Gunman kills 19 children in Texas school shooting - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15229745
wat0n wrote:Jeez, you guys are relaxed about the kids for sure :eh:
:eh: The threats don't exist to the children where we are, so we don't need to be uptight. We can afford to be relaxed, because the children are not in danger. How can you not comprehend that??? :?:

If there were threats equal to the ones that kids in USA have, I am sure they'd change things. As it stand, they don't need to.

:roll: You're like one of those guys in Canada who thinks foreign terrorism is a threat to them, when they have a better chance of being killed by a moose. :knife:
#15229746
Since the Dunblane massacre , gun controls were made even tighter than they already were and schools made more secure. Only one entrance is available to visitors after the school day begins and that is monitored by cctv and the door controlled by staff in reception.
#15229747
Yes, @snapdragon, since 16 kids were killed at that, and the possibility was there that it might happen again, they took proper precautions. Good plan.

USA won't do that. It would interfere with an idiotic 2nd Amendment right and the profit margins of the NRA and weapon manufacturers, who have the government firmly in their pocket.
#15229749
@snapdragon, I am sure it's NOT a problem. At the same time, if nothing's wrong with how things are, there isn't a pressing need to change, is there?

I take my son to school every day. The teachers know me by sight. I am sure if a stranger was wandering around, he'd be stopped and questioned. If this became a problem, they might start closing the gates during school hours.

As it stands, there isn't a problem. Why pay an extra person to guard the gate or keep it closed if there's no issue. If it isn't broken, why fix it?
#15229750
wat0n wrote:Jeez, you guys are relaxed about the kids for sure

That's probably because, in general, the mentally-ill teenagers shooting up schools in the US are really poor shots.

Picking a year at random (2019).

School shootings: 24

People killed: 8

Children killed: 5
#15229762
That’s alright then (!)

Putting security measures in schools wouldn’t bust the bank so all visitors have to identify themselves before being let in. It’d make them a lot safer.

Still, it’s not my country. Not my kids in danger.
#15229763
Thinking outside the box.

Perhaps you should reopen the school gun clubs. An American institution that fell out of favour in the 70s but was commonplace in the 50s. A place where your children could be taught how to shoot straight. It would likely up the death count and maybe, just maybe, force your government to act.
#15229765
Scamp wrote:We should make a new law.
Anyone who does a school shooting gets hanged the next day.
These school shootings would stop after the first few hangings.


It's very American to think more punitive actions will help, but it won't. The people that do this stuff are disturbed and do not give a fuck about consequences.

This simply will not work.


Anyway, no surprise, the kid was bullies like hell, and was a loner.

Apparently some kids would even make fun of him by calling him a "school shooter" :eek:
#15229779
@wat0n wrote:
You're describing pretty much any country, not just the USA. Seriously, what countries don't have a class system? Which countries have no elites that wield their power over everyone else? In what countries can you just refuse to play by the rules?

