stop talking about guns.

  6. James Holden says:

    Ten days into the new year and here we go again.

    How many more of these does America need before it is understood that less guns means less people being shot? There isn’t a single country in which the strengthening of gun control laws led to an increase in gun murders.

    What an easily preventable waste of life.

    Fun fact: In the UK, every year more people die by falling off a chair than are killed by being shot.

  7. Toffer99 says:

    Slate is keeping track of the gun deaths since Newtown.
    http://slate.me/UMgcQS
    Before you go there, have a guess at how many are dead: 30? 70? 150?
    Nope its 695 -correction, now 697.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      697 in less than a month and somehow guns aren’t the problem.  There will be several other gun deaths today alone.  I’m sure I’ll find one when I turn on the local news tonight.  It’s the Detroit feed, after all.

  8. james r says:

    Put all schools … inside airports.

  9. CSBD says:

    Luckily California has very restrictive gun laws… who knows how bad this might have been if the kid had a machinegun, flame thrower, or even a nuclear device.

    Feinstein has been doing her best to protect the children… and yet this still happens.

  10. SedanChair says:

    If any of you pro-gun control folks really cared about lowering gun deaths you’d talk first, foremost and always about ending the drug war. School shootings are a rare occurrence compared to drug-related shootings.

    But for some reason, only the deaths of angelic-looking white children truly stir your emotions. Telling. Pardon me for not signing up for your sudden crusade.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      School shootings are a rare occurrence compared to drug-related shootings.

      False choices and apples and oranges. Make sensible gun policy, end the drug wars, and build up the impoverished neighborhoods where gun violence is most prevalent.

      Wow, your argument was really easy to sink…

      All the more funny considering that Boing Boing commenters across the spectrum (from right wing libertarians to hard lefties) seem to all be pretty much against the drug war in general.

      • SedanChair says:

        Our gun policies are perfectly sensible. Our drug policy, not at all. So let’s not go getting our priorities ass-backwards.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

          False choice, and no our gun policies are not “perfectly sensible” by any measure.

          • SedanChair says:

            Dude this isn’t yu-gi-oh, you don’t just get to slap “false choice” on the table and walk away

          • Funk Daddy says:

            Actually he does, you make a false choice or a false equivalence or any truly obvious logical failing in your argument then you have failed to make an argument.

            No logical rebuttal need follow a flawed argument

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Make a real argument that’s not full of logical fallacies and straw men. The problem is that you don’t seem to have a legit argument.

            “Drug war!” (most of us are soundly against the drug war).

            “Stop talking about this and talk about the drug war!” (false choice)

            Never mind the fantasy straw man you’re building about people in favor of some form of gun control.

        • Finnagain says:

           Wow, way to be completely wrong there! Does the nra give you a penny every time you post something that stupid, or are you a freelance loon?

          “Our gun policies are perfectly sensible.”

      • Nick Weaver says:

        Except most of the “sensible” gun control policies aren’t.  Magically making all “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” disappear would have less of an effect on the fatality rate compared with wiping out every deer in the US (200 fatalities/year or so).  

        More people are beaten to death with hands and feet than are killed with all rifles in the US.  In fact, hands and feet is roughly equal to rifles AND shotguns.  Making EVERY knife vanish would have a bigger effect than making EVERY rifle and shotgun vanish:

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

        The problem is criminals with handguns.  Focusing on anything OTHER than forcing all sales to go through background checks (CA does this already) is worse than useless: it doesn’t provide a significant benefit but is a huge distraction.  This wouldn’t stop criminals from getting guns but it makes it easy to prosecute those who sell the guns to criminals.

        • AnthonyC says:

          So are you suggesting we ban handgun sales and keep assault weapons legal?

          /s

          There’s a lot of momentum in the gun control debate. I agree assault weapons are not the majority of the problem, but they should be the easiest part to fix, and help build momentum for discussing the rest.

      • Timothy Krause says:

        There’s nothing false about comparing two aspects of gun violence in the US, these being, here, crime- and poverty-related shootings with more spectacular and isolated incidents like school shootings. And there’s nothing “easy” about the issues these comparisons raise, chief among them being why the outliers (school shootings) get so much light and heat, while the steadier drip-drip-drip of crime- and poverty-related gun deaths get nary a peep. 

