I wasted one of my 15 free articles this month on this content-free 94 word piece?

I could see how if you don't have a kid in this school or in any school in MV how you could view this article as a "waste". smh

If you hit your 15 article limit just clear your cookies, use a different browser, incognito mode, etc :)

The MV police announced on Nextdoor that they investigated this and found that no threat was ever made. The rumors were just that, rumors.

@MVHS Parent - are you saying there was no message to begin with? Or that there was a message and the school overreacted?

"I heard Troy said some crazy stuff last night about blowin' the school up"
"Really? Did he really post that?"
"That's what I heard."
"Damn, that's wild. Hey tnat's not right. We should probably tell someone"

Aaaaand Scene.

In all honesty, in light of recent events, it was the right response.

Or make a small monthly donation to support local journalism and read as many articles as you want.

It's not a bad thing for the Voice to reassure the community by saying:

"There was talk at MVHS on Tuesday that a student had posted a vague reference to threats affecting MVHS. Police and the administration thoroughly investigated the situation and determined that these rumors were exactly that, just false rumors."

Better yet, the Voice could reprint the announcement that was no doubt sent by email to MVHS parents.

Classic case of spreading false alarms so we dismiss the real ones.

Hey, at least someone got their "15 minutes of fame" and that's what it's really all about!

I mean all the actual school shooters have stated that fame was their primary motivation (among those who have left any information behind).

We have raised a "Facebook" generation where every teenager "feels" they are entitled to fame and will do anything to get fame.

I saw a totally unrelated TV interview with some actors talking about the performing arts and one well-known actor stated that the "most addictive drug" ever invented is fame and fame has become the most desired drug more important than anything else and people will literally do anything to get fame.

People these days will kill or to get fame and the news media is all too happy to make killers famous if they kill people with a gun, the more people you kill, the more fame the media gives you, if you use an AR-15 the media will repeat your name and every detail of your entire life over and over and over for decades to come.

In the past, cowardly nobody's who wanted fame had to kill a celebrity, like JFK, Lincoln, MLK, John Lennon, etc. But when celebrities started protecting themselves with guns and/or bodyguards armed with guns, then these fame-seekers had to switch to attack other soft-targets to get their fame-fix. And the media has made sure that every one of these cowards not only get famous, they get talked about for decades and get their pictures all over every TV screen in the world!

Not that anyone cares about facts.

Certainly, that must mean the intentional homicide rate per capita in the UK is the same as that in the United States, since taking away all those guns didn't affect the criminals. Wait, what's that? It's lower? Huh...

Not that you actually care about facts.

My mistake, you're soamming the same line you think is really clever in every article. Move that comment to the other one where you're posting your pro-gun screeds.

@@LiberalGuns

Classic illogical assumptions of the gun-haters

"Certainly, that must mean the intentional homicide rate per capita in the UK is the same as that in the United States,"

I never said anything of the kind and your assertion is utter non-sense.

What matters is CHANGE OVER TIME within each jurisdiction.

For example, the height of gunshot homicides in USA history was in 1990 and the USA had maybe 140 million guns only about a third were semi-auto. Today the gunshot homicide rate is LOWER than it has been since the 1950s and we now have about 350 Million guns, the majority are semi-autos.

In other words, more guns AND less gunshot homicides and less total gunshot deaths of all sorts. In fact, today for ALL types of violent crimes the USA is SAFER than it has since the 1950s.

In the UK the rate of violent crimes and homicides went UP in the decades since the UK near total gun confiscations.

"...since taking away all those guns didn't affect the criminals."

No, the criminals were "effected" by outlawing guns the criminals got RICHER by smuggling more guns into the UK! The criminals in the UK who want guns can still get them.

So, for the UK, a near total confiscation of all guns in the UK has resulted in HIGHER violent crime rates and HIGHER total homicide rates.

The culture of the UK is vastly different from the many cultures of the USA. The USA has long ago basically abandoned the old culture of the "great melting pot" and instead has chosen to focus on the differences between people. We have become a nation where everyone cares more about the nation where their ancestors came from and making up excuses to hate the USA and any of the "other" groups of people in the USA.

Comparisons between different jurisdictions on anything as complex as violent crime is meaningless because there are way too many variables.
If you care about scientific facts, you study jurisdictions as individuals and see how changes occur over decades of time.

Not that anyone cares about facts. Or actual science for that matter.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Let a gun-obsessive rant for a few minutes and they can't help themselves with the dogwhistles. Tell me more about our "nation where everyone cares more about the nation where their ancestors came from and making up excuses to hate the USA and any of the "other" groups of people in the USA."

Why is it that when the NRA shills come on, it's always the same unhinged rant that comes out?

Haven't they received new talking points from their masters in Moscow?