Some of the more recent United States Governmental statistics indicate that about 2% of elementary schools in the U.S. use metal detectors, 7% of middle schools, and 10% of high schools. This is a fairly low number, with literally only 1-in-10 high schools utilizing metal detectors within the country. Aug 13, 2019
-----------------------------------------
I understand that "probably" all school shootings have been committed by real students. Students with hatred issues, respect issues, power issues or whatever. She got away with acting as a student and penetrating the security or lack of it. Granted I can't see just anyone getting away with her plan by "acting" as a student but she was able to gain unfettered access.

With 3D printers getting more sophisticated, metal detectors are not a catch all. I also think there can be better ways to recognise mental issues earlier to reduce the threat of would be killers. It's not foolproof but after a shooting there were usually signs of a violent nature of the shooter before hand.

Yes she may be a criminal but she was unarmed and had no violent intentions and was aware of the risks of her actions but still felt more was needed to be done. I believe more needs to be done keeping the public safe from people that want to cause harm just because they have the power to do it. That includes bullies who don't pick up guns but rather create rage in innocent people.

My initial comment was due to @jimnms comment which seemed to imply the woman was merely an attention whore and overlooked what her real intentions may have been.

EDIT: I also think your decision to not have children and perhaps grandchildren could have a HUGE impact on reducing the number of children killed or wounded anywhere in the world. If only...

You prove my point a fellow sifter is in the Soyboy camp.

Turning boys into weak men is NOT a good thing. Not anywhere in the world.

When the average woman can change a tire or brakes on the car, then maybe then Ill teach my son to be less of a man.

You desire men to be weak and woman to be strong. This thinking just weakens the society.

Not really, what I was taught is that it has a history of being successfully invaded by empires that often bankrupt themselves in the effort. We've done a half decent job of following suit.

Not really again to your second point. I'm pointing out that the argument that an AR-15 somehow safeguards you from tyranny is nonsense, and you would need equivalent military weapons, training, and numbers to stand a chance against your own military....an absolute impossibility in America, and unlikely anywhere except third world countries with barely a military. I'm not, however, advocating allowing that level of weaponry into private hands.

Idk, it wasn't legal anywhere in the world before 2000, its not as if the rest of the west have had it for donkeys years while we looked down on the States. Its only been legal in the UK (not even all of it!) for a year and we don't have that much of a religious right wing to contend with. Really I think its a much greater achievement given how loud those bigots have been and how much of a political issue it seems to have been.

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

Without any kind of malice or hatred, i tell you that scientists *know* that humans are causing climate change. You will not find the scientific community in any kind of debate.

What the government and corporations do with the information is an entirely different matter. They lie, manipulate, cheat and steal and use it as a tool if they can. But don't question the science, because the science is there for you to see on the website. NASA have a .gov related domain probably because they are one of the most important scientific bodies on the planet and need the kind of internet protection and security that the government can provide. They need the protection or NASA goes offline and with it the base of communications for the majority of space operations.

Anything NASA does will be scientifically sound because the entire world community of scientists would never stand for it, they'd be a laughing stock for trying. Don't forget that the scientific community includes Russia for example - or any "enemy of the west" you choose. All research is available to everyone and anyone, so if you think NASA is somehow corrupt and publishes bullshit then why haven't equally corrupt russian scientists exposed and scored points off it?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

The evidence is there, and the scientific community believes in it. That includes universities full of teachers and students, it includes any scientist that adheres to the scientific method, anywhere in the world.

FAKE - seemed believable but a little off at first. Then she started talking about how the leaves were still on the trees (they are banana trees; they never 'lose' their leaves) and this showed that fall hadn't started yet (it's July, it's not fall anywhere in the world. More importantly, there aren't four seasons in the Philippines (i.e., no fall), only dry season and rainy season.)

Yes and i just want us to keep to ourselves for a while. This doesn't concern us. If ecuador have seen fit to grant him asylum for protection from the swedish or american government, then we should respect their choice and allow him to leave britain. Anything else is just utterly wrong, and an insult to many hundreds of years of british tradition. It's between them and sweden (and potentially america), not us.

If the olympics has told me anything it's this; why does britain need to change and become more modern at all? Why must this country chase people around the planet in the name of freedom like some psycho vigilante? Because the american government are?

I want us to just be happy with who we are; quaint, friendly, intelligent and skilled. These things will become increasingly useful as time goes by. That's how i propose to fix "broken britain". Focus on our own development.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
Curious: who is "we"? Are you British?>> ^dannym3141:
Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.
Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.
Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

Curious: who is "we"? Are you British?>> ^dannym3141:
Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.
Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.
Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

>> ^messenger:

With Ecuador? In the UK? That'd be even shorter than the Anglo-Zanzibar War, and we'd have streaming footage of the whole thing. That'd be cool.>> ^gwiz665:
UK's gonna start a war if they do.



Sure. Then the south american nations decide that the falklands is no longer british territory either.

Or how about ANY of our embassies ANYWHERE in the world? It'd be extremely uncool and we'd be lucky not to have to suffer consequences for it.

Last time we made an international gesture when opinion was split, we ended up with the fucking iraq war. The fact that we're on the verge of doing someone else's dirty work again so soon makes me feel fucking sick. Just what type of fucking clowns are in charge here?

@spoco
the "official" government theory on what happened is also a conspiracy theory.
and there are always political underpinnings on where blame is placed, and how.

I mean, it's a wonderful theory that a guy in the remote stretches of Afghanistan trained and coordinated a bunch of Saudis conducting an URBAN airport operation. he must have had terrific cel service at the batcave.
it's a dumb theory, but still a theory.

and i'm quite sure invading Afghanistan had nothing to do with the largest amount of untapped rare earth minerals anywhere in the world. what a lucky coincidence!
and given that a modern empire needs to have 2 essential things to maintain it's empire - energy and technology, there is absolutely NO WAY we are in Afghanistan for anything but killing that dude, women's rights, feeding the orphans, and keeping us snuggly safe and secure.

more flys than hes seen anywhere in the world??? He should go up the stuart highway in central australia!! Good luck breathing without swallowing several hundred bastards a minute...have to basically wear a mask to stop them from getting at you.

>> ^Pring4:

According to the logo, this project has aspirations of sending these rails from the arctic circle to anywhere in the world. I support this.


Hate to burst your bubble, but at earth's surface escape velocity the kinetic energy of a projectile is only 32 times its weight in TNT. With suborbital flights and resistance on reentry the effect would be considerably less than that. Wind during the ascent would throw it off farther than the destruction radius unless the slug was really huge (multiple tons) or they put in some internal guidance system that can survive the biggest EMP ever.

According to the logo, this project has aspirations of sending these rails from the arctic circle to anywhere in the world. I support this.

I think they got close on 4/5 there.

\>> ^FishBulb:

IBM's predictions for innovation from five years ago:
We will be able to access healthcare remotely, from just about anywhere in the world.
Real-time speech translation—once a vision only in science fiction—will become the norm.
There will be a 3-D Internet.
Technologies the size of a few atoms will address areas of environmental importance.
Our mobile phones will start to read our minds.