Gun Control Anyone?

[jneal3]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm sick of hearing about events that were as bad or worse in the past; they were not clearly identifiable trends with a limited number of parameters driving them. The problem we face today is clearly a trend. It is driven by almost exclusively three factors: easy access to weapons that kill scores in minutes, alienated young men, and an intensely violent video-game culture that provides them a blueprint for action.

If we shrink from addressing this trend, we are shamefully weak. Trying to draw equivalency to random nuts with bombs is a red herring. The solution will have to involve some way of taking the 300M+ number of guns in circulation (not just banning new sales) down to some number that makes getting one take way more than internet savvy (again with the adolescent boys). It will take stricter enforcement of current law. And above all, it will take an understanding by the obsessively pro-gun minority in this country that it is the people, NOT the government, who demand that individual ownership of mass-killing weapons be ended.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm sick of hearing about events that were as bad or worse in the past; they were not clearly identifiable trends with a limited number of parameters driving them. The problem we face today is clearly a trend. It is driven by almost exclusively three factors: easy access to weapons that kill scores in minutes, alienated young men, and an intensely violent video-game culture that provides them a blueprint for action.

If we shrink from addressing this trend, we are shamefully weak. Trying to draw equivalency to random nuts with bombs is a red herring. The solution will have to involve some way of taking the 300M+ number of guns in circulation (not just banning new sales) down to some number that makes getting one take way more than internet savvy (again with the adolescent boys). It will take stricter enforcement of current law. And above all, it will take an understanding by the obsessively pro-gun minority in this country that it is the people, NOT the government, who demand that individual ownership of mass-killing weapons be ended.

The pro gun faction is in the majority according to many polls including Gallop
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm sick of hearing about events that were as bad or worse in the past; ......

What makes you sick is not really my problem except for the unfortunate fact that in a democracy sick voters make sick laws that the rest of us have to deal with. And, I really don't care if it's a majority of you making the sick laws. If it's not a real solution it's part of the problem. That is a huge key to the puzzle many folks don't get. Good intentions do not automatically make good legislation.


If you can't address the 10 minutes of unfettered access this maniac had to the school your other crap won't make much difference. If you can't address the fact that it took 10 minutes for someone with the capability of dealing with this guy to arrive you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's not like Connecticut has "lax" gun laws. http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm
Talk about red herrings.

I'm not so sure about the video games either. Mainly because I know a lot of vets from Desert Storm and Vietnam. It seems to me that training to kill is not the key, but rather it's the training of when it's acceptable to kill. Maybe this is the part of the video games I'm missing.

Perhaps there is some real limit of how "good" people can be. History is certainly not something we should easily forget, because mass murder didn't start with the invention of the detachable box magazine and certainly won't end if we eliminate all "assault weapons".

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?



http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/

A friend mentioed Israel's approach:

"In the early 70's, Israel was faced with much greater problems of armed terrorist attacks on schools. The cry for more gun control was heard then too, but Israel very carefully analyzed all possible options before adopting the proactive position of arming and training selected teachers. School shootings stopped and terrorists looked for easier targets. Gun control never has and never will stop criminals and madmen from carrying out acts of gun violence."

China has seen school children killed by knives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...0%E2%80%932011)

Who knows what the right approach is? Better mental illness training? We need a way to deter individuals from doing this; if trained individuals with guns can stop it anywhere, we may be safer.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

What makes you sick is not really my problem except for the unfortunate fact that in a democracy sick voters make sick laws that the rest of us have to deal with. And, I really don't care if it's a majority of you making the sick laws. If it's not a real solution it's part of the problem. That is a huge key to the puzzle many folks don't get. Good intentions do not automatically make good legislation.


If you can't address the 10 minutes of unfettered access this maniac had to the school your other crap won't make much difference. If you can't address the fact that it took 10 minutes for someone with the capability of dealing with this guy to arrive you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's not like Connecticut has "lax" gun laws. http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm
Talk about red herrings.

I'm not so sure about the video games either. Mainly because I know a lot of vets from Desert Storm and Vietnam. It seems to me that training to kill is not the key, but rather it's the training of when it's acceptable to kill. Maybe this is the part of the video games I'm missing.

Perhaps there is some real limit of how "good" people can be. History is certainly not something we should easily forget, because mass murder didn't start with the invention of the detachable box magazine and certainly won't end if we eliminate all "assault weapons".

