edit: and to illustrate, I had to look on wikipedia to be sure there had been any earlier than that.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
We aren't the first nation to have a problem with mass shootings, but we are the first nation to not respond by banning guns. For case studies, read up on mass shootings in England, Germany, Japan, and Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-t...
(Sutherland Springs) https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
(Las Vegas) https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
(San Bernardino) https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
(Parkland) https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-na...
That's what happens when your nation is founded on the thesis that an armed populace is necessary for a free state...
Never even heard of the concept of the mass shooting drill before this hn post.
Seems bizarre frankly but I can see how it's a necessary consequence if one is determined to maintain a US style gun culture.
AFAIK, the US is the only developed country with a systemic school shooting problem
Why would it be common? Unless we are in a war situation or something - the drills are only for natural stuff like fire, not some crazy person spraying bullets. This seems like a uniquely American problem
We have had a few mass shootings in the UK but they are quite rare since it's not common for people to own a gun.
Last year our country was shocked by a mental health sufferer adolescent, who took a chainsaw and murdered one person, and injured another one at a shopping mall. That's what I can remember.
My father had a licensed gun. I believe my family got it for crop protection in 60s. I don’t recall it being used anytime but I do remember that he needed to surrender it at local magistrate office, anytime there were state or federal elections. After he passed away, we surrendered it permanently. I guess I had a choice to transfer the license to my name which I never did.
never in my life I heard anything like this.
In contrast, never in my life has America faced anything like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks
In America, mass shootings only seem to occur in "gun-free zones", where perpetrators know there is little chance of armed interdiction before they have accomplished their mission.
The most recent widely publicized one took place at a school with armed police on campus (even though schools might be fun free but for law enforcement, it doesn't meet your description); of the five deadliest mass shootings in the US, three were in nothing even remotely like a gun-free (even excluding law enforcement) zone.
So, it may “seem” to you to be as you describe, but that's an issue with your perception, not the substantive facts.
armed police on campus
In fact, just one security guard was assigned to the campus but was not, in fact, near any of the buildings... and all officers who eventually responded made NO attempt to interdict the shooter. of the five deadliest mass shootings in the US, three were in nothing even remotely like a gun-free
Really? This is what CNN calls the 5 deadliest:The Harvest Music Festival: the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival grounds disallowed attendee guns and used metal detectors.
the Pulse nightclub in Orlando -- posted "no guns allowed" club.
Virginia Tech: gun-free campus except for weapons stored at range.
Sandy Hook: gun free school zone
First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs: posted "no guns allowed".
That's FIVE of five.
It "seems" your "substantive facts" need better research.
About 60 people have been killed in mass shotings in the US in the 48 days of this year.
> In America, mass shootings only seem to occur in "gun-free zones", where perpetrators know there is little chance of armed interdiction before they have accomplished their mission.
No. In America mass shootings are so common they're not widely reported. You're cherry picking mass-shootings to fit your narrative. If you look at all of them you'll see they occur all over, and not just in "gun free" zones. This is a consistant tactic used by gun rights advocates: exclude any gun violence they can to reduce the numbers. "This mass shooting doesn't count, it's gang violence", "These deaths don't count, they're suicide", "This isn't a mass shooting, because only 3 people died"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/10/kentucky-murd...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/05/three-police-offi...
http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/crime_police/art...
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/tag/mass-shooting-detroit/
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/breaking-news/breaking-pbs...
etc etc (This is an incomplete list of February's mass shootings.)
The irony is that your sibling poster also wrote this: "Mumbai attack was a terrorist attack. My response was in context of mass shooting in schools."
I just looked it up, and apparently the only school shooting ever in New Zealand was in 1923, by a Canadian... http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8112416/Murder-in-a-small-Ki...
Both grandparents fought in WWII -- not in a battlefield far away, but moments away from their homes. They would find this idea and all the surrounding discussions crazy and ridiculous.
I can't even describe how distant this is in Europe. (I hope it stays that way.) The only non-US friend of mine that would go on about shootings is from South Africa and even then...
We had fire drills, but other then that no. My parents had nuclear attack drills when they were at school, this was during the cold war.
Schools are just starting to have "terrorist drills" which are similar, from all I've heard, to USA active shooter drills. They're not everywhere but they're not uncommon either.
The idea of doing a shooting drill is almost comically bizarre to me. The fact it's been normalized here to the level that you have to ask this is extremely fucked up.
I am 52. This is a more recent phenomenon.