http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298503,00.html
link to the Fox story on the event.
Up to 10 students are being held in the bandroom at Las Plumas High School in Oroville, Calif. by a student with a gun, according to preliminary and unconfirmed reports from the police scanner. No injuries have been reported.
A dispatcher at the Butte County Sheriff's Department says a 911 call came into authorities just after 9 a.m.
He said deputies are talking to the student and trying to negotiate with him to put down the gun.
A message posted on the Oroville Union High School District's Web site says all six schools in the district are on lockdown.
"There is an incident at the Las Plumas High School campus," the message said. "The Butte County Sheriff's Office has the campus under control."
Up to 10 hostages being held by a student with a gun. Police are trying to talk through the situation, so far apparently no one has been hurt.
Aren't schools Weapons-Free Environments? why would this student have taken a weapon there, if he knew it was against the rules?
Good thing we don't have armed teachers or staff that could have stopped this before it happened, there might have been an emergency.
Prayers for the hostages and the school and all related families. I hope this kid is severly punished, if they survive.
Edit: It looks like the original number of hostages was 30, widdled down to 3, all were released and the criminal arrested. I'm very grateful for the police for handling this and getting everyone out safetly. I'm not very concerned for the safety of the criminal, however, as I value the lives of the victims over that of a criminal.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Why would anyone take guns to school? Ask those who are in jail for doing such thing. Revenge? Or perhaps need for fame? I seriously think the criminal wants to commit suicide and take someone else's life with them. It has always been like that. I'm not even sure what these people are trying to accomplish by taking such dangerous action. Then again, how severely punished will this kid deserve if he gets caught? Maybe there will be people backing him up if he's "not old enough" to be trial as an adult like kids from Jena 6. But I highly doubt that.
the question was somewhat rhetorical, for the reasons you point out.
The anti-gun forces teach that if you make a site 'weapons free' that the gun crime will stop.
In fact, just as this new case is showing, the only person in that school who is armed is the student who is holding people hostage.
I don't believe that all teachers or staff should be armed, but one should be able to if they so choose... because while such laws do a great job of keeping the responsible gun owner from bringing a gun to those sites, as we can see it does nothing to keep the criminal from bringing a gun to those sites.
And it is the criminal, not the responsible gun owner, that you need to keep guns away from.
As this is a student, it is clearly not his gun. If it is not something he bought off the streets, it is likely one stolen from a family member. (remember that in nearly every state, you have to be 18 to own a gun, if not 21.)
Yeap...good thing teachers aren't allowed to carry weapons....
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/schools/
Ahh yes, the balanced view from the Brady Campaign, formerly called Handgun Control, Inc, and called The National Council to Control Handguns prior to that.
They found that if they hid behind a dead person's name, they could further hide their agenda and further discredit gun control opponents.
Let's look at that very example... Virginia Tech. Prior to that year, Virginia Tech was a college where you COULD carry your concealed firearm. State law allows it unless the college had a policy against it. The year of the VT shooting was the first year they did not allow guns.
Good to see that everyone followed the rules.
Guns weren't allowed at high schools either, something that really helped to save the lives of the kids at columbine high school.
A simple tactic of the left is to suggest that if people have guns, it will become a wild-west style shootout at the drop of a hat. any hat.
Except.... where has that happened? All the gun shows, gun shops, NRA events, millions across the country that own firearms and carry concealed.... where are all of the rampant shootouts?
One again, I'll remind you, leftfield, of your promise to me that you can't seem to keep:
http://www.progressiveu.org/085804-whos-deceiving-who#comment-189368
Furthermore... all of the mass murders in recent history have been on weapons free sites.
VT, Columbine, post offices, government buildings, dozens and dozens of high school shootings across the country.... shopping malls in KS, all weapons free places.
Where is the gun show or gun shop or NRA rally that ended in a bloodbath?
Um, this is an entirely different conversation about entirely different topics. And you haven't yet tried to insult me just yet then accuse me of insulting you, so I'll continue this conversation with you for now.
But anywho, I also looked up gun statistics for those concealed carry people as you asked in your first post about concealed weapons. I found that the people who complete concealed weapon training are more than two times more likely to keep a loaded, unlocked gun in the house.
Also, accidental deaths and suicide are something that occurs in gun-crazy rural areas whereas deaths from shootings occur in urban areas.
Explain to the families of those hostages how their kids are actually REALLY safe right now beause guns aren't allowed in schools.
No, really. make the case as to how those students are safer right now.