Mass murders have happened all throughout history, but thanks to better reporting and an electronic media we're all aware of it now.

If I had children today, I'd want to live in a neighborhood with some good families, convert one of our garages into a classroom, pool our money to hire a professional teacher, and homeschool.

[cbr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

1) mass killings are not limited to gun issues, they happen with axes, knives, swords, etc., as well; it is a psychological and medication issue.

(see http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school for a link to all the medications involved in so many of these mass attacks)

2) sure, mass killings are easier to facilitate if you have a gun, but ONLY IF NO ONE ELSE AROUND DOES TOO. Notice how mass killings almost always happen in places where firearms licensed citizens are nonetheless not allowed to bring their firearms legally. Notice also that where criminals do attempt mass killings where citizens have legal weapons, they are not 'mass killings' anymore: they are 'attempted mass killings' stopped by citizens. mass killings stopped by law enforcement average about 19 deaths. mass killings where one of the intended victims had a firearm average just over 2 deaths, one of which is the criminal.

3) the gun control debate is moot, as there are already more guns on earth than people, and anyone with an decent set of shop tools can MAKE a gun anyway. making guns more illegal means only criminals have guns.

4) the prevailing 'security theater' is terribly misguided... locking kids into schools, telling them to huddle in closets or corners, etc., is just the stupidest thing in the world. those kids should have scattered like chickens, and multiple school officials should have had weapons and known how to use them. if that were true, we'd be talking about a dead psycho and a school staff that saved dozens of lives, instead of dozens of dead victims.



It was illegal for this guy to enter the school. it was illegal for this guy to carry a weapon. it apparently wasn't even his weapon. it was illegal for this guy to shoot that weapon. it was illegal for this guy to kill people. hell, it was even illegal for him to kill himself (typically ironic in this stalinist orwellian world). none of those laws helped at all, and none ever will.

the school locked all the doors as a matter of general practice, and the kids were told to huddle up. they couldn't easily get out! they had a whole security protocol - which was all wrong. the county also had dozens of fat, stupid law enforcement and national guard types that got to dress up in their expensive army gear and carry their own weapons around looking like idiots long after the fact. none of that helped.

one good county sheriff with common sense, along with some reasonable citizens with their own firearms was the only hope these kids ever had. and that chance was denied them.

5) despite all this, even if a few more people die every year because of weapons, the fundamental foundations of society require an armed citizenry. without that, you are nothing but an orwellian mob of subhuman labor. anyone who believes differently has the liberty of that decadent viewpoint only because the foundations of limited government made possible by the independent, educated, armed citizenry of the united states and other countries has not completely eroded. yet.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm very pro 2nd amendment, but I'm not unreasonable on the assault weapon issue. I don't own an assault weapon and don't intend to own one.

It's worth noting that the Portland mall shooter was confronted by a guy carrying a firearm. Potentially helped save a bunch of lives... http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html

I want my right to be able to protect my family and home with a firearm. I don't necessarily need an assault rifle to do that.

Can you define what an "assault rifle" is, according to the expired "Assault Rifle" ban?

The reason I ask is, most people who are against "assault rifles", don't have a clue what they actually are.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Can you define what an "assault rifle" is, according to the expired "Assault Rifle" ban?

The reason I ask is, most people who are against "assault rifles", don't have a clue what they actually are.

My late husband called assault weapon bans "scary-looking gun" bans. IIRC, his M1-Garand that held only 8 rounds was an "assault weapon" if it had a bayonet lug on it, even though it didn't have a bayonet.

Semi-automatic weapons are frequently called automatics by ignorant reporters. The only fully-automatic weapons to be found outside of law enforcement are in Hollywood, which perpetrates the myth that criminals all have fully-automatic weapons.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm sick of hearing about events that were as bad or worse in the past; they were not clearly identifiable trends with a limited number of parameters driving them. The problem we face today is clearly a trend. It is driven by almost exclusively three factors: easy access to weapons that kill scores in minutes, alienated young men, and an intensely violent video-game culture that provides them a blueprint for action.

