1 student shot at high school in Taft, Calif.
TAFT, Calif. (AP) - A student was shot and wounded at a rural San Joaquin Valley high school Thursday and another student was taken into custody, officials said.
The shooting occurred about 9 a.m. at Taft Union High School, a community of fewer than 10,000 people amidst oil and natural gas production fields about 120 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
The student who was shot was flown to a hospital in Bakersfield, said Ray Pruitt, spokesman for the Kern County Sheriff's Department. There was no immediate word on the victim's condition.
Pruitt said the suspect is a student, and a shotgun was used in the attack.
Kern County Fire Department Eric Coughran told KBAK-TV that another person suffered some type of injuries in the incident but refused medical attention.
KERO-TV Bakersfield reported that the station received phone calls from people inside the school who hid in closets.
It was not immediately clear how many students are enrolled at the high school, which teaches 9th through 12th grades.
The Taft shooting came less than a month after a gunman massacred 20 children and six women at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., then killed himself.
That shooting prompted President Barack Obama to promise new efforts to curb gun violence. Vice President Joe Biden, who was placed in charge of the initiative, said Tuesday in Washington, D.C., that he would deliver new policy proposals to the president by next week.
Will the next nut case that feels the need to assasinate someone please use a baseball bat?
 @oodathunkedÂ
Probably not. I'll bet these nut jobs tend to have access to more guns than bats. Lanza had access to 5 or 6 guns and I'll bet there wasn't a bat in the entire house.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/taft-shooting-suspect-allegedly-threatened-kill-students.html
Â
Yes, this kid was just like all the other school shooters. The biggest difference is he apparently didn't have a relative (brother) that owned an assault rifle and wasn't able to do as much damage as he might have.
 @ormom not exactly, as you say, the same ... this guy was 'talked out' of continuing.  We don't know at this point if other weapons were available to him.  We don't know if he had a chance to steal weapons from someone other than his brother... you just can't guess at these things.
Â
What we do know is that this kid had been kicked out of school before, was a known quantity in terms of potential violence, and was allowed back on campus even after student(s) raised concerns to the administration.
Â
Begins to look like yet another case of "we can't let someone's medical issues go public" so the rest of the students are left hanging in the balance.
Â
The whole system failed on this one, and the indication is that mental health plays a larger role than access to firearms of any one particular type ("assault" weapons.)
 @Umhal
Maybe he was able to be talked out of continuing and restrained because he wasn't able to mow the staff down first.
Â
No, we don't have all the details yet but I think when we do it will be very hard to say, in all honesty, that the type of gun didn't make a difference in the carnage factor.
Â
Mental health and system failures are clearly the defining feature in these shootings but it cannot be ignored that easy access to guns is what is turning these personal and family tragedies into public ones.
 @UmhalÂ
There are numerous people just on this blog alone who have stated that gun-free zones like schools are attractive to these shooters and if they knew that teachers were carrying guns that would somehow stop them. I stand by my comment to those people.
 @ormom "Maybe he was able to be talked out of continuing and restrained because he wasn't able to mow the staff down first."
key word is "maybe". Â
Â
" ...the type of gun didn't make a difference in the carnage factor."
Of course i made a difference. Â
Â
"that easy access to guns is what is turning these personal and family tragedies into public ones."
It's a tough call on this account, and I'll admit even more difficult to discuss without polarization. Â Seems that it could well come down to whether or not we as a society feel the individual rights to own weapons trumps the collective expectation of "one death is too many."
Easy access to guns cuts both ways in a crisis... *I* want easy access to guns should *I* need one. Â On the other hand, I don't want nut jobs to have that same easy access.
If you could find a way to satisfy both of those situations, I'd be all ears!
Â
"...the kid knew the school had armed security and went ahead with his plan anyway."
The point of promoting armed security is NOT that it acts as a deterrent but rather that it is one way to potentially reduce the overall body count once someone decides to go postal. Â That thought process is (now folks will argue about this but here it is) Â that it's expected that police perform that exact function on a city-wide basis, and indeed they are the ones called upon to react to a shooter event. Â The only difference between having armed security on-site and expecting the cops to perform that same function is the response time. Â longer response time equates to higher body count.
Â
"Stop expecting these shooters to think rationally."
You're right, they are not rational, so we must acknowledge that force must be met with force, because talking with irrational violent offenders is NOT going to be productive. Â Which brings us to the inevitable discussion of "who do we expect to respond to an attack?" Â
Some maintain that's the pervue of the police only, some believe it's the ultimate responsibility of the individual.