Tainari88: No, again distortions. Not every country has 119 school shootings in a short span of time. I put in the three videos with the entire issue of gun problems in the USA, and possible solutions. I am not you wat0n, I don't think about societies like (that is the way it is and no change is possible we shall always be class system based). Why do I believe that or think that? If you study human evolution and human behavior you realize that with time and ongoing experience and context? Human societies change and recreate themselves and it is evolving. Nature evolves. Humans are part of nature and so they evolve just like the plants, the animals, and everything with living cells on Earth. Why should human society not follow that same rule? It does. So? Just because class systems emerged because it is more efficient for the division of labor than say nomadic tribesman societies? It means that it is malleable. It changes depending on the environment, and the need to administrate to adapt to changing circumstances. Let me give you an example: Working remote on a laptop. You got a US citizen that is working from Texas. You got a Mexican citizen working from Mexico City. Both are bilingual with the same level of skills and education. But because the Mexican citizen lives in Mexico they get paid a minimum wage of about $69 pesos or $3 dollars an hour or so. The US one gets paid maybe $10 above Texas minimum wage. The one in Texas struggles to pay his monthly bills on $10 dollars an hour. The Mexican worker is on the remote also and also struggles on the $3 dollar an hour wage to make ends meet. But? If the pro-for-profit US-based companies hiring US workers find out they can hire the Mexicans for $8 dollars an hour and save two dollars an hour by getting rid of the US worker they will do it. Meanwhile, the Mexican worker gets a huge boost in income and can now afford almost if not a solidly middle-class lifestyle because the cost of living is a lot lower in his home nation. That is happening right now. It doesn't favor the US-based worker but it means that capitalism is creating through its power-based (who has the money makes the rules behavior) it is creating other paths. Eventually, the Mexicans start expecting $8 an hour US-type salaries, and the low-wage capitalists in Mexico got to run with it. Or lose employees. It is about changing conditions. You think socialism fails. No, it doesn't. Socialistic policies are what keep nations afloat. Especially capitalism based ones. Why? Because what the capitalist refuses to do that keeps creating conflict with its work force are: having to pay higher wages and also pay for their health care costs that rise every year in the USA, they got to pay for unemployment insurance of face that laying off employees can really create tremendous upheaval and instability and people with jobs will dedicate themselves to hitting the street and creating mayhem. The Great Depression in the USA with FDR created the social security system, the unemployment system, the current welfare system and food stamps and workforce training programs and subsidized housing, etc. If you don't have that in the USA. Say you get rid of all the socialist policies from the 1940s will you have upheaval in the USA? Yes or no? Why? Because people don't want to work a full time schedule until they die of infirmity or old age or are turned out to the street to beg for a living. If you are a worker and pay taxes for 30 years you have rights to the social security system. It needs to be more in keeping with actual costs of living and it is woefully inadequate as it is. But? You keep saying that socialism fails. It is not about failure or success it is about if FDR had not done the New Deal and getting these systems in place? The USA would have had dire consequences with very very angry workers in the millions burning down everything in sight. That is what was happening too. Banks being rioted and so on because they would foreclose on farmers and on people's houses that did everything to find work and could not because of the economic crashes of that period in US history. So you are not valid in your argumentation Wat0n. Socialism is not a failure. It is a remedy for a rawhide capitalist system that failed a long time ago and had to be balanced out and bailed out by pooled government resources. Because if it had not acted on the environment? The entire thing would have been burned to the ground. That is reality. Not the bullshit that is spouted by the conservatives thinking that capitalism is a well oiled machine that everyone agrees is the only way of getting worker security in the entire world. It is not. This is about a long process of adjustments that human societies make over stretches of time adapting to shifting circumstances. Period.

Cuba? North Korea? China? All of those do have their own elites and their own class system. And dissent (let alone rebellion) is treated harshly.

