Gunman Dead After Injuring 2 Students at High School Prom in Wisconsin

[PinkFloyd]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-dead-injuring-students-high-school-prom-wisconsin/story?id=38629647

An 18-year-old gunman who injured two students at a high school prom in northern Wisconsin Saturday night died after he was shot by police, officials said.

The shootings took place just after 11 p.m. local time when the suspect showed up with a rifle outside Antigo High School in Antigo, Wisconsin, and started shooting, said Eric Roller, the city's police chief.

Two students, a girl and a boy, were shot as they exited the school, police said. District Administrator Donald Childs told ABC News the boy is an Antigo student and the girl is his date from out-of-state.

The Unified School District of Antigo said in a statement that the gunman, identified by police as Jakob Wagner, had a high-powered rifle and a large ammunition clip.

Officers already in the parking lot patrolling the event returned fire and shot the suspect, police said.

The Langlade County coroner said Sunday that Wagner died after he was transported to a local hospital. It was not immediately clear if he was a student.

The two victims were transported to Aspirus Langlade Hospital, where the girl had since been discharged, police said. The male student was undergoing surgery Sunday for non-life-threatening injuries, police said.

After the shooting, everyone at the prom was escorted from the school.

The school district said in a statement that "quick actions" by police and staff "prevented what might have otherwise been a disaster of unimaginable proportions."


It's good that officers outside shot the gunman dead before he could hurt anyone else... Shit like this makes me sick.

[StoppingTom]

Jesus Christ, will this shit ever stop?

[phuckphace]

lol Wagner

Gunfight of the Valkyries

[sqishy]

One of the luckier outcomes of intended mass shootings...

[PinkFloyd]

One of the luckier outcomes of intended mass shootings...

Yeah, I agree. While the situation still wasn't good by any means, it could have been much, much worse. From my understanding, the gunman opened fire on people exiting the dance. That means he basically would have sprayed a concentrated groups of people coming out of doors. It's good that the police were nearby to kill the bastard and that the two people that weren't fatally wounded, just the legs.

[Leprous]

*cough cough* gun control *cough.


And people still think guns should be for everyone.

[Lost in the Echo]

It amazes me how many crazy motherfuckers are on this planet

[Vlerchan]

*cough cough* gun control *cough.
With school shootings the bigger issue is a culture that leads people at 18 to be comfortable handling a firearm.

[phuckphace]

*cough cough* gun control *cough.


And people still think guns should be for everyone.

*cough* Muslims bombed your airport *cough*

gonna start rounding them all up p.soon, yes?

[Leprous]

*cough* Muslims bombed your airport *cough*

gonna start rounding them all up p.soon, yes?

I hate you. And no they probably won't get rounded up anytime soon, but you guys aren't fixing the gun thingy either.

Vlerchan And younger.

[phuckphace]

I hate you. And no they probably won't get rounded up anytime soon, but you guys aren't fixing the gun thingy either.

the guns aren't broken so no we won't be "fixing" them

btw I'm buying a handgun next year, to fend off psychotic fucks like Wagner. stay jelly forever.

[Judean Zealot]

With school shootings the bigger issue is a culture that leads people at 18 to be comfortable handling a firearm.

The bigger issue is the culture that preaches nothing but self gratification and glorifies hedonism. Our generation is dysfunctional and pathetic.

[phuckphace]

The bigger issue is the culture that preaches nothing but self gratification and glorifies hedonism. Our generation is dysfunctional and pathetic.

yes. if we stepped off this pedal and got our shit together on the social end then we wouldn't see so many dysfunctional basket cases going on shooting sprees.

guns are old, mass mental illness and the resulting m-m-monster kills are new. how difficult is this to grasp, exactly?

[sqishy]

I'm considering (atm) not getting involved in any of these mass-shootings/gun threads due to stuff I am opposed to that keeps coming up.

The good news is this time nobody died except the shooter, a little optimism.

[Judean Zealot]

[T]his time nobody died except the shooter, a little optimism.

When this is optimism, you know society is really messed up; you have to step back and assess "Why?"

[Professional Russian]

*cough cough* gun control *cough.


And people still think guns should be for everyone.

Nah son gun control ain't gonna fix it. People control will. I got 26 guns that didn't kill anyone today. My buddy has 60 some that didn't kill anybody today. Guns don't kill people people kill people.


Anyways I think it's great that police shot back and killed him.. Little bastard got what he deserved. We need more officers to shoot shooters then try discharge the situation. When someone's shooting innocent people you shoot first ask questions later.

[sqishy]

When this is optimism, you know society is really messed up; you have to step back and assess "Why?"

Why am I optimistic because people didn't die? Because things are bad to such an extent that a normally lesser of two disasters is seen as having some good in it, yes.
So I would agree.