Â
*I* for one, recognize that in a moment of crisis, the police are only capable of picking up the pieces and remanding people to the judicial system. Â It's nice when they're able to be the defenders and the cops I know take great joy when they get that chance, but it happens in only a fraction of the cases they are called to.
Put more simply, when seconds count the police are minutes away.
Â
 - I don't expect shooters to be rational.  No one does.
 - If the shooter has intent to do harm, the shooter will find a way to do so regardless of laws or police presence, or even availability of a particular weapon.
 - easy access to guns increases safety for some, decreases it for others.  i'd much rather be in control of my own safety.
 - Type of gun does affect carnage factor (as you put it) and I want the ability to inflict the greatest damage I can should it ever become necessary to defend myself or my family.
 - All the "maybe" talk is really not helping the discussion, not from either side of the aisle.  Woulda/Coulda deconstructions are so easily derailed that it's just not something I'm willing to engage in beyond the obvious and immediate fact-stating phase.
 @UmhalÂ
Also, I hope everyone who talks about gun-free zones and thinks more guns are the answer to detering these incidents will take note that the kid knew the school had armed security and went ahead with his plan anyway.
Â
Stop expecting these shooters to think rationally. That's the whole problem - they don't.
If the shooter was a student, then he likely was under age 18. You have to be 18 years or older to buy a shotgun. I guess laws really don't stop criminals.
Oops, they can't blame "assault rifles" this time.
So how do they take guns from criminals who don't need to take background checks where THEY buy guns? Â I bought all mine in backyards, garages, bars. Â No background check needed and never will be needed.
This doesn't even make the news prior to Newtown.
Â
Fortunately KATU hasn't had to change completely in the last four weeks. While they will cover stories of shootings from across the country, they still refuse to cover stories involving the lawful use of firearms in self defense.
 @HuskyKMA I've been monitoring this. Sort of a hobby of mine since I graduated from OSU/Journalism. It's interesting to compare the different orgs against each other, but, seriously it's like one of those scrambled '90s 3D posters. Once you see the pattern, you can't lose it. CNN is using Alex Jones to represent gun owners, and Rupert Murdoch is tweeting anti-"automatic weapon" rhetoric to Obama. CNN isn't nearly as commie as their competitor wants people to believe, but, on this issue they've got a full-on propaganda campaign going.
why did you not mention that the gun was a shotgun and not an assault weapon. not as exciting to you? typical one sided reporting.
What a sad testimony to the state of affairs in America today.
 @peckishpete You people act as if school shootings are something new.
Â
Charles Whitman didn't use an AR-15, or a semiautomatic pistol, he didn't listen to heavy metal or watch violent video games. The more the liberals wring the hands and scream in hysteria about it, the more angry little psychos who want to hurt innnocent people know what they have to do. In America, it's guns. Elsewhere, it's IEDs.  Elsewhere, it's mobs of goons with machetes, or groups of perverts molesting women on the trains while people do nothing.  The world has NEVER been a nice place for the weak. Try to cope.
@Playanekes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Â
Yes there is violence in the world and other countries are worse off than us. But look at the countries that are worse - mostly 3rd world countries. And there are a lot of countries that are far better off than us which include so-called developed countries like us. I'll cope but its still a state testimony relative to other countries in the world and it appears to be getting worse.Â
For the rest of the story ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20975608
This could all be settled in no time if they would just ban people altogether.
Â
Release a few of those designer viruses into the wild and in a few weeks, no more problems.
 @Mikey you do realize that it would affect you and those that you love as well too don''t you?Â
This comment has been deleted
Ha ! funny thought !
 @DadInPDX  @ormom Utterly and completely failing to understand the point of the joke...
 @Festivus  @sargeratorÂ
You gotta love how Ralphie goes around getting comments about him he doesn't like deleted. And he has told me he has a thick skin. HA!
 @tigress  @DadInPDX  @ormom He's promisin' on a STACK of Bibles not to raise taxes for the middle class this time.
 @DadInPDXÂ
1) you have no clue what my politics are since I don't toe anyone's party line
2) it's more of an insecure guy thing than a political one - hence your offense at my little joke
 @DadInPDX  @ormom And to see how the right keeps it classy, read the comments on the article about the bibles Obama will be using for the inauguration.Â
 @ormom I like how the Left thinks... when logical and reason fails... insult the other party.
Â
WIN!
 @sargeratorÂ
erections and guns - they amount to the same thing for some people
Ya it is, think about it, nobody would notice !!!!
 @sargerator No, it isn't.  Not at all.
Shotgun used, not the semi auto types used in other recent events.....kid tried to get off second shot, couldn't, possibly a single action type......
Â
So only 1 victim, unlike the above mention "other incidences", did the stricter cal gun laws work ????
