MR

4 students seriously hurt in Pa. school stabbings injuring as many as 20

http://news.yahoo.com/4-students-seriou ... 05503.html

MURRYSVILLE, Pa. (AP) — An official says four students were believed to be seriously injured at a high school near Pittsburgh, where a student with a knife stabbed or slashed others, injuring as many as 20.

Westmoreland County emergency management spokesman Dan Stevens says not all of the 20 injured were cut by the knife, though most were. Some suffered scrapes and cuts in the mayhem that ensued at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville on Wednesday morning.

Stevens says it doesn't appear any students suffered life-threatening injuries. He says all the injured are between 14 and 17 years old.

The suspect, a male student, was taken into custody and being questioned.

Stevens says the suspect used a knife, though he didn't say what kind or why he attacked the others.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Several people were stabbed Wednesday morning at a high school near Pittsburgh, and a suspect was taken into custody, an emergency official said.

Dan Stevens, the spokesman for Westmoreland County emergency management, said five or six people were reported stabbed at about 7:20 a.m. at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, about 15 miles east of Pittsburgh.

It wasn't immediately clear if the suspect and the victims are students, adults or a mix of both. It doesn't appear that any of the victims suffered life-threatening injuries, Stevens said, though several helicopters were seen flying people from the scene to area hospitals.

School officials and Murrysville police didn't immediately return calls seeking further details, but the school issued a bulletin on its website saying: "A critical incident has occurred at the high school. All elementary schools are canceled, the middle school and high school students are secure."

The district serves about 3,600 students who live in the bedroom communities of Murrysville, Export and Delmont. The elementary and middle schools are part of the same campus.

The high school was on lockdown, and students were being kept there as a precaution as school and law enforcement officials double-checked the premises. School officials were making arrangements to bus the middle school students home.

District Attorney John Peck said he was monitoring the situation. Detectives from his office were also investigating, though Peck said he had no information beyond that being reported by Pittsburgh television news stations.

But only guns cause senseless violence?

Archetype wrote:But only guns cause senseless violence?

Four young lives were senselessly brought inches toward death and the only response you can muster is promoting some political NRA agenda? I'm pro-gun, but go fuck yourself, man.

Waiting for the President to call for a ban on knives or the V.P. to demonstrate how to protect oneself from a knife attack by firing a shotgun off the balcony of ones home.

Boomchild wrote:Waiting for the President to call for a ban on knives or the V.P. to demonstrate how to protect oneself from a knife attack by firing a shotgun off the balcony of ones home.

I bet you wish the psychopath did have an AR-15, so some actual innocent lives would've been wasted. Then you would argue out of the other side of your fat face that every kid from pre-K to senior year needs to be armed. Instead of a graduation sash, you would have kids decked out in Rambo-style ammunition belts. You think intramural high school sports games are competitive now? Wait until this place becomes a right wing nutbag christian dictatorship. Fuck you, and your destructive Conservative wet dreams.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:I bet you wish the psychopath did have an AR-15, so some actual innocent lives would've been wasted. Then you would argue out of the other side of your fat face that every kid from pre-K to senior year needs to be armed. Instead of a graduation sash, you would have kids decked out in Rambo-style ammunition belts. You think intramural high school sports games are competitive now? Wait until this place becomes a right wing nutbag christian dictatorship. Fuck you, and your destructive Conservative wet dreams.

Well not actually, but your reply is amusing. What I think is that people need to look at what the root source of problem is with people that commit such acts. It's not their ability to obtain a gun of whatever type or any other weapon. It's the mental illness that causes people to think up and carry out such acts. But instead politicians and those in the media would rather focus on "the weapons" because it's an easy target and seems to get them easy brownie points with the voting public. Sure they will make mention of metal illness as if it's the secondary reason. I haven't seen any real effort to focus on it as much as "the weapons" which is not the actual cause.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:go fuck yourself, man.

The_Noble_Cause wrote: your fat face

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Fuck you, and your destructive Conservative wet dreams.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Archetype wrote:But only guns cause senseless violence?

Four young lives were senselessly brought inches toward death and the only response you can muster is promoting some political NRA agenda? I'm pro-gun, but go fuck yourself, man.

Awww, I'll be more emotional for you next time, sweetie.

This happened right up the road from me. Scary to think about, especially for me with all this school tragedy over the years since my fiance' is an elementary school teacher. I can't fathom this stuff happening in an innocent place like a simple school right up the road. Society is truly becoming a fierce thing to be reckoned with. Shame.