        Just as the roots of gun violence in America are deep, so are the causes of poverty and its associated violence. It will take more than “build[ing] up the impoverished neighborhoods.” I think SedanChair’s flamebaiting a bit with his white angels, but it’s undeniable that the same intractable issues that cause poverty in our inner cities help keep the gun deaths of inner-city populations out of the headlines. 

        • Navin_Johnson says:

          He wasn’t comparing them, he was saying we should stfu about gun control because the drug war exists, and that we obviously don’t “care” about it. He was (very transparently) using that angle to try to shut down a new discussion on gun control brought about by yet another school shooting. Basically: “If you really cared about people you’d shut up about this and talk about legalizing drugs”.

          It will take more than “build[ing] up the impoverished neighborhoods.”

          That’s a given. I don’t think I have the time to line out a 300 page manifesto on all my ideas for dealing with poverty and violence……..

    • mccrum says:

      Why not just do both?

      • SedanChair says:

        Why not just do the one? Don’t be so quick to throw gun owners under the bus. Guns are awful handy sometimes; ask a Syrian or a Black Panther.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

          I’ve lots of gun owning friends and family, but none of them feel the need for a Bushmaster or militarized/police style rifles and handguns. There can be varying degrees of gun ownership and allowances.

          You honestly think that your average Syrian owned military weapons, or that the U.S. is like Syria?  That’s not how the rebels got armed, it’s not how Libyans got armed…

  11. Erik Fawcett says:

    Merica!
    Seriously though, we in the UK find your dichotomy of intelligence and downright painful stupidity really entertaining when there aren’t dead children involved.
    If you own a gun it means you judge yourself both ready and capable of taking another human life.  It’s ethically indefensable.

    • MollyMaguire says:

      “If you own a gun it means you judge yourself both ready and capable of taking another human life.  It’s ethically indefensable.” Despite having no interest in owning a gun and believing in more gun control, I can’t agree. I live in Alaska and have many well-grounded, well-educated, politically progressive friends (yes, there are a few of us up here!) who own guns not because they believe strongly in the right to armed insurrection or for protection from others with guns but for hunting or for protection from wildlife. True, guns are inherently designed to destroy life, but not all guns are made to destroy human life. I think we need a bit more gun control but a lot more culture shifting.

      • Erik Fawcett says:

         A very good point and well made.

      • Jean Baptiste says:

         Just out of curiosity, MollyMaguire, what part of Alaska?  And how do you feel about Alaska’s open carry gun policy?  And does it make you feel more safe or less safe?  Just wondering :)

        • MollyMaguire says:

          I now live in Anchorage but spent a few years in Fairbanks (~14 yrs total). I have probably seen firearms being carried openly in urban settings, but I can’t be certain. At least In my daily routines and social circles, it’s not prevalent at all. I have honestly never thought about it before, but since you ask, I think I actually feel less safe.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

         Good point, but I don’t think any of us are really scared of sportsmen as much as people with extremist views, or mentally unstable people that can easily purchase or stockpile militarized style weapons.

      • Hunting with guns isn’t illegal in the UK, just for the record.

  12. Mark Estes says:

    i never understand the post event, events.  The gunman has been arrested but they are evacuating the school.  Why? 

    • gracchus says:

      It’s a precaution — the perpetrators seem to have a propensity for setting booby traps and bombs, sometimes there’s more than one perp, etc. Also, once the lockdown is over the rest of the school day is a write-off, so the students might as well go back to their parents in as quick and orderly a way as possible.

  13. chgoliz says:

    The NY Times published an article yesterday with some relevant statistics: the US is at the bottom in its class for life expectancy for those under 50 years old.  The top three reasons?  Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses.

    The U.S. Health Disadvantage

  14. Marja Erwin says:

    Is it wrong that one of my first reactions is to wonder which minority will get the blame, demonization, dehumanization, calls for institutionalization/imprisonment, etc.? Oh, and the posting system’s buggy again.