 @sargerator Who knows. Wild-ass speculation is of no value. Did you know that during my bachelor party road-trip we accidentally got an AK-47 through the security at Edwards Air Force Base and Dryden? My friend had it stashed in a bin in his old RV and completely forgot to remove it. Lotta good that law did, and, gee, look how much trouble we caused.
 @sargerator Could be does not say and they make semi auto shotguns that can hold 5 or more rounds. Sounds like he just had 2 specific targets in mind that unlike the other crazy kids, not necessarily a victory for gun control advocates...
 @FreedomRocks
Nor a thumbs-up for gun rights. Probably stole a legally purchased gun from his mom or dad or a friends house. Probably has no criminal history either. Probably just a depressed PO'd teenager with poor impulse control with easy access to a gun to solve his immediate problem. Starting to sound familiar? Yesserie...more guns = more access = more gun deaths. Some people refuse to actually do the math.
 @ormom  @DadInPDX I think DadInPDX's point is to say "what's the logical conclusion of encroaching on the 2nd Am?"  Slippery slope, and we've seen it here in the US before, we've seen the BAN agenda laid bare.
YOU haven't said "ban" and that's good, I don't believe YOU want an outright ban on weapons... but there are those who do and they are opportunists.
Â
The logical conclusion of "ban certain types of weapons" is a ban of ALL weapons. Â After all, if it's somehow a good idea to limit access/ownership of ONE kind of weapon, it must be better to ban them all! Â That's the mentality that YOU DO NOT espouse, but other's adhere to. Â They are rabid, zealotic, and their agenda coincides with greater threats to our Nation.
That's why the defense of private ownership *must* be equally zealotic.
We've tried in the past (brady assault weapons ban) and it didn't work.
The Brady AWB was a test that ran for 10 years, and the studies from ALL sources show a varying degree of INCREASE in violent crimes. Â And when the AWB was allowed to sunset, there was a huge clamor for "we need to ban MORE because these criminals are getting those guns from somewhere..."
which bring me back to the statements I've made earlier in this post.
Â
It's not so much that YOU are exciting us 2nd Am types into thinking YOU want to ban all guns, but we already know that despite the limitations YOU place on the "ban-wagon" even your wishes will be stomped on in due course.
Â
That by very nature is the slippery slope. Â Been there, Done that... don't want the T-shirt.
 @DadInPDXÂ
Your reading comprehension stinks, your reponses are always oblique, and this is the last time I will respond to you.
Â
What part of "I don't advocate banning guns" don't you understand?
What part of exercising my rights as a citizen don't you understand? We all try to influence laws and lawmakers and public opinion in the direction we want our country to go in. Stop being a hypocrite and a bigot.
Â
You can disagree with me all you want but stop implying I don't have the right to speak or vote differently than you. After all, isn't it you gun-loving types who always spout off about how ready you are to fight to the death to defend the constitution? Or is it just to defend those who think the same as you?
 @ormom You claim you want what's best for you, right? Isn't what people always say right before they push their values on someone? The US, as a whole, is a body that supports gun rights. Our Founding Fathers saw those very rights as something they considered to be "God-given" or "natural." Some, such as the ten mentioned in the Bill of Rights, are expressly protected.... neither you or I are entitled to change them.
Â
Any time a society talks of "what's best", it's usually to back their own selfish interests. You and others like you have sat like vultures on the fence of society, waiting for a scrap like Newtown to occur so you could push an agenda which would have no chance of ever passing otherwise.
Â
Us "gun nuts" are all that's keeping your unused rights in place. Want some history? Read up on the "Battle of Athens".Â
Â
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
 @theobserver
First of all I don't advocate banning guns. My point is that more guns don't make anyone safer and I argue against those who think a gun is the solution to gun violence. The reason I care what they think and do is because I believe they make things less safe for me. They certainly seem to want to make society into a place that repulses me with all their talk of violence and killing. So as a citizen I exercise my equal rights to state my opinion and make this country the place I want to live in.
Â
Secondly, I put far more time and thought and money into avoiding being a victim in the first place and making my home safe from intruders than I do into preparing to blow some criminal away (zero on that score). I think some of these gun nuts just hope some guy will try to break in so they can use their gun and so maybe don't exercise as much caution as they could. Trouble is, I suspect for many of them their bark is 10x bigger than their bite and they would most likely freeze when confronted with danger, making them and their families more likely to be victims than me and mine.
 @ormom  @DadInPDX The point is is that all gun bans do are to shackle the hands of law abiding people and dis-arm them, making them unable to defend their families and homes, while criminals will still have ready access to them and have a whole lot more defenseless victims to choose from.