Tainari88: Cuba is a specific case. If you study the entire history of Cuba you realize a lot of stuff. I don't believe you have studied Cuba at all well. You don't study it. Cuba is dysfunctional because the government is entrenched with old guard people used to old ways that no longer apply to a new economy in the world, and embargo restrictions imposed by the USA that is resentful that Cuba won't let them in as Vietnam has and the PRC has. If Cuba allows the major corporations in and lets them sell and becomes capitalist and lets go of control of the economy the USA will lift it all. Cuba doesn't really do it. Why not? They will gain some advantages no? They don't do it because the USA doesn't respect the Caribbean islands' independence and autonomy and also they want to CONTROL it all. The way they do with PR, the way they invaded DR, the way they invaded Nicaragua, Panama, and the list is very very long. Now, if Cuba wants to change? the Cubans themselves have to want to go through the terrible fire of revolution once again. That is very very difficult. So they limp along with a bad economy. The USA has no compassion for them because they say they care about human rights and the reason is the commies took over and the commies don't respect human rights. That is all bullshit Wat0n. The USA has relationships with communist-run nations. PRC, and Vietnam. Vietnam they had to go to war with too...yet have open trade relationships now. Why Cuba then? It doesn't make sense except that it is about being able to get in that market and take control of a neighboring country that used to be in their sphere of influence. Castro is dead and the other brother is very old. So are many in the old 1959 Revolutionary Days. So? What is DC's excuse for not opening full trade? They want the old relationship. The one in which Cuba had to do what the USA dictated because it did not have economic independence. Period. That is not being a nation of believing in each people's right to choose their own system of government and respecting differences. There are flaws with US democracy. Imagine the entire world saying no to the USA and isolating them because of their flaws? I also think North Korea is weird as hell and authoritarian. Never thought of them as democracy or any semblance of real socialism. It is much more fascistic and on top of that, it has a very bad economy as well. They all have class systems. It doesn't mean that class systems should be the core of education Wat0n. Because the Finnish teacher of Spanish origin did tell you what the core value is in Finland. It is EQUALITY. Not class conscious concepts or theories, of this class, is better because they make x amount of money and this family here makes a lot less so they are inferior. That is what is wrong with all this shit. Noncooperation. Competition instead of cooperating for the greater good. Cooperate. Don't invade. Don't manipulate, don't isolate, don't castigate, don't deny democratic equal rights. Don't abuse power. It creates conflict and war, poverty, despair, and hardship that is UNNCESARY. That is what a true socialist fights for in this world. And I consider myself one of those. I don't think as you do. That the system is class conscious and capitalism is the best. The US is the best. And the end of the story is there. That is never the end of the human story. We do actually learn from our mistakes. We do. If not feudalism would never have died off nor slavery either. Capitalism has a shelf life too. All systems created by humans have a lifespan and then they are gone. Start thinking that way @wat0n that is with true historical perspectives. Not with what the majority of the world thinks. The majority are too busy trying to pay bills to pay attention of who are in the driver's seats making rules that don't really help them out in life.
Finland, Sweden, Denmark? They also have their own class system, they also have their own elites, and everything, even if they are very well-governed overall. And ironically their system is far more like the one the US has than the one Cuba or China has.

Tainari88: The elites in the USA and all over the world don't think about the vast majority of humanity. Too busy getting wealthier by controlling the means of growth of that wealth. They don't want to pay taxes on it or to invest in a wide-scale improvement to the life of many in many countries. If we keep letting them go for constant growth and no protest and constant concentrations of power and money with a belief that in the end, they will do the right thing without pressure from the ones not living well and winding up with nothing in the process? We will be looking at collapse. That is a fact Wat0n.

Do you know what one of the problems with the US is? That many are have dug into their trenches, and they'd rather die in them than be pragmatic. Not just the elites, but plenty of those below too. Worst part is that the US isn't the only place where this is happening.


The problem with the USA is a very old history of having exclusions and the belief in their own exceptionalism and in their own right to dictate what the rest of the world is doing. You can't do that. The world is too big, and diverse and there are rules to negotiations in an international political arena. Trying to spend tons of money on foreign wars because you got to control the petrodollar, control all the bank flows and capital, you got to own all the raw materials, and invest in a lot of nations' defense so you can tell them what to do in their own house is not productive. It never has been. It is like the neighbor who wants to be the committee chairman of the HOA and doesn't believe in shared and consensus-placed decisions. It doesn't work. Imperialism doesn't work. Dictatorships don't work. Invasions by force because you want to control what belongs to another country doesn't work. Being racist and disrespectful doesn't work. Identifying with people and nations and groups that are powerful and wealthy but you are NOT either wealthy or from a nation with superpower status doesn't work.

Be true to who you are inside and your own internal value system. Don't judge others because you want to feel superior to them. Because if you look very hard? You got the same or worse flaws than the people you are criticizing. In fact hubris is a real serious sin and problem in Ancient Greece for a reason. It prevents the hubris-filled individual or group from taking responsibility for their own bad decisions. The US has some bad decisions they have taken. Over many years. Unless they make serious efforts to right it? It won't be getting better. The same applies to all nations. It still should not prevent governments from treating other governments as equals and avoiding being arrogant and abusive. Something that doesn't work for other governments either.
#15229781
Godstud wrote::eh: The threats don't exist to the children where we are, so we don't need to be uptight. We can afford to be relaxed, because the children are not in danger. How can you not comprehend that??? :?:

If there were threats equal to the ones that kids in USA have, I am sure they'd change things. As it stand, they don't need to.

:roll: You're like one of those guys in Canada who thinks foreign terrorism is a threat to them, when they have a better chance of being killed by a moose. :knife:


It's odd you mention terrorism, given Canada is a member of Five Eyes.

