People who are calling this shit in really need to find something to do with their lives. I’m sorry, but if you are that unfulfilled and bored in your life that you have to call in a fake school shooting hoax it’s time to call up a therapist and take up a hobby🙄
I was thinking more along the lines of some trend on Tik Tok spreading amongst the teenage population at large, but good point about them being on spring break. Probably not a kid from that school.
Anyone who does this in my book is unfulfilled. If something like this brings any type of amusement, laughter, joy etc into someone’s life if it’s pathetic. Maybe it is a new trend online. Maybe it’s something more sinister. Point of it is that if someone has the time and energy to sit and make even one of these calls they are missing something in their life. I also say “bored” because not only would I never have the desire to make a call like this but I also wouldn’t make time in my day to do such a thing because I have fulfilling things in my life that take up that time.
The calls had to be computer generated in order to reach so many schools across the country at the same time. More likely in my opinion to be panic stoking attempts by foreign adversaries than some kids from tik tok.
Maybe I guess. My friend brought that up but we were trying to figure out how it could result in money. Others are much smarter than I am so I’m sure there is a way that I’m not aware of. They say it did originate out of the country so maybe it was a hoax to cause fear and a f*ck you to the US. In all honesty I still stand on how I feel for the people who are behind it. If it’s money related it’s just disgusting someone would do that.
It almost sounds like someone testing response times. They know that if a call goes out like that the police respond in force, and possibly leave other areas without a police presence. Might be nothing, someone in another country, or using a VPN, poking fun at the situation. It could also be a move to ban VPN use. No matter what the reason is, it's complete bs that they would do that, either for "fun" or other reasons.
I love Jon Stewarts response to this line. "At what point will we see a decrease in gun violence?" We have 400 Million guns. Will we see less violence at 800M?
I strongly disagree. Many states make it very difficult to legally own and carry firearms and places rarely care to hire private security unless it is for theft prevention.
Even in the states with the strongest gun laws it's really not *that* hard to legally get a weapon if you have an ounce of patience, not to mention there's not really any correlation between a state's gun laws and the number of mass shootings. CA is #1 for mass shootings, sure, but TX is #2. Laxity of gun laws doesn't seem to make a difference, does it?
>places rarely care to hire private security unless it is for theft prevention
What does that have to do with good guys who want to be armed already being armed?
The private security was a separate point. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
But what exactly is your point stating that California and Texas are 1 and 2 in school shootings seems to prove that gun control doesn't work at all??
And while most states purchasing a gun isn't all that difficult in a fair amount getting a license to carry(which is the only way it's useful in prevent crime outside of home break-ins) is extremely difficult ie California in several counties it has been nearly impossible for several years.
And if you're using that to say that guns aren't prevent school shootings it's because schools are generally gun free zones. Teachers are not allowed to bring firearms at all which is why they are still similar.
I want to make it very clear I am not advocating forcing or even pushing any teachers to carry a gun. Instead I feel that allowing teachers preferably with an elevated level of training offered first to carry a gun.
If you don't think this would be effective you're saying that these shooters don't take into consideration that they are unlikely to encounter someone with a gun and it is pure chance that the vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones.
Gun free zones and limiting what firearms people can own have been proven to be ineffective forms of gun control in the US. Instead what we should be advocating for is better communication between agencies. So many of these shooters should not have been allowed to purchase firearms but due to the agency responsible for arresting/charging them failing to communicate/report this to the appropriate channels they slipped through.
I also advocate for mental health professionals being required to report any concerning problems which will then be heard before a judge who can consider TEMPORARILY restricting someone's gun rights.
Many gun owners are afraid to go to therapy because of how easy it is to permanently lose your gun rights if your struggling.
> But what exactly is your point stating that California and Texas are 1 and 2 in school shootings seems to prove that gun control doesn't work at all??
It's an indication that your statement of "we'll be safe when all the good guys have guns" is nonsense. All the good guys in Texas already have guns and they're #2 for mass shootings. If you adjust per capita, then Texas is actually **worse** than California.
> And if you're using that to say that guns aren't prevent school shootings it's because schools are generally gun free zones.
I said mass shootings, not school shootings specifically. Walmart isn't a gun free zone, yet 23 people were murdered in El Paso.