No scare tactics like "There'd be constant shootings! Those gun people are crazy and love to shoot people for fun!" . . . explain how those 10 hostages are safer right now, with a criminal holding the only gun.
Um...actually, I know from personal experience that those "gun-crazy rural areas" don't have very many accidental deaths involving guns because guns are a part of the way of life in those areas. I won't go into detail here, but you're more than welcome to check out my post about it.
Also, the shooting at the Amish school happened in a more rural area, not in the city.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Very true.
The amish don't believe in firearms for self-defense... if at all.
But that didn't stop the guy from going there and shooting them, execution style.
You had 101 words in this post that, as I see, where actually typed by you. This allows your post to stand, but you need to try and remember the following so that the A-Team doesn't have to unpublish your posts:
1) You need 100 words of original content (Meaning, you thought it up and typed it)
2) You may only have 4 paragrahs of unoriginal content. This means you need to cite your sourses and only use bits and pieces of a story when you're blogging on it.
For more info, please refer to the ToS at http://www.progressiveu.org/privacy . Thank you in advance.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
where did that last post about content come from?
Probably some one else. I haven't posted anything worth reading as of late as I've been keeping people from killing me over the Bonus Op.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Considering some of the non-Progressive content I've seen lately, it's refreshing to see something like this, even if it is quoted from an article. Besides, he'd be talking in circles and repeating himself.
Also, where is the 4 paragraph rule stated in the rules of the site? I've seen you mention it a few times, but can't find it in the ToS that you link to. And what constitutes a paragraph?
I'm not trying to just "pick a fight" or whatever with you, I'd just like some clarification, especially if you're going to get that picky about it.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Exactly... how many ways can one say "Gun Control disarms the victim and is bad" ? heh.
There can be more comentary than that. I've read your blogs on gun control and I agree with you. All I was saying is that this user only met the 100 word minimum because he copy/pasted the story.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I don't know. I am basing this off the fact that it's one of the things people get busted for a lot. Fallon or Fanaile or another A-Team member that's been around for forever should know.
Again, as to the paragraph, I base it on line breaks. It very well could be 1 sentence with a line break, 5 sentences, etc. I don't know.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
So...you're calling people out and unpublishing posts because of a "policy" that isn't in the Terms of Service and because the others are doing it? It sounds to me like you need to reconsider your actions and the ToS. And it'd probably be good to make sure the rules are nice and clear so there are no gray areas to end up in situations like this. That's just to cover your (the A-Team's) asses.
It's kind of hard to break rules "in the ToS" if they're not in the ToS to begin with, don't you think?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Where have I unpublished someone for breaking the 4 paragraph rule? I haven't. I unpublsh blogs for having less than 100 words that I deem to be "original content." And while, yes, technically the rule isn't stated there right now, but the ToS isn't the only law of the land here. We have to abide by fair use policy, as well as any additional rules logged in the FAQ. http://progressiveu.org/2007/mikes-faq-revamp/about-blogs-and-writing/ca... This is where the 4 paragraph rule comes from (because the best stuff is typically within the first 4 paragrahs).
And acutally, I've been letting stuff slide because it's too much of a hassle to clean it up. To delete a post, I have to send a message to the user, delete the post, and then make a log of it for the other Mods. No, I gave up complaining about 2 weeks ago. I just leave a comment saying "fix this so I don't have to do any real work."
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Note: Unless otherwise stated, "you" in this conversation refers to the collective "you" of the A-Team, since you (singularly) are the representative in this matter.
If the ToS isn't the "only law of the land," why is it the only one you (you personally, since I don't recall seeing the others say anything or link to anything) link to? Perhaps you guys should consider having an easily accessible and referable central place where the rules are. Like I said before, it would be to cover your own asses as much as make the boundaries clear for everyone.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The ToS and the Terms of Fair Use apply to all of the internet. Besides, what good is reposting a story? This site is for thinking, not copy/pasting.
I tend to link to the ToS because I assume that like myself, no one else has really taken the time to read it. I know the general rules because I watch the Admins. They're the supreme rulers and I'm like an underling. I just do as I'm told and stop people from plagirizing.
Now, if you'd like to ask the A-Team as a collective, you can post that question in the Forum under support as they can better respond than I am able.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Copyright infringement means violating the rights reserved by the copyright owner through the unauthorized use of his or her work.
* To avoid copyright infringement never repost, in entirety, the work of another without express permission by the author or publisher.
* Stick to the four paragraph rule (never copy more than four paragraphs into your work)
* And remember to cite your source and provide links to the original!
http://www.progressiveu.org/2007/mikes-faq-revamp/about-blogs-and-writin...