    • gracchus says:

      It’s a natural reaction. After all, the first response of organisations like the NRA is always to find some “Other” to demonise in order to divert attention from the industry they lobby for.

    • Marc45 says:

      My first reaction was which disgruntled, angry white dude did it.

  15. gracchus says:

    I can understand why someone in a rural area would keep a shotgun at home. However, there is absolutely no excuse for keeping a shotgun and its shells (or any other firearm and ammo) unsecured/unlocked in a household where anyone under the age of 18 resides.

    This is why mandatory firearm owners’ liability insurance needs to be part of whatever legislation is put forward by the Obama administration — at the very least. There need to be effective disincentives to the sort of irresponsible storage of firearms we’ve seen after these school shootings.

    Obviously there are other issues that need to be addressed regarding semi-automatic rifles, high-capacity magazines, certain types of ammunition, and gun sales in general. And obviously no measure will completely eliminate these situations. I state these things because, obviously, these threads tend to require my stating the obvious.

  16. What a terrible state of affairs to get in. Such a wealthy country, such awful healthcare and culture, constantly under performing compared to the other developed countries.

    Get well soon US.

  17. Jean Baptiste says:

    Has anyone noticed that a lot of the comments here (and even, arguably, the “Yet another” and “this one” portion of the headline at the top of the page) show a depressingly high degree of schadenfreude (directed at but not limited to the NRA and anyone who isn’t anti-gun) over this event?

    • Finnagain says:

       No, not really. Are you feeling persecuted?

    • gracchus says:

      I don’t see much schadenfreude. I do see people trying to pre-empt the no-value-added propaganda of the NRA and the kind of suckers who do free scut work for them (apparently there are paid shills out there, too).

      Opinions of the school-shooting troofers aside, reasonable people don’t see the shootings of young people as an ideal opportunity to score political points just for the heck of it. They do see these incidents (including this one) as symptoms of a broken system, and would like to see the system mended.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       Exasperation more like..

  18. Why hire a police officer to act as a glorified truancy officer?  The description they give of the SRO’s job is something that should fall under a Vice Principal’s job.  

  19. kringlebertfistyebuns says:

    Since BB is fond of highlighting how people are terrible at risk assessment, I thought I’d post some FBI crime stats to give some perspective:

    US gun homicides, 1991: 17,986.  Rate: 7.13 / 100,000
    US gun homicides, 2011: 8,583.  Rate: 2.94 / 100,000.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      The year after we went to war and haven’t stopped recruiting since.

      Things always get quieter at home when the armed forces are actively recruiting.

      But derp, lets say it is more guns and not what it has always been, war and sociological advances/setbacks, affecting crime rates.

      EDIT – Oh I’m sorry I thought you were being nonsensical, by attributing a major sociological statistical trend to one factor, like many silly people are lately.

      Most mentions of falling crime/murder/firearm/assault/hate/rape/death rates have of late been attributed solely to the fact of more guns on the streets.

      It’s like attributing the Mississippi River to the Red Rivers contribution. Willful blindness.

      If you weren’t among those I apologize for being nonsensical in reply.

      • kringlebertfistyebuns says:

        Your response makes no sense, and is not backed by data.

        I can’t find specific data regarding firearms murders, but overall murder rates don’t seem to show any correlation to whether or not there’s a war on.  Murders rose throughout the Vietnam War, for example.  

        Overall murders stayed pretty steady for several years after 9/11, actually rising a bit in the mid-2000s, and only declining significantly after 2007.  

        Here’s murder rates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for 1900-2006:  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/hmrttab.cfm

    • That’s awesome, with proper gun control think how much better those numbers would be!

  20. We strongly limit the amount of alcohol you can have to legally drive. We have spot checks where police stop drivers to check their sobriety. We hold bartenders liable if they serve someone too much and let them drive home. We require all cars to be registered and licensed. We require all drivers to be registered and licensed. Drivers who have behaved irresponsibly have had their licenses suspended and their cars impounded.

    You really want to play this game?

  21. James Holden says:

    Cars have a practical purpose beside killing people.

    What purpose does a gun have, other than protecting yourself from someone elses gun?

  22. heng says:

     You mean fewer guns and fewer people.