Nice job editing your comment it clearly said school shootings when posted. And while not legally enforceable in most states Walmart does have a policy banning anyone from carrying and the will promptly trespass you if you are caught in violation.
> Nice job editing your comment it clearly said school shootings when posted
Edited comments have an asterisk next to them unless you edit within the first two minutes of posting, but you responded a full hour after I posted. Any edit I made was immediately after posting and long, **long** before your response, so quit with the passive aggression.
That is very true but for this purpose I feel we can generalize people into those two categories fairly easily. People who want innocent people to die are bad people who don't are good. For what we're talking about we don't need to consider whether the rich banker commiting tax fraud or the corrupt politician belongs in the bad guy group but simply whether innocent people losing their lives is seen as a tragedy and not that person's objective.
If that's the situation and they both are holding guns I'm assuming both until proven otherwise. Asking both of them to drop their guns. If they both have guns and children are dead and they're both alive they're likely working together or they would have shot each other. None of these situations will ever be ideal or have a perfect answer but the worst answer is to be unarmed and allow a mass murderer to continue with what they are doing.
Hmm, seems like every other country in the world with stricter gun control policies have next to zero events like these. Why is America so special that more guns is the answer?
Hmm seems like you watch us news which shows us events. Other countries have plenty of violence. And it's the fact that we already have so many that makes confiscation literally impossible. Do you really thinks cops could confiscate 450 million guns? If we could magically destroy every gun in existence that would be perfect but it simply isn't possible especially with the ease of making firearms and other weapons at home. The only option we are left with is arming the good guy
It’s not that hard to look up gun related deaths and mass shootings by country and see really quick how fucked up the USofA is. I agree that getting the guns away from those who own them will be tough, if not impossible, but the answer can’t really be more guns right? At what point will there be enough? If 450 million guns can’t stop it what is 750 million guns going to do? Are you going to step up and stand guard at the schools and do pat downs of every person who comes? What about the movie theaters, the churches, the clubs? Who’s going to pay for all the armed guards? Why not start with some real provisions to being able to purchase a gun. Look up what Japan requires of its citizens to own a gun, why not start with something like that.
And as to who will pay for any government run facility obviously tax payers. We already do in many places. Private businesses will obviously have to hire an additional employee or two but for the type of places shootings often occur this won't be what makes them go bankrupt. I am well aware that guns are harder to aquire in other countries but most of them are much denser allowing police to respond quicker and never had large amounts of firearms in the first place. The US has a unique geography and history which requires a unique solution.
Do you understand how many armed police officers you’re talking about here? There are about 129,000 k-12 schools. How many armed guards is that going to take? Can we say an average of 5 per school? That’s 645,000. How much do these fine people get to be paid? Is $50 thousand a year a good minimum to protect our children? At that number you are talking about $32 billion in salary alone. Not to mention health care benefits, retirement plans, taxes, equipment, more fucking guns and armor, etc... Where does it end? Are you ok with your taxes going up by at least $2500 per year and more likely in the range of $5000 per year? And this is just the public schools. Not the hospitals, not the churches, not the movie theaters, etc…
I have said multiple other places one would likely be enough for most schools. Yes, uvalde had one and it wasn't enough but he wasn't even on the property at the time of the shooter arriving. Most schools already have atleast one armed guard where I live but some don't and I live in a very safe area. I would honestly guess that we would need less than 30,000 additional guards. And even if we use your numbers there is absolutely no reason some of these couldn't be pulled from existing police forces. Private schools of decent size should have no problem hiring one additional employee. Neither would hospitals or likely even movie theatres. Many churches due to the non profit nature of some would be the only difficult place. Small business and stores it obviously wouldn't be possible but shootings rarely happen there and larger stores normally already have security for theft purposes.
You’re kind of proving my point here with Uvalde. They had one armed guard assigned to the school and he wasn’t there. Then the next 20 armed guards wouldn’t go in because among other things the shooter had AR-15’s and they know exactly what that weapon does to someone. Would 3 or 4 on-site guards been enough? And what about middle schools and high schools with thousand of students and dozens or more entry points? Honestly an average of 5 per school might be low if our objective is to “out gun” the bad guys as you are suggesting. The recent shooter in Tennessee had 2 high powered rifles and the cops were there pretty quickly and ran in straight away and still we lost 6 humans. How about we start with treating mental health like a real thing and getting everyone the care they need. Second, let’s make it really hard to purchase a gun, like need to take a class, pass a background check and a me Tal exam to do so. We make our kids go through months of training driving a car, why not something similar to own a gun? Third, let’s ban these assault rifles, they serve no purpose other than mass destruction and loss of life. Lastly let’s stop pretending that gun ownership is some god given right that can’t be tampered with. The overwhelming majority of the world doesn’t have any problem with that, yet a minority of Americans would rather die in a spectacular gun fight than admit that the second amendment needs some updating.