Users who violate the Terms of Service and other rules of the site repeatedly will be removed from the site.
ProgressiveU's FAQs are official policy on the site, and are subject to change without notice.
http://www.progressiveu.org/editorialpolicy
Any further questions? And no, that was not added tonight. It has been there since before this contest started.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Articles are generally written in the "inverted pyramid" method; meaning the most pertinent information is contained within the first 3-4 paragraphs (as is explained by the FAQ).
While the TOS doesn't specifically say "you have to follow the FAQ" - it does say you have to abide by plagiarism and copyright laws. Redistributing an article in its entirety is illegal (as is also explained in the FAQ). unless you have expressed written consent from the author - rather than merely a citation.
The TOS is in place to give you universal guidelines and regulations. The FAQ provides a detailed guideline based on problems and/or questions about the TOS that might arise. It's only common sense to review the FAQ to find the answers to this; especially when there is an entry that could have solved this issue specifically without creating hard feelings or an argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
The four paragraph rule is stated in the FAQ section of the website, which is official ProU policy, as is the Editorial Policy, and the Official Rules (found in the FAQs section). I made a note to the A-Team to review the ToS to see about adding these other official policies to the Terms of Service. However, the four paragraph rule generally falls under the plagiarism and/or copyright infringement sections of the Terms of Service.
-----
~Fallon~
"I stood
Among them, but not of them; in a shroud of thoughts which were not their thoughts" -Lord Byron
-----
well it ended and everyone is safe.
I don't know that I'd call schools safe.
not when the only armed people on school grounds are the criminals. (with the RARE exception of a school district that allows the full time security forces to carry some sort of weapon)
Thankfully none of the 30 students originally held hostage by the student criminal were harmed.
Only 2% of the time are any hostages killed. Of course, the killing often occurs with multiple victims when it happens, but do we really want to arm people because of this? Look up accidental shooting in the US. There's one every 4 1/2 minutes according to the site I referenced.
Well then, let's hope for MORE hostage situations! They seem much safer than muggings.
Also, a point you keep forgetting (hopefully accidentally) is that 'accidental' shootings go WAY down as the number of concealed carry permits increase. Mostly due to something that is normally the battle cry of the Left:
Education.
You only seem to count negligence as an "accidental shooting." But statistics that report these shootings also count it when someone shoots another delibrately, but unintentionally. For instance, if you kill your son in the middle of the night because you thought he was a burgler, that's an unintentional shooting. Incidentelly, that's what happened to a college student when he went home for summer vacation just a couple months ago.
Also, something else to note:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/lnr3.htm
since Texas' concealed handgun law went into effect in 1996, more than 3,370 license holders have been arrested—an average of more than two arrests a day. Crimes for which license holders were arrested include: 23 cases of murder/attempted murder; 11 cases of kidnapping/false imprisonment; 60 cases of rape/sexual assault; 527 cases of assault; and 873 weapon-related offenses. From the law's enactment to the end of 1999, the weapon-related arrest rate among Texas concealed handgun license holders was 66 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas aged 21 and over.22
And how many of those criminals kept their concealed carry permit after being found guilty?
Again, you're talking about criminals with guns (First, your report doesn't state that they used their gun for the crime)
Also, let's look at some real numbers... your 'stats' came from a biased report called "License to Kill" set to try to show how evil a 'shall issue' Concealed Carry program is. However, they didn't list the number of PEOPLE arrested, just the number of charges. A person can have many charges against them at one time.
Also, per this report: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html , it turns out that 55% of those in the report you post were found not guilty of their crimes. Oops for your side's research... I guess it matters if they actually did it, as compared to being arrested for it. (Keep in mind, many self-defense shootings are booked as murder until it becomes known what happned, as many concealed carry people are instructed to talk to their lawyer before they speak to the police.)
Other information to refute your biased claims:
Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [see Figure I], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.
another snip:
Of the concealed carry licensees who have been arrested for a murder, several have been no-billed by grand juries that determined the killings were lawful. Gordon Hale III was the first Texas licensee to kill an assailant using his concealed firearm - and the first licensee arrested. Hale had been involved in a minor noninjury traffic accident that turned into an assault when the other driver, Kenny Tavai, punched Hale repeatedly in the face and then attempted to drag him out of his car through the window. Hale fired his weapon in response, killing Tavai. The Dallas district attorney's office charged Hale with murder for using what it considered excessive force in defending against Tavai. The grand jury believed that Hale justifiably feared for his life and refused to indict him.