Putting more physical obstacles for strangers to enter schools doesn't sound like a particularly expensive measure in the long run. It definitely isn't hard.

You can see this as a form of insurance if you want, which is sometimes compulsory (such as car insurance). Even the guard isn't a big deal, and you could also argue teachers shouldn't be burdened with asking strangers who enter school premises what do they need. They should be able to rest during their breaks and not concern themselves with security, but with teaching their students.
#15229783
Making the entrance more difficult for people to enter would probably not have made much difference in this particular case. The shooter would simply have shot the person at the door, as was the case this time.

For those who want more cops in schools, note that the cops that did show up refused to enter. This is perfectly legal for cops to refuse to protect people.
#15229784
wat0n wrote:It's odd you mention terrorism, given Canada is a member of Five Eyes.
Irrelevant. Attacks by foreign terrorists is still insignificant.

wat0n wrote:Putting more physical obstacles for strangers to enter schools doesn't sound like a particularly expensive measure in the long run. It definitely isn't hard.
No, it's not hard, but if there isn't a problem, what are you addressing, exactly? You think that because they have a problem where you are that it is a problem somewhere else? That's not the case.

wat0n wrote:You can see this as a form of insurance if you want, which is sometimes compulsory (such as car insurance).
I wouldn't purchase earthquake insurance in Canada, but you seem to think it might be necessary, when the threat doesn't warrant it. :eh:

wat0n wrote:Even the guard isn't a big deal, and you could also argue teachers shouldn't be burdened with asking strangers who enter school premises what do they need.
If the strangers are so rare as to be a non-issue, why would they need a guard? Why would they need to pay a person to sit on their ass doing nothing all day, and whose services are not required?

wat0n wrote:They should be able to rest during their breaks and not concern themselves with security, but with teaching their students.
:roll: They do that. Student security is NOT an issue. You are creating the perception of a problem where none exists. Your fear-mongering is not warranted, and is akin to paranoia. Your logic is flawed.
#15229787
@Godstud you said yourself a teacher would stop a stranger and ask him what does he need if one was seen within school premises. Teachers shouldn't need to think about that, at all.

As for insuring against earthquakes in Canada, that's still possible and after checking this site from the City of Vancouver itself, I'd insure my home against one if I lived there. BC is still within the ring of fire, you know.
#15229788
Pants-of-dog wrote:Making the entrance more difficult for people to enter would probably not have made much difference in this particular case. The shooter would simply have shot the person at the door, as was the case this time.

For those who want more cops in schools, note that the cops that did show up refused to enter. This is perfectly legal for cops to refuse to protect people.


How could have the gunner entered the school quickly if the gate had been closed? He'd have needed to at least ram it, which takes valuable time.

He was inside the school ~2 minutes after shooting the cop guarding the entrance. Had he been delayed for 10-15 minutes, the school would have had enough time to go into lockdown (it did ~13 minutes after the incident began).

Any delays make it more likely backup will be able to show up and stop the attacker before he's able to storm into the building and shoot people. That's what one can expect from closing physical access to the school, delaying an attacker. It doesn't really substitute for the work of law enforcement. In the case of a breach, law enforcement obviously needs to be able to open all access whenever it wants, which can be done remotely, so the attacker has it harder to barricade in (as this guy also did, after killing the victims).

Tainari88 wrote:@wat0n wrote:


The problem with the USA is a very old history of having exclusions and the belief in their own exceptionalism and in their own right to dictate what the rest of the world is doing. You can't do that. The world is too big, and diverse and there are rules to negotiations in an international political arena. Trying to spend tons of money on foreign wars because you got to control the petrodollar, control all the bank flows and capital, you got to own all the raw materials, and invest in a lot of nations' defense so you can tell them what to do in their own house is not productive. It never has been. It is like the neighbor who wants to be the committee chairman of the HOA and doesn't believe in shared and consensus-placed decisions. It doesn't work. Imperialism doesn't work. Dictatorships don't work. Invasions by force because you want to control what belongs to another country doesn't work. Being racist and disrespectful doesn't work. Identifying with people and nations and groups that are powerful and wealthy but you are NOT either wealthy or from a nation with superpower status doesn't work.