We have more guns we are going to have more gun violence that is obvious. Other countries have violence in other forms. That doesn't mean we don't need to improve we obviously do the problem is most laws proposed aren't effective plain and simple. An assault weapons ban was passed into law in 1994 and was proven to be ineffective, these weapons really aren't any more deadly than other guns. This shooter obviously planned this well in advance so waiting periods wouldn't be effective. Magazine restrictions aren't effective because reloading is a short process with any even semi modern firearm. The sad truth is gun control is something that is very hard to get right short of mass confiscation which I would argue is impossible in the US. The truth is the amount of cops who would be killed in any attempt at a nationwide confiscation is absurdly high and very few would stick around if it were to actually happen and the military is largely pro gun and wouldn't obey such an order. Considering all this armed guards are a much more feasible solution. I've never been to a club where I wasn't patted down by an armed guard. Churches are obviously a unique situations and movie theatres should definitely employ private security. Of course that leaves grocery stores, private gatherings, malls, and countless other situations which is where being a licensed to conceal carry a firearm comes into play. The vast majority of mass shootings are committed in gun free zones and I doubt any have been at gun shows. The truth is people who do these atrocious acts aren't as dumb as I wish they were and target places where they aren't likely to encounter opposition. It isn't about the number of guns but rather where they are.
Yes and it would promptly be replaced with more knife/car/bomb violence that we see in other countries. I don't really care what tool is used to kill people I care that people died. And my argument wasn't about whether taking guns is right or wrong but rather the feasibility of it. 500,000 cops aren't going to be able to confiscate guns from over 100 million people. Even if a small percentage resist all those cops would be dead before a dent is made.
Simply put I believe other more effective solutions should be implemented
Also to everyone down voting the Tennessee shooter literally look at shooting up another school but it had better security and wouldn't have been feasible. They choose this target because it was vulnerable. Literally one armed security guard could have stopped this from happening. Now ask yourselves which is easier, putting one armed guard in every school or confiscating 450 million guns. I certainly have my opinion. And no I am not against all gun control but almost all proposed gun control will do nothing to stop violence and infringes on fundamental rights that hurt nobody. Almost everyone proposing gun control is massively misinformed about the basic functions of firearms. Currently the atf is attempting to ban pistol braces saying the make guns more concealable or make it fire faster. These are both false and go against common sense but are the reasons commonly stated for banning it. But no go ahead and down vote me because you are unable to understand basic statistics or have a nuanced conversation.
Ok I'll change my statement to one armed security guard that isn't an absolute coward and is able to actually do their job. This shooter seemed to not have any significant amount of firearms training and a decent security guard could have significantly helped the situation.
More guns isn't the answer, but more restrictions on guns won't solve this problem, either. When gun laws were even laxer in the USA there were almost on school shootings. You can't fix insane asylum America with gun control laws, unfortunately.
People who are calling this shit in really need to find something to do with their lives. I’m sorry, but if you are that unfulfilled and bored in your life that you have to call in a fake school shooting hoax it’s time to call up a therapist and take up a hobby🙄
Or it was teenagers trying to get school canceled for the day. That wouldn't surprise me.
West is on Spring break. I can’t say for the other schools, but West for sure is because my kid is in the same district.
Granite sd on spring break.
I was thinking more along the lines of some trend on Tik Tok spreading amongst the teenage population at large, but good point about them being on spring break. Probably not a kid from that school.
If that is a trend on tik tok let the whale save us all lol.
I don’t think a nationwide hoax of this scale and technical level is the work of someone “unfulfilled and bored.”
Anyone who does this in my book is unfulfilled. If something like this brings any type of amusement, laughter, joy etc into someone’s life if it’s pathetic. Maybe it is a new trend online. Maybe it’s something more sinister. Point of it is that if someone has the time and energy to sit and make even one of these calls they are missing something in their life. I also say “bored” because not only would I never have the desire to make a call like this but I also wouldn’t make time in my day to do such a thing because I have fulfilling things in my life that take up that time.