NRA members tend to relish violence of any kind as it 'justifies' their position. I think they get hard-ons when school kids die.

jaxmanjoe wrote:NRA members tend to relish violence of any kind as it 'justifies' their position. I think they get hard-ons when school kids die.

Seems to me that most people in the NRA are just looking to keep their 2nd amendment rights. People want to blame organizations and weapons for these types of acts and seem to ignore that it is people that commit such acts that are responsible. Some are mentally ill, some are radical idealists and in some cases both.

Yeah, the 2nd amendment. Some people, like those that selectively choose which Bible passages they wish to adhere to, pick and choose how to interpret one part of an amendment literally and another part as if it didn't exist.

I'm not anti-gun, but I'm for reasonable controls given that the 2nd amendment was written in a time that pre-dated the technology of weaponry we have today that our fore-fathers could not have imagined. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to have everybody walking around freely carrying guns. It was to ensure that we could, as citizens, protect our states from a tyrannical central government. Anyone who tells you it means more than that is high on gun oil...

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.

jaxmanjoe wrote:Yeah, the 2nd amendment. Some people, like those that selectively choose which Bible passages they wish to adhere to, pick and choose how to interpret one part of an amendment literally and another part as if it didn't exist.

I'm not anti-gun, but I'm for reasonable controls given that the 2nd amendment was written in a time that pre-dated the technology of weaponry we have today that our fore-fathers could not have imagined. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to have everybody walking around freely carrying guns. It was to ensure that we could, as citizens, protect our states from a tyrannical central government. Anyone who tells you it means more than that is high on gun oil...

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.

With the structure of our legal system everything is subject to interpretation. If the 2nd amendment was not for the purpose of letting any citizen obtain a firearm, then I am quite sure those in the government against the average joe owning a firearm would have already leaped upon making that possible. I'm sure our fore-fathers could not imagine the types of firearms available today. However the government has already has a ban on certain types of firearms citizens are allowed to obtain. Such as machine guns. Again, citizens owning firearms is not the cause of these situations. It's the mental state of those who carry out such acts. That's were the people effected as well as society as whole needs to address. If a firearm is not available to those that choose to commit such acts, they will find ways that will be just as lethal and destructive. So in my view putting more laws and controls in place are not going to stop these types of things from occurring.

jaxmanjoe wrote:NRA members tend to relish violence of any kind as it 'justifies' their position. I think they get hard-ons when school kids die.

jaxmanjoe wrote:Yeah, the 2nd amendment. Some people, like those that selectively choose which Bible passages they wish to adhere to, pick and choose how to interpret one part of an amendment literally and another part as if it didn't exist.

I'm not anti-gun, but I'm for reasonable controls given that the 2nd amendment was written in a time that pre-dated the technology of weaponry we have today that our fore-fathers could not have imagined. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to have everybody walking around freely carrying guns. It was to ensure that we could, as citizens, protect our states from a tyrannical central government. Anyone who tells you it means more than that is high on gun oil...

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.

In two posts you've completely contradicted yourself....

1st post - you think the NRA relishes violence to justify the 2A...

2nd post - You state you aren't anti gun, have no problem with reasonable gun-control, and restate the 2A, and its actual purpose.


The government is not going to ensure that the People have the means to "protect our states from a tyrannical central government". It isn't in their best interests.

It's why they pass legislation that chips away at the 2A...

The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934
The Federal Firearms Act was passed in 1938
The Gun Control Act was passed in 1968
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was created in 1972
The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act was passed in 1986
The Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed in 1986
The Crime Control Act was passed in 1990
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1994
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed in 1994

slucero wrote:In two posts you've completely contradicted yourself....

1st post - you think the NRA relishes violence to justify the 2A...

2nd post - You state you aren't anti gun, have no problem with reasonable gun-control, and restate the 2A, and its actual purpose.

The government is not going to ensure that the People have the means to "protect our states from a tyrannical central government". It isn't in their best interests.

It's why they pass legislation that chips away at the 2A...

The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934
The Federal Firearms Act was passed in 1938
The Gun Control Act was passed in 1968
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was created in 1972
The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act was passed in 1986
The Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed in 1986
The Crime Control Act was passed in 1990
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1994
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed in 1994

I don't see any contradiction. I'm for reasonable gun control. Plain and simple.

The NRA is like PETA. Extremism at its worst. I can be pro-animal and still think PETA sucks.