Be true to who you are inside and your own internal value system. Don't judge others because you want to feel superior to them. Because if you look very hard? You got the same or worse flaws than the people you are criticizing. In fact hubris is a real serious sin and problem in Ancient Greece for a reason. It prevents the hubris-filled individual or group from taking responsibility for their own bad decisions. The US has some bad decisions they have taken. Over many years. Unless they make serious efforts to right it? It won't be getting better. The same applies to all nations. It still should not prevent governments from treating other governments as equals and avoiding being arrogant and abusive. Something that doesn't work for other governments either.[/highlight]


Hubris is indeed a problem, I agree with that. I can't think of any worse than believing you don't need to take preventive measures because bad things can't possibly happen to you.

As for your other points, I don't think those negate what I said about the existence of class systems. Cuba? The old elite that rules the island is clearly the powerful class, within the Cuban class system. You mentioned many reasons why that elite is unwilling to open the country up but you forgot the most obvious one, namely, that it would lead to its loss of control. It's funny and weird you mention the threat of the US wanting to control the island when in reality it is the gerontocracy who does that, as it pleases. It is also up to it to get along with the US, and "get along" means just that, including compensating US citizens who lost their property during the revolution. It seems like an excuse for justifying the control the current Cuban elite has over the country, and as you said those who are subject to it prefer to muddle through than getting killed in a failed revolution.

At last, if it was solely up to the US elites, I'm pretty sure they'd go for harsh gun control measures. Rich people definitely don't like the idea of everyone having guns.
#15229789
wat0n wrote:@Godstud you said yourself a teacher would stop a stranger and ask him what does he need if one was seen within school premises. Teachers shouldn't need to think about that, at all.
:roll: OMFG ... What exactly do you think they are worried about? You think strangers are a daily appearance? You are fabricating an unreasonable fear and it's just plain STUPID.

You are fantasizing about a threat that doesn't exist, based on the excessive gun violence of the USA.

wat0n wrote:As for insuring against earthquakes in Canada, that's still possible and after checking this site from the City of Vancouver itself, I'd insure my home against one if I lived there. BC is still within the ring of fire, you know.
:roll: Yes, but if you lived in Edmonton, AB, it would be just plain dumb, and a waste of money.

Analogy: San Francisco(USA) is earthquake prone. Edmonton(Thailand) is not. Being afraid of an earthquake in Edmonton(Thailand) would be absurd. In San Francisco(USA) it's inevitable.

Can you understand that? I can't make it any clearer. You are ascribing a dire risk to teachers and students in a country where it isn't a significant risk.

Let me repeat: The chance of a student dying in an American school is TWO THOUSAND times higher, than in Thailand, or Canada. The risk is far far less. The need for action and prevent is also far far less.
#15229791
Godstud wrote::roll: OMFG ... What exactly do you think they are worried about? You think strangers are a daily appearance? You are fabricating an unreasonable fear and it's just plain STUPID.

You are fantasizing about a threat that doesn't exist, based on the excessive gun violence of the USA.


It doesn't matter. Teachers shouldn't need to worry about the possibility, period.

Godstud wrote: :roll: Yes, but if you lived in Edmonton, AB, it would be just plain dumb, and a waste of money.

Analogy: San Francisco(USA) is earthquake prone. Edmonton(Thailand) is not. Being afraid of an earthquake in Edmonton(Thailand) would be absurd. In San Francisco(USA) it's inevitable.

Can you understand that? I can't make it any clearer. You are ascribing a dire risk to teachers and students in a country where it isn't a significant risk.

Let me repeat: The chance of a student dying in an American school is TWO THOUSAND times higher, than in Thailand, or Canada. The risk is far far less. The need for action and prevent is also far far less.


So now we go from "Canada" to "Edmonton". Jeez.

Closing schools to strangers isn't particularly expensive. And it's not just the US which does that, from what I can tell the UK does too.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 31
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'm sure that both Crimea and the Donbas are cons[…]

The actions of the police in this particular mass[…]

There numerous factors with respect to why black p[…]

This is beyond Trump at this point though. The sh[…]