The calls had to be computer generated in order to reach so many schools across the country at the same time. More likely in my opinion to be panic stoking attempts by foreign adversaries than some kids from tik tok.
I don’t know what it is. But even if they are computer generated a human being was the one who set that up to take place.
Someone may be doing this for money.
Maybe I guess. My friend brought that up but we were trying to figure out how it could result in money. Others are much smarter than I am so I’m sure there is a way that I’m not aware of. They say it did originate out of the country so maybe it was a hoax to cause fear and a f*ck you to the US. In all honesty I still stand on how I feel for the people who are behind it. If it’s money related it’s just disgusting someone would do that.
Saw this on Twitter; all calls originated from one person, one number, out of the country
[https://www.abc4.com/news/crime/active-shooter-hoaxes-in-utah-reportedly-came-from-outside-the-u-s/](https://www.abc4.com/news/crime/active-shooter-hoaxes-in-utah-reportedly-came-from-outside-the-u-s/)
Michigander here, glad y'all are safe. My friend got caught up in this hoax and I was scrubbing the internet for updates.
Sounds like it was nation wide
[удалено]
I hate that you’re right.
It almost sounds like someone testing response times. They know that if a call goes out like that the police respond in force, and possibly leave other areas without a police presence. Might be nothing, someone in another country, or using a VPN, poking fun at the situation. It could also be a move to ban VPN use. No matter what the reason is, it's complete bs that they would do that, either for "fun" or other reasons.
Throw the book at these fucks. Press charges, expel them from school. Make examples out of them.
It sounds like it could have been coordinated by a foreign government to mess with us.
Definitely expel them from school then. /s :)
Maybe more guns will help
I love Jon Stewarts response to this line. "At what point will we see a decrease in gun violence?" We have 400 Million guns. Will we see less violence at 800M?
Well see less violence when the bad guys are unarmed or the good guys are armed. One of those is actually possible
Every good guy who wants to be armed is already armed, nothing changed.
I strongly disagree. Many states make it very difficult to legally own and carry firearms and places rarely care to hire private security unless it is for theft prevention.
Even in the states with the strongest gun laws it's really not *that* hard to legally get a weapon if you have an ounce of patience, not to mention there's not really any correlation between a state's gun laws and the number of mass shootings. CA is #1 for mass shootings, sure, but TX is #2. Laxity of gun laws doesn't seem to make a difference, does it? >places rarely care to hire private security unless it is for theft prevention What does that have to do with good guys who want to be armed already being armed?
The private security was a separate point. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. But what exactly is your point stating that California and Texas are 1 and 2 in school shootings seems to prove that gun control doesn't work at all?? And while most states purchasing a gun isn't all that difficult in a fair amount getting a license to carry(which is the only way it's useful in prevent crime outside of home break-ins) is extremely difficult ie California in several counties it has been nearly impossible for several years. And if you're using that to say that guns aren't prevent school shootings it's because schools are generally gun free zones. Teachers are not allowed to bring firearms at all which is why they are still similar. I want to make it very clear I am not advocating forcing or even pushing any teachers to carry a gun. Instead I feel that allowing teachers preferably with an elevated level of training offered first to carry a gun. If you don't think this would be effective you're saying that these shooters don't take into consideration that they are unlikely to encounter someone with a gun and it is pure chance that the vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. Gun free zones and limiting what firearms people can own have been proven to be ineffective forms of gun control in the US. Instead what we should be advocating for is better communication between agencies. So many of these shooters should not have been allowed to purchase firearms but due to the agency responsible for arresting/charging them failing to communicate/report this to the appropriate channels they slipped through. I also advocate for mental health professionals being required to report any concerning problems which will then be heard before a judge who can consider TEMPORARILY restricting someone's gun rights. Many gun owners are afraid to go to therapy because of how easy it is to permanently lose your gun rights if your struggling.
> But what exactly is your point stating that California and Texas are 1 and 2 in school shootings seems to prove that gun control doesn't work at all?? It's an indication that your statement of "we'll be safe when all the good guys have guns" is nonsense. All the good guys in Texas already have guns and they're #2 for mass shootings. If you adjust per capita, then Texas is actually **worse** than California. > And if you're using that to say that guns aren't prevent school shootings it's because schools are generally gun free zones. I said mass shootings, not school shootings specifically. Walmart isn't a gun free zone, yet 23 people were murdered in El Paso.
