Replies

You're failing to look at this in a realistic way. For instance, if someone had just reported a bank robbery and the police arrived on the scene after the bank robber had fled, the police not going to go to other banks on the same street to see if, perhaps, the bank robber was in one of them waiting to rob it. They would not close down all the other banks on that street. Neither would the bank that was robbed close down all the other branches of that bank in the near vicinity or in the city because they thought the robber would be likely to go into one of them. The robber would be unlikely to do this.

Banks vs. schools are apples and oranges, I think. A shooting on campus should probably be taken more seriously since school shootings historically are more deadly than hold-up's at banks.

For example, how many times in the past decade has a bank robber gone into a bank and shot 10, 20, 30 people to death? It just doesn't happen.

With schools, on the other hand, we have seen exactly that happen. And not just on Monday either. Historically speaking.

Hence the term "school massacre"; I've never seen the term "bank massacre."

Also, look at the differences in motives here.

A bank robber wants money, not the death of other people, so once he gets his money, he's happy and off and running, and then into hiding, because he wants to continue LIVING and eventually spend that money.

In other words, he's achieved what he sought out to achieve. He's satisfied after the robbery.

School shooters, on the other hand, don't want money and they don't want to live. They want everyone to die. This is why school shootings are tenfold more important in how they're handled and responded to.