I guess you need to find more accurate sources, or just admit that you're anti-gun and will say anything to convince people that guns, not criminals, are bad.
sources as you want.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=incident&menu=gvr
Not exactly a big surprise, but the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), a prominent conservative research group based in Dallas. Eight on its board of directors are also NRA members.
Again with the links to the Brady Campaign.
As for the NCPA, I do tend to trust people who know something about firearms when it comes to reporting facts about firearms.... rather than the gun grabbing socialists like the Brady Campaign or Bloomberg's group.
getting 'gun facts' from the Brady Campaign is like getting fishing tips from PETA.
sites than these. Unfortunately, that's turning out to be very hard, as either side has prominent websites whose contributors have biased opinions and direct links to either pro-gun or anti-gun groups.
I know guns can't be as bad as the anti-gun people states, nor is handling a gun, even in trained hands, as safe as handling a water pistol as pro-gun people imply. So I'll get back to this when I find better sites.
More personal bias.
No pro-gun person claims that guns are safe.
In fact, every pro-gun person will tell you to always treat a gun like it is loaded and never point it at anything you don't intend to kill.
They will also say that your only REAL safety on a gun is your brain and its ability to control your trigger finger.
Guns don't just 'go off' like some in the anti-gun camp state, as they are well made tools. However, I don't know anyone who says "Oh yeah, guns are safe... I let my baby keep a loaded one in their crib."
Oh, ok... I'll address the article.
The stance is actually that gun control only disarms the responsible law abiding citizen, turning them into unarmed victims..... we don't really claim that gun crime doesn't happen or that bad people can manage to get a gun.
In fact, one of the reasons why we wish to be armed is to defend against anyone there to do us harm.
Even if a concealed carry person goes crazy and goes on a shooting rampage, it is another concealed carry person who is going to stop them with THEIR gun.
concelaed carry is not an exemption from ever committing a crime, it is a process by which people provide for their own safety against any criminal action by anyone else.
why is removing firearms from law-abiding citizens making them more safe when it isthe CRIMINAL that commits crimes with guns? Go take their guns away using the existing laws. When there are no criminals with guns, then we'll talk.
it's that I don't want people carrying guns out in public, licensed or not. My one experience with a concealed weapons holder helps taint my view certainly, but what I see is more guns always equals more suicides, accidents and deaths. If you expand weapons to include all of the population, that would be disasterous. People with a license isn't any more sane than any other member of the public.
Hmm... so you don't want guns to be carried out in public.... but the reasons why are because of suicides and accidents (and the deaths from them) ? But, those take place inside a private area with near exclusivity.
So, you don't want guns in public because of what happens in private?
Just admit that you don't want guns in private because of what happens in private. At least that makes logical sense.
And, again, the majority of gun accidents are done by those who do not have a ccw permit, and often using a gun that is not their own.
I also would like to see a study of gun accidents using stolen guns versus guns 'found laying around in the home."
However, accidents in the home have no bearing on the safety of our kids at schools when the only armed people are the criminals taking hostages.
Again I ask, why is it that these hostages were safer when the only armed person was the criminal?
Now, I am supposed to trust a concealed weapons holder whose only training might be the one or two day class he was forced to attend?
Also, again, you are only counting the accidents that happen because of negligence. There are many "accidents" that occur because the shooter intended to shoot someone else.
This is an example of an accidental shooting:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091307...
you really think we're stupid, don't you?
many of us concealed carry people ARE cops (I happen to not be one.) or former cops or former military.
I have quite a bit of firearms safety training under my belt and I would wager that most have more than I do. I also have fired well over 1000 rounds through my pistol since I bought it in march, and have fired tens of thousands of rounds in my other pistol I've owned since 2005 (when I started shooting)
your baseless OPINION is that concealed carry permitholders do not have any training and are a danger to society.
and I know about your experience with an old scared lady who pulled a gun in self-defense of a retail worker who had been punshed by a customer.
How much experience do you have dealing with rape victims, hostage victims and mugging victims? How many times have you told them "Hey, you were raped, but thankfully only the rapist was armed, because otherwise they might have been hurt!"
And, again, for a THIRD time, tell me how the hostages today were safe on that weapons-free school where the only one with a gun was the criminal...
If you use simple statistics and compare that to how many gun deaths were involved for suicide, accidents vs crime, you'd immediately see how much safer it is for people not to be armed out in public, even for a good cause.
And how do your training relate to how others use their guns?