If we shrink from addressing this trend, we are shamefully weak. Trying to draw equivalency to random nuts with bombs is a red herring. The solution will have to involve some way of taking the 300M+ number of guns in circulation (not just banning new sales) down to some number that makes getting one take way more than internet savvy (again with the adolescent boys). It will take stricter enforcement of current law. And above all, it will take an understanding by the obsessively pro-gun minority in this country that it is the people, NOT the government, who demand that individual ownership of mass-killing weapons be ended.

Bullshit. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is cowardly and intellectually feeble-minded. Last week, a madman armed with a knife killed 20+ schoolkids in China. Please try to think like a grown-up.

We should be ashamed as MEN that our idea of protecting the defenseless is declaring a school a "gun-free zone", disarming the law-abiding who could actually protect the defenseless and empowering the murderers by turning our schools into deathtraps. Evil exists in the world and always will. The question is, how do we defend the defenseless in practical ways that can actuallly be implemented?

Real men learn how to use firearms RESPONSIBLY, train hard and frequently, and use them to protect the weak in the rare event it is necessary. Cowards hide behind unenforceable laws and deluded notions that Evil can be legislated away. What a nation of cowards we have become.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

My late husband called assault weapon bans "scary-looking gun" bans. IIRC, his M1-Garand that held only 8 rounds was an "assault weapon" if it had a bayonet lug on it, even though it didn't have a bayonet.

Semi-automatic weapons are frequently called automatics by ignorant reporters. The only fully-automatic weapons to be found outside of law enforcement are in Hollywood, which perpetrates the myth that criminals all have fully-automatic weapons.

No, even though an M1 has a bayonet lug, that is only considered an "evil feature" if the rifle has a pistol grip. Consequently, the M1, one of the most powerful battle rifles ever mass-produced, is not actually classified as an "Assault Rifle".

Where you are correct is that the "Assault Rifle" ban focused entirely on cosmetic features of the guns. Well, aside from bayonet lugs of course, that is a more practical feature, and of course it addresses the shocking number of drive-by bayonetings that have occurred in recent years. LOL.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Real men learn how to use firearms RESPONSIBLY, train hard and frequently, and use them to protect the weak in the rare event it is necessary.Cowards hide behind unenforceable laws and deluded notions that Evil can be legislated away. What a nation of cowards we have become.

So do real women.

A NATION OF COWARDS by Jeffrey R. Snyder (C) 1993

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

The Gift of Life

Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:

"He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself. "

"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.

Do You Feel Lucky?

In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."

Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.

Power And Responsibility

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.

The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives. More...

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Mass murders have happened all throughout history, but thanks to better reporting and an electronic media we're all aware of it now.

If I had children today, I'd want to live in a neighborhood with some good families, convert one of our garages into a classroom, pool our money to hire a professional teacher, and homeschool.

I understand your sentiment, yet my kids are in public school and I really don't think they'd be much safer if I home schooled.

We have a couple of teenage drivers on my cul-de-sac, not to slam the teenagers, but my kids are in more danger riding their bikes in front of the house than they are at school (once they're away from the cell phone moms in the drop off lane).

One of the biggest problems we have is the lack of perspective. We view 30,000 annual deaths as an unfortunate byproduct of motor vehicle access when a bit more cooperation of our good citizens could easily cut this number by more than half with no changes to current laws. Slow down, look twice, skip the cell phone, no booze/drugs before driving and leave the mascara for the powder room..... a lot of fairly small changes could yield huge results.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

1) mass killings are not limited to gun issues, they happen with axes, knives, swords, etc., as well; it is a psychological and medication issue.

(see http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school for a link to all the medications involved in so many of these mass attacks)

2) sure, mass killings are easier to facilitate if you have a gun, but ONLY IF NO ONE ELSE AROUND DOES TOO. Notice how mass killings almost always happen in places where firearms licensed citizens are nonetheless not allowed to bring their firearms legally. Notice also that where criminals do attempt mass killings where citizens have legal weapons, they are not 'mass killings' anymore: they are 'attempted mass killings' stopped by citizens. mass killings stopped by law enforcement average about 19 deaths. mass killings where one of the intended victims had a firearm average just over 2 deaths, one of which is the criminal.

3) the gun control debate is moot, as there are already more guns on earth than people, and anyone with an decent set of shop tools can MAKE a gun anyway. making guns more illegal means only criminals have guns.