[Vlerchan]

The bigger issue is the culture that preaches nothing but self gratification and glorifies hedonism. Our generation is dysfunctional and pathetic.
Nonetheless that this manifests itself in school shootings within the culture I identified is worth emphasising. You might be correct that this underlines the actions being discussed at a more fundamental level. But odds are what I'm outlining is easier fixed - and actually possible within the current political paradigm.

Question I find useful when looking at cultural phenomenon is that can you find a statistical variable that proxies well for the issue (degeneracy)? The issue being is that there's a host of other variables that could influence these sort of attacks - penetration of mass and social media, for example. Least with a variable for degeneracy identified we have a testable hypothesis.

guns are old, mass mental illness and the resulting m-m-monster kills are new.
There's an endemic now - confounding factor might be the role of mass media - but schools shootings have been a thing in the United States for a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1900s

---

Proposed solution is to limit guns to those which have been honourably discharged from the armed-forces and passed a comprehensive psychological evaluation.

[Porpoise101]

Lock up all the extremists and mentally ill. Confiscate the weaponry. Then there will not be any problems at all.

[Professional Russian]

Lock up all the extremists and mentally ill. Confiscate the weaponry. Then there will not be any problems at all.

Except maybe all the illegal weaponry floating in and out of the country all the time...

[kev1998]

I agree to an extent that guns should be harder to get. Does everyone actually need an rifle with a 30 round magazine. The answer is no but according to the law, we have the ability to own one. It seems that our problem was compounded when not only gun stores could sell to any Joe Blow that could pass a simple 1 page ATF background check but then Wal-Mart and other retailers began selling them. In my opinion, any rifle capable of a high rate of fire and with a magazine capacity of a large quantity should probably be re-classed the same as a machine gun or grenade launcher. Most American's still have the ability to obtain a fully automatic gun or machine gun but the laws and background are much stricter. You must pass a local, state and FBI background check, be finger printed and have the chief of law enforcement for your territory sign off on the application before you pay your $200 fee to the government to receive your class III stamp 90 days later.

We know that banning guns will not work. President Bill Clinton signed in to law in 1994 the Assault Weapon Ban that made it illegal to purchase a gun that has certain characteristics such as a high cap magazine, a pistol grip or a forward grip or to simplify all AR-15 and M-14's. That law expired in 2004 and was lifted. Columbine, the worst school shooting of it's time happened in 1999. Those guys used sawed off shotguns (illegal) a 9mm handgun (illegal for them to own at their age) and a Hi-Point 995 9mm carbine pistol (illegal for them to own as well as a dreaded POS pistol)

The people problem that i see is that we live in a society that likes to hide behind things and not face them directly. People may blast a Facebook post or in this case say things on a message board that they would not say to your face. In much the same way, people that want to inflict harm on their fellow citizens will hide behind a gun and the gun do the work in much the same way as their computer keyboard.

[phuckphace]

I do all my trolling on a high-capacity 50mm keyboard with the serial number filed off

[Professional Russian]

I do all my trolling on a high-capacity 50mm keyboard with the serial number filed off

Don't forget it's got a short barrel and its a fully automatic assualt rifle

[DriveAlive]

I think we should have no restrictions on guns or gun purchases. There should also be a national carry permit that allows one to carry in all states. On the flip side, the penalty for possession of an illegal gun would be a 10 year minimum sentence.

[Thunderstorm]

What our founding fathers meant by giving us second amendment rights was that we, as citizens, have the right to rise up together and form militias if there was an imminent threat to our country's security. The everyday citizen should not own a gun. Period. No guns, no harm. That is all.

[Professional Russian]

What our founding fathers meant by giving us second amendment rights was that we, as citizens, have the right to rise up together and form militias if there was an imminent threat to our country's security. The everyday citizen should not own a gun. Period. No guns, no harm. That is all.

*clears throat* and I quote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't know where you're getting its only for miltias because I see The right of the people clear as day.

[Microcosm]

The bigger issue is the culture that preaches nothing but self gratification and glorifies hedonism. Our generation is dysfunctional and pathetic.

That sounds like a huge generalization given that you're talking about the entire civilized world. I assume that's what you mean by "our."

*clears throat* and I quote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't know where you're getting its only for miltias because I see The right of the people clear as day.


I think it's talking about the general population making up a sort of large-scale militia such that they can all defend their homeland in any state of emergency.

It's kind of vague, to be honest. Also, I'm not so sure the founding fathers predicted the kinds of "arms" that we'd have today. The second amendment provides no method of regulation, which is obviously necessary for weapons allowing someone to mow down masses of people in seconds. With modern weaponry and an incredibly large national population, surely not everyone should be allowed to own such a thing as, say, an assault rifle.