Also I don't have any problems with cops carrying guns simply because the amount of gun safety training they have is mandated by their local police department. Their training is mandated hundred of times throughout the policeman's entire career. This is not true with concealed weapons holders.
So, you don't think that someone who randomly fires their gun around, then takes hostages, is creating an unsafe condition?
Your answer to "tell me how gun free zones are safer" is "Hostages are safe."
I, really, don't quite know what to say to that particular gem. I guess we will have to discuss this again when it is your loved one who is taken hostage. you can remind the police to not worry about it, because the hostages are safe. Much safer than if the criminal had been stopped before they took the hostages.
I mean, if they aren't hostages, they're unsafe, right?
Totally blows my mind that you are really going to sit there and argue that they were safe because they were hostages.
They were Friggen HOSTAGES! Doesn't that compute in your head? They were being victims of a crime of being held against their will with the possibility of being shot and killed by a criminal.
If someone at that school had been allowed to carry a firearm, this would NOT have happened.
Columbine would not have happened. The mass murder at Virginia Tech (where 32 people were killed) would not have happened.
Yes, there would still be shootings.... but when someone started runing around shooting others, they would be shot by a responsible gun owner.
I guess you'd rather have people be hostages and victims than responsible and armed citizens.
That could still technically be considered negligence. He neglected to properly identify the person ("don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes"). Just like a car accident is negligence when a persons neglects to heed the stoplight and rear-ends someone.
A person with a concealed weapons permit chooses to obtain said permit and associated weapon. They are, therefore, more likely to practice and take the classes. It's not uncommon for the average sport shooter to have better aim than a police officer.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Don't forget all those shooters who go to competitions.
They're GREAT shots. even the ones that finish last.
That same site claims that the NRA is basically group of anti-government extremists.
Here's something for you.
According to your site, Columbus, OH, had the Assault Weapons ban enacted in 1995. It is also, for all intents and purposes, as gun-free zone (pretty much every business is posted).
Warren, Tidioute, and Titusville, PA, are rural towns/cities in Northwest Pennsylvania, an area filled with gun advocates. Most households in the area have enough firearms to outfit a small battalion, and everyone in the house over the age of 7 knows how to use at least one of those weapons.
Why is it, then, that Warren, Tidioute, and Titusville have, in general, lower crime rates than Columbus, even on a per 100,000 person basis?
Why is it, too, that Austin, Texas, as well as El Paso and Fort Worth, have a generally lower crime rate?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Another incident down in the history books. If only adults would take threats more seriously, kids understood the hurt behind their words, and guns were harder to get.
"I am a Stephens Woman."
It is easy for a criminal to get a firearm. Most are normally stolen. It is VERY rare for a criminal to commit a crime with their own gun, since for most criminals, it is illegal for them to own a gun.
When you make guns harder to get, you only ensure that the criminal is armed and the responsible-citizen-turned-victim is unarmed.
Okay, hang on a second. There are "No-Gun" laws on all schools, churches, etc. But, whenever there's a shootout or anything on the news, it's in THESE places. I actually did a research report on gun control laws last year, and there is a SEVERE bias against guns in the news, on TV, and such and such. When you look at the actual stats, though, the chances of there being, let's say, an armed robbery in a home in a place where gun control is strict (like Washington, D.C., or Hawaii or some other place like that) is much higher than in a place like, let's say, Texas, where there are laws that say citizens can own guns, they just have to be concealed. So, the stats prove that gun control laws increase the chances of a shootout, because if someone's a criminal, they're not too adamant about keeping the law in the first place, and gun control laws only disarm the law-abiding citizens, putting them at more of a risk for gun violence.
Because of the anti-gun bias on teens and children, here's a question: what influences people against guns?
I roll out of town like a run-away train. I'll do as I dare, let them call me insane. I'll never sit on the sidelines of life, I'll dance every dance. While I still have the chance.
people are brought up to believe that guns are bad because they kill people and criminals use them.... therefore they should be made illegal.
Except... it is already illegal commit a crime (the criminal doesn't seem to care) and already illegal to commit a crime with a firearm (the criminal still doesn't seem to care) . . .
Gun Control laws only take firearms away from people who respect the law. The people who respect the law aren't the ones that you need to get guns away from.
Laws already exist to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and, in fact, most guns used in crimes aren't registered to the criminal but are stolen.
Gun Control legislation is a lame duck, and is only pushed by those who are either 100% ignorant of the reality of firearms, or have an alternative (and generally communist/socialist) agenda.
schools arent even safe anymore. there where is?