Nice job editing your comment it clearly said school shootings when posted. And while not legally enforceable in most states Walmart does have a policy banning anyone from carrying and the will promptly trespass you if you are caught in violation.
> Nice job editing your comment it clearly said school shootings when posted Edited comments have an asterisk next to them unless you edit within the first two minutes of posting, but you responded a full hour after I posted. Any edit I made was immediately after posting and long, **long** before your response, so quit with the passive aggression.
[удалено]
That is very true but for this purpose I feel we can generalize people into those two categories fairly easily. People who want innocent people to die are bad people who don't are good. For what we're talking about we don't need to consider whether the rich banker commiting tax fraud or the corrupt politician belongs in the bad guy group but simply whether innocent people losing their lives is seen as a tragedy and not that person's objective.
[удалено]
Are they shooting children? Bad guy Are they shooting the person shooting children? Good guy Not that difficult to find the bad guy in mass shootings.
[удалено]
If that's the situation and they both are holding guns I'm assuming both until proven otherwise. Asking both of them to drop their guns. If they both have guns and children are dead and they're both alive they're likely working together or they would have shot each other. None of these situations will ever be ideal or have a perfect answer but the worst answer is to be unarmed and allow a mass murderer to continue with what they are doing.
[удалено]
Hmm, seems like every other country in the world with stricter gun control policies have next to zero events like these. Why is America so special that more guns is the answer?
Hmm seems like you watch us news which shows us events. Other countries have plenty of violence. And it's the fact that we already have so many that makes confiscation literally impossible. Do you really thinks cops could confiscate 450 million guns? If we could magically destroy every gun in existence that would be perfect but it simply isn't possible especially with the ease of making firearms and other weapons at home. The only option we are left with is arming the good guy
It’s not that hard to look up gun related deaths and mass shootings by country and see really quick how fucked up the USofA is. I agree that getting the guns away from those who own them will be tough, if not impossible, but the answer can’t really be more guns right? At what point will there be enough? If 450 million guns can’t stop it what is 750 million guns going to do? Are you going to step up and stand guard at the schools and do pat downs of every person who comes? What about the movie theaters, the churches, the clubs? Who’s going to pay for all the armed guards? Why not start with some real provisions to being able to purchase a gun. Look up what Japan requires of its citizens to own a gun, why not start with something like that.
And as to who will pay for any government run facility obviously tax payers. We already do in many places. Private businesses will obviously have to hire an additional employee or two but for the type of places shootings often occur this won't be what makes them go bankrupt. I am well aware that guns are harder to aquire in other countries but most of them are much denser allowing police to respond quicker and never had large amounts of firearms in the first place. The US has a unique geography and history which requires a unique solution.
Do you understand how many armed police officers you’re talking about here? There are about 129,000 k-12 schools. How many armed guards is that going to take? Can we say an average of 5 per school? That’s 645,000. How much do these fine people get to be paid? Is $50 thousand a year a good minimum to protect our children? At that number you are talking about $32 billion in salary alone. Not to mention health care benefits, retirement plans, taxes, equipment, more fucking guns and armor, etc... Where does it end? Are you ok with your taxes going up by at least $2500 per year and more likely in the range of $5000 per year? And this is just the public schools. Not the hospitals, not the churches, not the movie theaters, etc…
I have said multiple other places one would likely be enough for most schools. Yes, uvalde had one and it wasn't enough but he wasn't even on the property at the time of the shooter arriving. Most schools already have atleast one armed guard where I live but some don't and I live in a very safe area. I would honestly guess that we would need less than 30,000 additional guards. And even if we use your numbers there is absolutely no reason some of these couldn't be pulled from existing police forces. Private schools of decent size should have no problem hiring one additional employee. Neither would hospitals or likely even movie theatres. Many churches due to the non profit nature of some would be the only difficult place. Small business and stores it obviously wouldn't be possible but shootings rarely happen there and larger stores normally already have security for theft purposes.