I think we should have no restrictions on guns or gun purchases. There should also be a national carry permit that allows one to carry in all states. On the flip side, the penalty for possession of an illegal gun would be a 10 year minimum sentence.

How can you say there should be "no restrictions on guns or gun purchases," the most liberal of gun policies imaginable, then follow up with the idea of being in "possession of an illegal gun"? It sounds like there's no scenario where owning a gun would be illegal at all if you have "no restrictions".

[Professional Russian]

I think it's talking about the general population making up a sort of large-scale militia such that they can all defend their homeland in any state of emergency.

It's kind of vague, to be honest. Also, I'm not so sure the founding fathers predicted the kinds of "arms" that we'd have today. The second amendment provides no degree of regulation, which is obviously necessary for weapons allowing someone to mow down masses of people in seconds.

The way I was raised, and even though I absolutely shooting them, automatic/semi automatic weapons are not necessary. I'm more deadly with my bolt action 7mm anyways but that's just how I was raised. I love shooting ARs and AKs and a few others but practically there's no use for them. Should they be banned? No. Should they be restricted alittle more yes. Universal background checks is what we need

[Vlerchan]

*clears throat* and I quote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't know where you're getting its only for miltias because I see The right of the people clear as day.
The right of the people precedes from the right of the militia.

In other words, Militias are required to secure a free state - thus the people (note the pluralisation) possess a right to bear arms, to this end.

[Professional Russian]

The right of the people precedes from the right of the militia.

In other words, Militias are required to secure a free state - thus the people (note the pluralisation) possess a right to bear arms, to this end.

Nope. If it was only about miltias they wouldn't have specified that. They said the right of the people because every American is free have guns if they please, although it's restricted now but yeah you get the point

[Vlerchan]

Nope. If it was only about miltias they wouldn't have specified that.
Consider the phrasing of the first section of the article.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [...]
That's not a claim that Militias should exist. That something might be necessary to some end does not infer that end is of constitutional value, and in fact subsequent interpretations of the constitutions have severely diluted any sense of freedom the states might have once imagined for themselves.

It's, in other words, a premise. It actually doesn't even make sense unless posed in joint-clarification with the next portion of the text.

[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second half of the statement clarifies the premise. [1] Proposition A is of value, [2] and can be furthered through the means specified. That it's written in joint clarification with the statement regarding the militia furthers this point. Had it been meant that the people have a right independent of formation of a militia, then it would be posed separately from the lead point.

They said the right of the people because every American is free have guns if they please, although it's restricted now but yeah you get the point
This is effectively tautological.

You have provided no basis as to why this must precede from the point being made, other than through pure emphasis.

[Professional Russian]

Consider the phrasing of the first section of the article.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [...]
That's not a claim that Militias should exist. That something might be necessary to some end does not infer that end is of constitutional value, and in fact subsequent interpretations of the constitutions have severely diluted any sense of freedom the states might have once imagined for themselves.

It's, in other words, a premise. It actually doesn't even make sense unless posed in joint-clarification with the next portion of the text.

[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second half of the statement clarifies the premise. [1] Proposition A is of value, [2] and can be furthered through the means specified. That it's written in joint clarification with the statement regarding the militia furthers this point. Had it been meant that the people have a right independent of formation of a militia, then it would be posed separately from the lead point.


This is effectively tautological.

You have provided no basis as to why this must precede from the point being made, other than through pure emphasis.

the basis is what the amendment says. It's up for interpretation and when it says the right of the people I believe it means the right of the people. If it was only about militias it would not have included the right of the people, instead it would have said more about militias. The right of the people means exactly what it says...the right of the people. Not the militias. The people.

[Vlerchan]

the basis is what the amendment says. It's up for interpretation and when it says the right of the people I believe it means the right of the people.
I'm referring to the basis of your interpretation.

I can agree that it's open to interpretation - it's a horribly unclear piece of constitutional text - but what I'm looking for is the reason to interpret it in a manner different to what I am suggesting. Other than tradition - or support for gun rights (which I also support).

If it was only about militias it would not have included the right of the people, instead it would have said more about militias.
It's referring to the people that are participating in the militia. Our interpretation of the people is conditioned on our prior reading of he first half of the text. That the two statements are separated through a comma - and must be read jointly in order for the first half of the text to make sense, indicates that the text continues to discuss that which relates to the militia.

The right of the people means exactly what it says...the right of the people. Not the militias. The people.
Like I said in the last post, our interpretation of 'the people' is conditional on the terms established in the earlier part of the statement.

Both portions of the statement need to be read jointly in order for the first half to make sense. The second half, whilst it might make sense on it's own, cannot be detached from the premise of which is seeks to clarify; that being it's entire purpose.