Contributors

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Yet Another Troubled Young Man

Alex Hribal went on a stabbing rampage yesterday at his high school in Murrsyville, Pennsylvania and sadly illustrated, once again, that we are failing the mental health of our nation's young men once again. I'm fairly certain that was more information comes to light we will discover that he had mental and emotional disabilities, was taking an SSRI, had divorced parents or a troubled home life, played violent video games, and had access to weapons.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if this school had a zero tolerance policy or not? I thought knives were just fine to carry around school, according to the Gun Cult. Well, at least this incident finally torpedoes the "good guy with a gun" lie as well as the "gun free zone" lie. 

Assistant Principal Sam King finally tackled the boy and disarmed him, and a Murrysville police officer who is regularly assigned to the school handcuffed him, police said. In addition to the 22 stabbed or slashed, two people suffered other injuries, authorities said. The security guard, who was wounded after intervening early in the melee, was not seriously hurt.

So, there was a good guy with a gun, it was not a gun free zone, and someone with a "lesser" weapon did all that damage. Perhaps this problem of school violence is a lot more complicated than an 8 year old boy solution...

34 comments:

GuardDuck said...

What's finally torpedoed is that you have ever listened to a word said to you, an argument presented to you, or a link offered to you.....


Your use, in this post, of both 'good guy with a gun' and 'gun free zone' are wrong.

Wrong. As in you are not using those terms correctly. Most likely because you are defining them incorrectly. Again most likely because you don't understand what they mean. And this is most likely because you DON'T LISTEN.

Mark Ward said...

It's hard to listen when you refuse to explain yourself and only criticize me.

GuardDuck said...

It has been discussed with you numerous times.

I am willing to discuss it again - but not if you are going to continue to refuse to listen.

Mark Ward said...

Considering the fact that I keep comments open, I'm always listening. As always, I don't think you want to open yourself up to criticism which, btw, is a whole lot different than listening:)

GuardDuck said...

Considering I said that THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU BEFORE, and you do not listen - just the mere fact that comments are open does not guarantee you will.

Mark Ward said...

Any day now, GD....

GuardDuck said...

Any day for what Mark?

Are you willing to listen?

Allusion to 'open comments' is not an affirmative to that.

Larry said...

Perhaps Markadelphia is privy to information not otherwise in evidence, but I've yet to see any news account state whether or not the security guard was armed. In case it's news to Marksie, "guards" aren't automatically "armed guards".

And for Markadelphia's edification, yes, it was a gun-free zone, and a knife-free zone, too:
18 Pa.C.S. § 912: Possession of weapon on school property
(a) Definition.--Notwithstanding the definition of "weapon" in section 907 (relating to possessing instruments of crime), "weapon" for purposes of this section shall include but not be limited to any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nunchuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
(b) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of, or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school.
(c) Defense.--It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.


I'd like to know who said possessing a gun is like a magic shield that will prevent all harm? Where did any of us say that, Marksie? Although it is true that in most cases like this, as soon as confronted with drawn guns, these freaks either suicide, suicide-by-cop, or surrender. Ft. Hood was over as soon as Lopez was confronted with a drawn gun. Took too long for that happen, though it's hard to see just how, since Marksie claims the place has "plenty of guns".

Unlike shootings, a series of stabbings in a crowded place isn't going to be immediately obvious to anyone more than a few feet away as anything except a disturbance of some sort, maybe a fistfight, and the unexpectedness of it will delay recognition of what's actually happening. The attacker will almost always have the element of surprise, and will probably hurt or kill some people before someone can take him down. That's just the way it is. The hope is that someone can mount an effective response before 22 people are hurt (or killed). There's no guarantee of that happening. It all depends on circumstances. In this case, he was apparently moving along fairly quickly, so he may have been moving as fast or faster than the wave of recognition of what was happening for a while.

Mark Ward said...

As I wrote above, I'm always listening, GD. Now, have you stalled enough to figure out what to say?

Juris Imprudent said...

Considering the fact that I keep comments open, I'm always listening.

You don't listen. You only create opportunities for you to repeat yourself without ever even attempting to understand what has been said to you.

To the extent that you engage - it is only with the voices in your head.

GuardDuck said...

What juris said.

If you were always listening we wouldn't have to tell you so often that something has been discussed before......


As I said, I will gladly rehash this, IF you will listen.

You haven't even listened to that above statement, why would I believe you would listen to something more complex?

Mark Ward said...

As I said, I will gladly rehash this, IF you will listen.

Already said I would, GD. You've now wasted several comments talking about me but not actually making a point. Shocking...

If you do decide to actually write something that is not about me, make sure you do your research on where the "good guy with a gun" and "gun free zone" originated (see: primary sources). If your views differ, explain how.

GuardDuck said...

No you didn't. You have been flippant. I won't discuss something THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED WITH YOU, while you are being fucking flippant about it. Either you are serious about it, or you are wasting my time.

Mark Ward said...

I am serious about it. How is my "use in this post, of both 'good guy with a gun' and 'gun free zone'" wrong?

Larry said...