4) the prevailing 'security theater' is terribly misguided... locking kids into schools, telling them to huddle in closets or corners, etc., is just the stupidest thing in the world. those kids should have scattered like chickens, and multiple school officials should have had weapons and known how to use them. if that were true, we'd be talking about a dead psycho and a school staff that saved dozens of lives, instead of dozens of dead victims.



It was illegal for this guy to enter the school. it was illegal for this guy to carry a weapon. it apparently wasn't even his weapon. it was illegal for this guy to shoot that weapon. it was illegal for this guy to kill people. hell, it was even illegal for him to kill himself (typically ironic in this stalinist orwellian world). none of those laws helped at all, and none ever will.

the school locked all the doors as a matter of general practice, and the kids were told to huddle up. they couldn't easily get out! they had a whole security protocol - which was all wrong. the county also had dozens of fat, stupid law enforcement and national guard types that got to dress up in their expensive army gear and carry their own weapons around looking like idiots long after the fact. none of that helped.

one good county sheriff with common sense, along with some reasonable citizens with their own firearms was the only hope these kids ever had. and that chance was denied them.

5) despite all this, even if a few more people die every year because of weapons, the fundamental foundations of society require an armed citizenry. without that, you are nothing but an orwellian mob of subhuman labor. anyone who believes differently has the liberty of that decadent viewpoint only because the foundations of limited government made possible by the independent, educated, armed citizenry of the united states and other countries has not completely eroded. yet.

+1

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I understand your sentiment, yet my kids are in public school and I really don't think they'd be much safer if I home schooled.

We have a couple of teenage drivers on my cul-de-sac, not to slam the teenagers, but my kids are in more danger riding their bikes in front of the house than they are at school (once they're away from the cell phone moms in the drop off lane).

One of the biggest problems we have is the lack of perspective. We view 30,000 annual deaths as an unfortunate byproduct of motor vehicle access when a bit more cooperation of our good citizens could easily cut this number by more than half with no changes to current laws. Slow down, look twice, skip the cell phone, no booze/drugs before driving and leave the mascara for the powder room..... a lot of fairly small changes could yield huge results.

If every driver thought that way my husband would still be alive, along with a lot of other people. Add "watch out for motorcycles and pedestrians" to your list.

Relating this persective to guns, if everyone knew and followed the four rules of gun safety the world would be a safer place:

1. Treat every gun as a loaded gun, every time you pick it up. (even if you only put it down a moment before and you "know" it's unloaded.)

2. Never point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy.

3. Never put your finger on the trigger until you're pointed at your target and ready to shoot.

4. Always be aware of your target background. (if you miss, who's behind the target that could get hurt?)

Every shooting tragedy, every gun "accident" involves the breaking of at least one of these rules. To parents I'd like to say:

Learn these rules and teach them to your children- even if you don't have guns and don't like guns, because sooner or later your child will come across a gun and you won't be around. And if you ever come across a gun, you need to know how to handle it safely.

When you watch TV or movies with your family, if guns are involved have a contest to see who can count the most violations of the 4 rules.

Teach kids that guns are not toys. Don't let kids play with toys that look like guns.

When my stepson was little he wanted a squirt gun. His father bought him one that didn't look anything like a real gun. He wasn't allowed to yell "Bang! Bang!" He yelled "Squirt! Squirt!" instead.

When he was seven, his father took him to the shooting range to show him the difference between a toy and a real gun. Without putting ear protection on the boy, he blew a watermelon to smithereens with his .45. Then he explained once again that "guns are not toys". The message sunk in.

For very small children, teach them that if they ever see a gun to:

1. STOP!

2. Don't touch!

3. Leave the area and tell an adult.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

4) the prevailing 'security theater' is terribly misguided... locking kids into schools, telling them to huddle in closets or corners, etc., is just the stupidest thing in the world. those kids should have scattered like chickens, and multiple school officials should have had weapons and known how to use them. if that were true, we'd be talking about a dead psycho and a school staff that saved dozens of lives, instead of dozens of dead victims.

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=124477

"Fort Collins police officers investigated the situation and say no students were inside the school at the time of the threat. Furthermore, students were held in the school's gymnasium while the entire building was swept by police and school administrators."


When I was in school bomb threats resulted in immediate evacuation, no delay, everyone out of the building. We'd walk across the street and assemble in the middle school auditorium. My guess is that 90% of those threats were from students who had a test that day, but we always evacuated even though there was never a real threat.