  23. James Holden says:

    You’re comparing the USA to two very different countries. The UK and Australia doesn’t have any sort of gun culture. Nobody there particularly wants to own a gun, and most people in the UK have never even seen a real gun up close.

    The problem is that in the USA lots of people think it’s a great idea to own a gun, plus those who own one for protection from the other people with guns. The place is flooded with them.

    The answer is simply to remove them.

    We’d all like better mental health care, but it’s impossible to have an entire country of entirely sane, sober and rational people. At least limit the options for harming people.

  24. Charles Céleste Hutchins says:

    Guns have been coming into the UK illegally since the passing of the hand gun ban, but the WSJ article falsely implies causation, like banning guns somehow made them easier for gangs to acquire by some sort of special gun magic. There are many factors that go into violent crime.  There were under 100 gun deaths in the UK last year and more than 11000 in the US (and 18000 gun suicides) so if the UK’s result is what the failure of arms control looks like, I still think it’s a better option.

  25. Navin_Johnson says:

    Why is that being murdered by a gun makes you more dead than being murdered by another method?

    Because one takes all the effort of moving your forefinger a little bit.  Any other fun questions?

    Why don’t armies use baseball bats if being dead is being dead? Because some weapons are more effective at killing, and more threatening than others? Maybe?……

  26. Paul Coleman says:

    Sure, but I can’t kill YOU by eating a cheeseburger.

  27. Navin_Johnson says:

    The trolling is fast and furious today…..
    You choose to eat at fast food chains and slowly kill yourself. This isn’t the same as being murdered while you’re trying to learn in a classroom.

  28. It might prevent a person from murdering a lot of people very quickly before they are stopped.

    How many kids would HWMNBN have killed with just a hammer?

  29. James Holden says:

    Are you seriously suggesting that tens of thousands of people losing their lives each year is worth it just so a few people can continue a “fun” hobby?

    They’d be a lot less to defend against if the likelihood of the person attacking you having a gun is next to zero.

    Guns are a self-perpetuating problem. It’s time to break the cycle.

  30. Navin_Johnson says:

    I choose to exercise my human right to not be murdered by a damaged, delusional (see “government staged” comment below) gun troll when you’ve had a bad day and finally snap.

  31. gjgustav says:

    Since 9/11 several amendments to the constitution have been broken. Did you stand up and fight against those?

    And do you think that if the government wanted to take you down, you could defend yourself?

    And what’s your feeling on nukes? Should everyone be allowed to defend themselves with nukes? No, why assault rifles then?

  32. Navin_Johnson says:

    Limiting access and making it harder for the criminal element to acquire them are perfectly reasonable tactics.

    Amongst many other things…..

    But as you know, a morally bankrupt, powerful industry lobby (that cares about dollars, not rights) and legions of fanatics are 100% opposed to any kind of sensible preventive policy at all.

  33. Wreckrob8 says:

    Gun ownership may well be up but the percentage of households owning guns has dropped dramatically, I believe, from c. 50% to c. 30%.

  34. “In the US gun ownership is up and gun violence is down and plummeting. ”

    Really? I’m almost certain reality would prove you wrong. Do you need a review of:
    -Newtown
    -Buffalo
    -Aurora
    -Tuscon
    -Virginia Tech
    -Colombine
    etc.?

    Here’s a larger list:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9414540/A-history-of-mass-shootings-in-the-US-since-Columbine.html

    It would seem to me that your info is quite incorrect . . .

  35.  OOoohhhh. So that’s okay then. Move along people, nothing more to see here.

    (Curtains drop, light comes up, music plays, the shuffling of feet on worn carpet)

  36. Funk Daddy says:

     So you consider this a good school shooting? A successful one?

    One that makes your point that school shootings are okay if it means unrestricted access to firearms?

  37. Why does this need to be a point? The point is that once again someone tried to murder a bunch of other someones with an extremely efficient death-stick!

  38. Funk Daddy says:

     So Mike L, are you suggesting with your incredibly stupid comparison that a hundred million Americans discharge their firearms, maybe somewhat irresponsibly, EVERY DAY?

    How many intentionally drink someone else to death?