Because you're (as usual) misrepresenting and distorting what others have said. Once again, WHO has claimed that a good guy with a gun does anything more than give a much better chance of a good outcome than no good guy with a gun? WHO, other than the voices in head, has claimed it's a guarantee? There's a fucking good reason why cops carry guns, m'kay? Even though sometimes it turns out that cops can be spree killers, too. But those are extreme outliers, just like all the others. Where's some citation that the security guard was armed in the first place? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass, too, just like Adam Lanza surely being on anti-depressants?

And, yes, moron, liar, and all-around ass-hat, it was not only a gun-free zone, but a knife-free zone, too. The funny thing is, criminals have a way of ignoring laws, and those that either don't care about dying, or want to die, are incredibly difficult to stop.

He could've just as well have started this in the middle of one of those god-awful jam-packed TSA Security Theatre checkpoints (I'm looking at you, SFO) and hurt even more people, given the endless winding lines.

Funny thing, too. Hribal did have access to weapons: kitchen knives (gasp!) My God, how could his parents have had steel knives (as if there's been any other kind for many centuries) in the house?

Juris Imprudent said...

I am serious about it.

Do you really believe that?

Mark Ward said...

Once again, WHO has claimed that a good guy with a gun does anything more than give a much better chance of a good outcome than no good guy with a gun? WHO, other than the voices in head, has claimed it's a guarantee?

The NRA, gun bloggers...how many links do you want? I believe the exact quote was, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/21/167785169/live-blog-nra-news-conference

The ONLY thing? Really? Because Alex Hribal had a knife and was "outmatched" by a good guy with a gun and he still inflicted damage. Would you care to, perhaps, think a little more about the complexities? Or just continue being a jack wagon?



Juris Imprudent said...

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Which if I recall the context correctly, the good guy was a cop... with a gun.

GuardDuck said...

Because Alex Hribal had a knife and was "outmatched" by a good guy with a gun and he still inflicted damage.

Really? So Alex Hribal is still, right now, in that school stabbing people even as we speak? Or was he, stopped?


The quote is not 'the only thing that prevents a bad guy with a gun'.

Stop straw manning.

Mark Ward said...

The quote is not 'the only thing that prevents a bad guy with a gun'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjrdDAcaQq0

1 minute 12 seconds.

Care to retract that statement?

Larry said...

Moron. You don't listen any better than you read. The quote starting at 1:12 is, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." As usual, you're hoist by your own petard, retard. And forgetting what you said just a few posts later.

It's possible to stop a bad person with a gun without using a gun, but it's a hell of a lot less likely. And in some circumstances such as a crowded school hallway, there's a serious risk of injuring innocents (for which cops are rarely held fully accountable, but every person who carries concealed knows they'd have the book thrown at them, not just in criminal court, but also in civil courts).

Or are you arguing that in this case (IF the guard was armed), then it's evidence that they shouldn't be armed because in this one case, he couldn't intervene fast enough (because there's not a guard every 20')?

I guarantee you, Markadaffy, that if someone has murder and/or suicide on their minds, they're not going to be deterred by a piddling-assed sign.

Mark Ward said...

Now you're reduced to wordsmithing...pretty pathetic, Larry. I suppose this is the part where you want to drag me into a discussion about the difference between "stops" and "prevents" and the original point (the good guy with a gun lie) is conveniently lost.

So, it's not the "only" thing. LaPierre and the rest of the Gun Cult are wrong. In LaPierre's case, he's simply lying because he's a shill for the gun industry and you are buying every word of it because you are afraid of your own shadow.

they're not going to be deterred by a piddling-assed sign.

And apparently, if they have a knife, they aren't going to be deterred by a gun either.

GuardDuck said...

Oh for fucks sake - there's a big difference in meaning between 'prevent' which means 'keep from happening' and 'stop' which means 'cease happening'. Word smithing? Fuck off and go read a dictionary.


And Wayne LaPierre works for me, I don't follow his lead. If you think what he said in 2012 is the FIRST time that sentiment had ever been uttered you are greatly mistaken. That logic has been uttered for years. I first heard it in the early 90's.

Among us of the 'gun cult' the phrasing is a little different - it's more like 'the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.

But seeing as how in most spree shootings, the PROFILE of the shooters actions are that they keep shooting until the encounter counterforce, then when it comes to spree shooters it may very well be the most accurate to say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.




GuardDuck said...

You want to know the point of 'good guy with a gun' in your own words?

If there was a shooter in your school - who would you call - the librarian or the police (you know, good guys with guns).

You'd call the police - and thus you as well know that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Mark Ward said...

Among us of the 'gun cult' the phrasing is a little different - it's more like 'the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.

But seeing as how in most spree shootings, the PROFILE of the shooters actions are that they keep shooting until the encounter counterforce, then when it comes to spree shooters it may very well be the most accurate to say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.


Since Newtown, there has been a very bright light that has shined on the Gun Cult and, in the age of digital and social media, we have the benefit of access to a great deal of information very quickly. Anyone can examine how gun violence happens and the details of the statistics. This means that these complete disconnects (good guy with a gun lie, gun free zone lie) from reality can be torpedoed by the harsh facts of reality.