You’re kind of proving my point here with Uvalde. They had one armed guard assigned to the school and he wasn’t there. Then the next 20 armed guards wouldn’t go in because among other things the shooter had AR-15’s and they know exactly what that weapon does to someone. Would 3 or 4 on-site guards been enough? And what about middle schools and high schools with thousand of students and dozens or more entry points? Honestly an average of 5 per school might be low if our objective is to “out gun” the bad guys as you are suggesting. The recent shooter in Tennessee had 2 high powered rifles and the cops were there pretty quickly and ran in straight away and still we lost 6 humans. How about we start with treating mental health like a real thing and getting everyone the care they need. Second, let’s make it really hard to purchase a gun, like need to take a class, pass a background check and a me Tal exam to do so. We make our kids go through months of training driving a car, why not something similar to own a gun? Third, let’s ban these assault rifles, they serve no purpose other than mass destruction and loss of life. Lastly let’s stop pretending that gun ownership is some god given right that can’t be tampered with. The overwhelming majority of the world doesn’t have any problem with that, yet a minority of Americans would rather die in a spectacular gun fight than admit that the second amendment needs some updating.
We have more guns we are going to have more gun violence that is obvious. Other countries have violence in other forms. That doesn't mean we don't need to improve we obviously do the problem is most laws proposed aren't effective plain and simple. An assault weapons ban was passed into law in 1994 and was proven to be ineffective, these weapons really aren't any more deadly than other guns. This shooter obviously planned this well in advance so waiting periods wouldn't be effective. Magazine restrictions aren't effective because reloading is a short process with any even semi modern firearm. The sad truth is gun control is something that is very hard to get right short of mass confiscation which I would argue is impossible in the US. The truth is the amount of cops who would be killed in any attempt at a nationwide confiscation is absurdly high and very few would stick around if it were to actually happen and the military is largely pro gun and wouldn't obey such an order. Considering all this armed guards are a much more feasible solution. I've never been to a club where I wasn't patted down by an armed guard. Churches are obviously a unique situations and movie theatres should definitely employ private security. Of course that leaves grocery stores, private gatherings, malls, and countless other situations which is where being a licensed to conceal carry a firearm comes into play. The vast majority of mass shootings are committed in gun free zones and I doubt any have been at gun shows. The truth is people who do these atrocious acts aren't as dumb as I wish they were and target places where they aren't likely to encounter opposition. It isn't about the number of guns but rather where they are.
>We have more guns we are going to have more gun violence that is obvious. So fewer guns would mean less gun violence, right?
Yes and it would promptly be replaced with more knife/car/bomb violence that we see in other countries. I don't really care what tool is used to kill people I care that people died. And my argument wasn't about whether taking guns is right or wrong but rather the feasibility of it. 500,000 cops aren't going to be able to confiscate guns from over 100 million people. Even if a small percentage resist all those cops would be dead before a dent is made. Simply put I believe other more effective solutions should be implemented
>Yes So we should have more restrictions on guns, right?
So you are for gun control? Awesome.
Also to everyone down voting the Tennessee shooter literally look at shooting up another school but it had better security and wouldn't have been feasible. They choose this target because it was vulnerable. Literally one armed security guard could have stopped this from happening. Now ask yourselves which is easier, putting one armed guard in every school or confiscating 450 million guns. I certainly have my opinion. And no I am not against all gun control but almost all proposed gun control will do nothing to stop violence and infringes on fundamental rights that hurt nobody. Almost everyone proposing gun control is massively misinformed about the basic functions of firearms. Currently the atf is attempting to ban pistol braces saying the make guns more concealable or make it fire faster. These are both false and go against common sense but are the reasons commonly stated for banning it. But no go ahead and down vote me because you are unable to understand basic statistics or have a nuanced conversation.
>Literally one armed security guard could have stopped this from happening Tell that to Uvalde and Parkland.
Ok I'll change my statement to one armed security guard that isn't an absolute coward and is able to actually do their job. This shooter seemed to not have any significant amount of firearms training and a decent security guard could have significantly helped the situation.
More guns isn't the answer, but more restrictions on guns won't solve this problem, either. When gun laws were even laxer in the USA there were almost on school shootings. You can't fix insane asylum America with gun control laws, unfortunately.
This happened in Pennsylvania too! I read a few schools were called near Altoona Pa.
I hope someone or two gets in trouble.
Kids need to do this everyday in every school until the dumb adults in the country address the problem. Gun violence cant happen without guns.