Think about it - what would YOU do if someone broke in to YOUR home and threatened YOUR family? Would you try and defend them, or just look the other way?
 @PlayanekesÂ
"x percentage of them will freakin' kill you with rifles, pistols, shotguns, IEDs, whatever it takes."
Â
Keep making points for the opposing team, please. These are precisely the people who shouldn't have access to guns that you are holding up as proud Americans. I think maybe you need some of those drugs you were frothing about earlier.
   ormom: Yes, please by all means, ask Australia and England how good their gun ban has worked. Didn't seem to stop the bad guys did it?
 @ormom  @DadInPDX Nope. There are an infinite number of places to stash a gun in a home.
 @DadInPDX  @Festivus  @FreedomRocks  @ormom I doesn't matter to fans of the 2nd Amendment. If you try to take their guns, x percentage of them will freakin' kill you with rifles, pistols, shotguns, IEDs, whatever it takes. The risk of sacrificing themselves puts them on the mantle with the Minutemen, George Washington and Leonidas. Feinstein isn't going to disarm them with wrinkles, hypocrisy and flower power.In fact, I'd suspect there are men and women SWORN to defend the Constitution in the Secret Service and various federal security details.
Â
It doesn't matter to me what the crime rate is in the UK or on Mars. I grew up in Corbett and live in Gresham. What matters to me is the crime rate here. In Corbett, pretty near everybody has a gun in the house.
 @Festivus  @ormom  @DadInPDX Interesting but it led me to nothing but links to buy his book. Although he sounds like he's on the right track when he starts bringing up the buzzwords of human nature and motivation.
Â
That's one thing that annoys me as we head more and more towards socialism in this country.
Â
Nobody wants to work hard for someone else's benefit but they will bust their butt for their family and themselves. As we keep taking more and more from the individual to benefit the collective you keep decreasing the motivation for those who lead the innovations and keep this country on top.
Â
I guess like all great societies in history they eventually all have to come crashing down...
 @Jeepers About as well as Chicago and DC, I'd imagine.
 @DadInPDX  @FreedomRocks  @ormom Piers Morgan didn't program them to consider the crime rate in the UK, only the "gun crime" rate.Â
 @ormom  @FreedomRocks Some people refuse to read the warning label on the drugs they're giving their kids, too, and other people refuse to talk about that issue because they're on those drugs themselves. Hmm?Zoloft, Xanax, Ambien, Prozac or any of those. If you're on 'em, hell, the bottle itself says you might be crazy. Maybe you're the reason I carry a .45 in the first place. Ready for this?  Maybe if we just put this on the side of AR-15s, crazy people won't use them. Here goes: Drugs.com, "Zoloft":
Â
"
Report any new or worsening symptoms to your doctor, such as: mood or behavior changes, anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, or if you feel impulsive, irritable, agitated, hostile, aggressive, restless, hyperactive (mentally or physically), more depressed, or have thoughts about suicide or hurting yourself."
Â
If you or your relatives are on this crap AND you want to take rights from me, GFY. You're quite literally mentally imbalanced and I'm not interested in your crazy-ass opinion about my rights. Deal with your screwed up family and keep your ass off of my lawn, and we won't have issues.
 @FreedomRocks  @ormom  @DadInPDX The causal relationship is hard to establish.
Â
Read "Freakonomics" for their take on the reduction in violent crime in the US. Â Short answer according to the authors: Abortion. Â
 @sargerator You not factoring in the number of major metropolitan areas in the UK versus the US. The US is six times the population with far more major metropolitan areas where most of these crimes tend to occur.
Â
Throw too many rats in a box and they start each other...
 @Festivus  @ormom  @DadInPDX Funny how when you take someone's ability to fight back away violent crime goes up. Could it be that in the US the reason violent crime has gone down not up is because of the number of guns and the average criminal doesn't want to end up dead for 35 bucks.
 @ormom  @DadInPDX The problem is that criminals do have guns in the UK and you are five times more likely to have someone break into your home and use a weapon to do whatever they want to you in the UK.
Â
In the US criminals tend to look for homes that are empty so they don't end up dead.
 @Festivus  @DadInPDX  @ormom It is a little confusing how in all these countries where guns are not allowed that gun violence is even remotely close to the US.
Â
Also you have to factor in the US is six times as large as the UK. This means there are many more major metropolitan areas which is where most of this gun violence tends to occur.
Â
Locked too many rats up in a confined area and they start eat each other...
Â
So clearly taking away all guns in not going to stop gun violence but it would likely reduce it. Just like making it illegal to sell alcohol would reduce drunk driving accidents but not eliminate them.