Alex Hribal brought a knife into a school with an armed guard (not a gun free zone). Antoinette Tuff had no weapon whatsoever and talked down a bad guy with a gun (the good guy with a gun lie). As these incidents continue to be examined and future ones occur, if I were you, I'd start thinking about revising your highly ignorant statements.

Mark Ward said...

You'd call the police - and thus you as well know that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

But I wouldn't have to call the police. They already have an office in our school with 3-5 armed officers there at any given time. I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is armed civilians (see: Gun Cultists like you) being allowed to have guns in schools. The last thing we need is paranoid, anti-government adolescents running around schools.

If there was a shooting at a school where police were in the building, why wouldn't they be deterred as you insist they would be?

GuardDuck said...

You are deflecting again.

Great, so they are in the building - WOULD YOU CALL THEM?

YES YOU WOULD. YOU WOULDN'T CALL THE FUCKING LIBRARIAN.


THEREFORE THE BEST WAY TO STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN IS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN.

What I have a problem with is armed civilians........


Blah blah blah blah blah.....

Which has nothing to do with whether or not your characterization of 'good guy with a gun' is a lie or not.

Would you or would you not call a good guy with a gun to stop a shooting?

No deflecting. They have an office in your school, are you going to call them? Are you going to 'hope' they hear the shooting or that someone else will call them?

Hell, it doesn't even matter if you answer that. By default YOU are relying on a good guy with a gun to stop that shooting. So your own reliance on such is ACCEPTING the premise.


If there was a shooting at a school where police were in the building, why wouldn't they be deterred as you insist they would be?

Where did I insist anyone would be deterred? Can you not get through your thick head that 'stop' does not equal 'prevent'?



an armed guard (not a gun free zone).

Bullshit. By that definition there are absolutely zero gun free zones in the world.


had no weapon whatsoever and talked down a bad guy with a gun (the good guy with a gun lie).

Bullshit.

"The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun."

Wayne LaPierre - 2011


That statement does not imply that no method would be successful. Just not as likely.





GuardDuck said...

What I have a problem with is armed civilians (see: Gun Cultists like you) being allowed to have guns in schools. The last thing we need is paranoid, anti-government adolescents running around schools.

You do realize that I am a better shot than the average police officer, I have a lower arrest rate than the average police officer, I have a lower accidental shooting rate than the average police officer and I have a lower 'shoot the wrong person' rate than the average police officer?

With that in mind I have to ask why you wouldn't want me in school instead of the police you have?

GuardDuck said...

if I were you, I'd start thinking about revising your highly ignorant statements.

Considering you keep mischaracterizing the arguments being used, I'd start thinking about revising your ignorance.

Mark Ward said...

WOULD YOU CALL THEM?

Obviously, you haven't been in a school since the 1980s. I wouldn't have to call them because they would know in about one second exactly where they needed to be. Cameras everywhere, numb nuts, remember? That's how they bust kids with drugs. You need to set aside your constant need to "beat me" and think.

By that definition there are absolutely zero gun free zones in the world.

And now he's finally getting it...(clap clap clap). See why it's a lie now? Maybe ready to think outside of the box?

You do realize that I am a better shot than the average police officer,

Ah, the "police are monkeys of the state" BS coupled with insecurity. I suppose if you are a trained security guard and go through regular mental evaluations, I'd have no problem with you being a security guard at a school. But being allowed to have one as a citizen just in case your little Jack Bauer fantasy might come true? Nope. It's more likely that you will accidentally shoot someone or yourself.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19/16603029-5-accidentally-shot-at-gun-shows-in-north-carolina-ohio-indiana

Yeah, you guys are really responsible!



GuardDuck said...

Did you miss the part where I said: "I have a lower accidental shooting rate than the average police officer"

Yeah dipshit - that's across the fucking board.

GuardDuck said...

I wouldn't have to call them because they would know in about one second exactly

You are a moron. AND YOU ARE FUCKING DEFLECTING AGAIN.

Are you really so stupid that you can't see YOU are relying on a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with a gun.

That right there torpedoes your 'lie' meme. You need to set aside you constant idiocy and start thinking.

And now he's finally getting it...(clap clap clap). See why it's a lie now? Maybe ready to think outside of the box?

So, I can carry my gun in a school to protect myself from attack?

Maybe instead you are just making up definitions as you go along.

GuardDuck said...

So by your definition, if a cop can have a gun in a place, it's not really a gun free zone.

Does that mean that if the army has guns then the peoples right to keep and bear arms is being fulfilled?


I'm sitting here shaking my head at how stupid you sound.


Hey, since cops can speed, then we really don't have speed limits.....


Since doctors can write prescriptions for narcotics then drugs aren't really outlawed.



Since a cop can carry a gun into a school it's not really a gun free zone......

For fucks sake.

Juris Imprudent said...

in the age of digital and social media, we have the benefit of access to a great deal of information very quickly.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Much of it wrong because it isn't corroborated because everyone wants to be FIRST to report it.

Your Michael Jordan generation just bit you on your own ass.