To me there are two types of people who buy guns besides hunters. Ones who buy them for protection and pray they never have to use them. And those who buy them and pray that they will someday get to shoot someone. I have a problem with the latter gun owner. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with the latter gun owner is a fucktard. These are the people who should not own guns for obvious reasons, 2nd Amendment be damned. Rights are not absolute, especially when they can infringe on someone else's right to live and not be killed without due process. A .45 on your front lawn is not due process.

The Constitution is not perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have had to be amended so many times. Some people treat it like the Bible. Pick and choose the parts you like the best and live your life by them. My parts aren't flawed. Just the other parts...

jaxmanjoe wrote:I don't see any contradiction. I'm for reasonable gun control. Plain and simple.

The NRA is like PETA. Extremism at its worst. I can be pro-animal and still think PETA sucks.

To me there are two types of people who buy guns besides hunters. Ones who buy them for protection and pray they never have to use them. And those who buy them and pray that they will someday get to shoot someone. I have a problem with the latter gun owner. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with the latter gun owner is a fucktard. These are the people who should not own guns for obvious reasons, 2nd Amendment be damned. Rights are not absolute, especially when they can infringe on someone else's right to live and not be killed without due process. A .45 on your front lawn is not due process.

The Constitution is not perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have had to be amended so many times. Some people treat it like the Bible. Pick and choose the parts you like the best and live your life by them. My parts aren't flawed. Just the other parts...

Can't agree with you here. It seems to me that your viewpoint on the type of persons that comprise the members of the NRA is very narrow minded. For example to some guns are a hobby and for collecting purposes. As with any group or association you may have some members that would seem to have radical viewpoints. But you can't lump everybody in such a narrow scope. No matter how you structure the law people's lives are always going to be infringed upon. Guns are not the only thing that can be used to take someones life. So I guess we should have laws on the books banning any item that could kill a person. Nothing in life is perfect.

Boomchild wrote:Can't agree with you here. It seems to me that your viewpoint on the type of persons that comprise the members of the NRA is very narrow minded. For example to some guns are a hobby and for collecting purposes. As with any group or association you may have some members that would seem to have radical viewpoints. But you can't lump everybody in such a narrow scope. No matter how you structure the law people's lives are always going to be infringed upon. Guns are not the only thing that can be used to take someones life. So I guess we should have laws on the books banning any item that could kill a person. Nothing in life is perfect.

You're right. My viewpoint is limited to the leadership that speaks for the members.

Your continued argument that guns are not the only thing that can kill and should we ban everything that can kill is such a moronic argument I'm surprised you guys still use it. Especially in a situation where a knife inflicts 20-some wounds with no deaths while a gun in the same situation would most likely have had many deaths. There is no comparing a gun with other common place items that could be used as a weapon.

Using my best Myagi voice: Common sense says comparing a gun with a knife or a baseball bat stupid. Common sense right.

jaxmanjoe wrote:
You're right. My viewpoint is limited to the leadership that speaks for the members.

Your continued argument that guns are not the only thing that can kill and should we ban everything that can kill is such a moronic argument I'm surprised you guys still use it. Especially in a situation where a knife inflicts 20-some wounds with no deaths while a gun in the same situation would most likely have had many deaths. There is no comparing a gun with other common place items that could be used as a weapon.

Using my best Myagi voice: Common sense says comparing a gun with a knife or a baseball bat stupid. Common sense right.

I see, so now it's the "leadership" of the NRA that vocalizes that they are just itching to shoot someone. Talking about other weapons or items that can be used as weapons is moronic? The items you mentioned can be just as deadly. You may not be able to kill people on mass as you could with a gun but it's not the number you kill that is the point. A life is a life. Right? You spoke about infringing on peoples rights to life by allowing gun ownership. These other objects can't? Banning firearms is not going to solve the problem of people killing people. You speak of common sense, common sense should tell you it's not the object itself that kills or injures people. People and the mental issues they have are the problem. Work on that and just maybe we would see less of these types of events. If people want to really be compassionate towards their fellow man they would work towards solving the actual cause instead of removing the object that people use to carry out their aggression.

Fact Finder wrote:

jaxmanjoe wrote:NRA members tend to relish violence of any kind as it 'justifies' their position. I think they get hard-ons when school kids die.

Dumbest thing I've read here in a long while, and couldn't be more wrong. Best for you to be thought a fool than to open up your keyboard and confirm it.

You must have a hard-on...