But thats what this whole discussion is about isn't it ? "murder by use of guns" ?
 @DadInPDX  @ormom  @Jeepers For the A/V types out there, there's always this too, https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Ooa98FHuaU0
 @sargerator I never said murder or homicides, only violent crime.Â
So narrow it down..."murder rate per 100K...Please be more factual next time !
Â
South Africa ..........31.8
US..........................4.8
Canada..................1.6
United Kingdom.....1.2
Australia.................1.0
 @Festivus  @ormom Agreed. 4.2 per 100,000 to their 1.2.Â
Â
The numbers I used were for figures that the FBI defined as: "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." and for the UK "Violent crimes resulting in injury".
Â
Still, when people hold up the UK as a glimmering light of proper society, I think they fail to discern if that light is from an oncoming train.
@FreedomRocks @ormom "take all guns away"
Â
WTW ?? Who said "take all guns away"....YOU DID ! I would like tighter restrictions on WHO can purchase guns and do we REALLY need 30 round clips ?
Â
As for GB and Aust. and no guns, ah, do some google search, thats completely false !
Â
As for "high gun violence. Who are you refering to as "they". Certainly GB and Aust. have MUCH lower gun violence than the US, thats just a fact !
 @ormom  @DadInPDX Their homicide rate is well below ours.  They seem to excel at other types of violent crime, mostly robbery and burglary.
 @DadInPDX Â
I'm not going to take the time to compare the two to see if it's apples and apples or apples and oranges. But let's assume you're right that people in the UK are more violent. What's your point?
Â
My first thought was, I'm really glad they don't have guns if they are so much more violent.
 @DadInPDX  @FreedomRocks  @ormom This is a discussion about gun violence, and my numbers are for gun homicides.  If we restrict ourself to homicide only, in any form, the US still has a rate 4x that of the United Kingdom (since most don't own guns in the UK and can't use one for homicide, hmmm...)
 @DadInPDX
naaaw. probably easier to steal a gun from home than a car.
 @ormom  @Jeepers http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
Â
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_283456.pdf
 @Festivus  @FreedomRocks  @ormom UK Violent Crime Rate: 2300 per 100,000 citizens
Â
US Violent Crime Rate: 387 per 100,000 citizens.
Â
Yep... The UK has a problem.
 @Jeepers
Please post your data and comparable stats for the US. I don't buy what you're selling yet.
@ormom Would you like to share their violent crime statistics as well? Ours is something like 1/10th of what they have. It shockingly went up dramatically after they banned guns........
 @FreedomRocksÂ
We should be so lucky to have the gun death rate of the UK or Australia.
Yet Mexico is the one that banned guns....... So how's that working out?
 @FreedomRocks  @ormom Let's not be disingenuous here.  "High" for Australia and England still implies a rate one tenth of that in this country. Â
Â
Mexico is the ONLY country in the O.E.C.D. that makes the US look good by comparison in terms of gun violence.
 @FreedomRocks  @ormom Yep... The UK has more crime than South Africa, and was cited as being the worst in the EU.
Â
Meanwhile, before all the massacres in the UK and AU, they already had strict gun control. Additionally, how many guns are still in circulation in AU? I'll bet all those criminals didn't turn theirs in.
 @ormom So you're one of those wonderful people that want to take all guns away great. Why not move to England, Mexico, or Australia and your wish can come true tomorrow.
Â
Don't forget they have high gun violence rates as well...up 35% last year. The good news is only the criminals and crazy people will have the guns there.
 @ormom  @FreedomRocks Yep... it all sounds too familiar... people with mental health issues that have no way or desire to have them addressed, He could have just as easily driven a car into the school.
 @sargerator Cali gun laws are only to punish the law abiding... criminals, as pointed out, could care less. He probably only had access to a shotgun and some bird shot.
 @DadInPDX @sargerator I believe that was kind of the point Sarg was trying to make. Â
I think the "non-fertilization effectiveness rate" (if thats what you call it) for condoms is somewhere around 97%. Very few things are 100% effective !
 @Peregrine  @sargerator I'll concede that point, but I'll stand by my position that no gun law prevents violent crime.
I think that ormom was pointing out your comment....
Â
"He probably only had access to a shotgun and some bird shot"
Â
That was the point I was getting to..."did cal gun laws work" in this instance ?
 @DadInPDX Â
You guys keep making points for your opposition without even realizing it. Too funny.
 @ormom  @DadInPDX BFD. The opposition isn't going to come take guns without guns, and that's not going to happen. The opposition can go dig a hole and jump in it.
 @ormom I'm convinced you're either trolling, or reading a different article than the rest of us.