    Is it customary with you to shoot a hole in the ceiling after a nice meal?

    Is all this whizzing right over your head? Like your neighbors bullets on a weekend binge?

  39. Funk Daddy says:

     Wow Mike, I wasn’t actually expecting you to let that whiz over your head that way.

    Please do keep defending school shootings as a necessary part of constitutional law. Thanks.

  40. Navin_Johnson says:

    Lots of stockpilers..

  41. Navin_Johnson says:

    Were 697 people killed with hammers in a month? When was the last “hammering” rampage that killed multiple children?

  42. Funk Daddy says:

     Mike L, that list is only updated to 1/8/12. If you followed the twitter feed that announces each additional gun death to be added at the next update you would see there have been 2 today.

    Do you assume doors are open before or after you hit them?

  43. kringlebertfistyebuns says:

    I am in total agreement that guns have no real purpose other than putting holes in living things.

    How does that bear on whether people have a right to own them?

    To me the argument you post is kissing cousin to the notion that there are “good” and “bad” uses for contraceptives.

  44. Funk Daddy says:

    Maybe if you made a post that didn’t require correction, didn’t contain a logical flaw or didn’t ignore the information you are responding to you would face less sarcasm, which you take to be insulting.

    You made an assumption, work against that tendency if you don’t like snark.

  45. Finnagain says:

     Hammers, cars and guns are all exactly the same! How many times do I have to repeat this before it is regarded as conventional wisdom?

  46. kringlebertfistyebuns says:

    The problem is this – there is a guarantee in the law that people can own and use guns.  There is no such guarantee for car ownership.  

    We certainly have a problem with guns, but more to the point we have a *violence* problem.   

  47. kringlebertfistyebuns says:

    No, myk is in fact correct.  The number of gun murders in the US has declined.  

    It’s HALF of what it was 20 years ago, and has dropped by 15% since just 2007.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

    These sorts of incidents have increased, perhaps, but overall deaths by firearm are declining, along with the violent-crime rate in general.

  48. AnthonyC says:

    This. Unless you believe in an individual right to own nuclear weapons, then you have already conceded that there exist weapons that only the government should be allowed to possess, and maybe not even then. The only remaining debate is where to draw the line. No one is going to take away your right to non-firearm weapons, like knives and bats. And I would strongly support your right to own any weapon built with tools and materials available in the 1780s. Beyond that, the debate is still open.

  49. Erik Fawcett says:

    If someone attacks you with a bat responding with a gun is disproportionate force.  Are you truly so weak and scared?

  50. AnthonyC says:

    And how well do you understand that if you shoot, your attacker isn’t the only one you might hit? Or that someone close to you is more likely to use your gun to kill themselves than you are to defend them with it? Or that you may lack the training of a policeman or soldier to determine when deadly force is appropriate? And even if you are a retired cop ex marine who keeps his gun in a safe that only opens with your personal retinal scan, *most gun owners aren’t.*

  51. Funk Daddy says:

    To infinity?

    Or you could do everyone a favour and replace your hammers with loaded sidearms.

    Go bear hunting with a hammer.

    Set out with just your Winchester to make an out-of-state visit.

    The same?

    Where’s your /s? I know I saw it somewhere.

  52. heng says:

     The second amendment is moronic in the 21st century. Handing over security to the government is exactly the deal you make when you live in a civilised society.

  53. Laws can be changed – they’re not bible verses.

  54. gracchus says:

    There is a guarantee in the Constitution that citizens, as part of a well-trained militia (e.g. the National Guard) can keep and bear arms to defend the nation against invaders or would-be colonial masters.

    There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing untrained individuals can keep and bear arms in anticipation of using them against their own government or their fellow citizens. That goes against the spirit and intent of the document to which the amendment is attached (a document defining the free state itself).

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the Framers did not intend the 2nd Amendment to be a suicide pact.

  55. I’m sorry, but owning a gun isn’t a ‘right’, even if it says so on a piece of paper drafted hundreds of years ago.

  56. kringlebertfistyebuns says:

    Oh, I agree.  The problem is the law in question is of the highest order we have, and changing that law is (rightly) quite difficult.

Leave a Reply