School shootings and US Gun Control

[TheGlyphstone]

As far as your first point - if your definition of 'pro-gun' is 'opposed to unilateral and involuntary mass disarmament', then I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread and most of the gun-control advocates in the country are also 'pro-gun'. While I suspect your projections of the theoretical outcome are very accurate, I'm not sure why you felt the need to come out swinging so passionately against it when nobody here has suggested it at all.

For your second - how many school shooters can you name or remember who were captured alive? They either kill themselves, or are killed by police after refusing to surrender. They're not going in with escape plans or any expectation of survival, so the idea that arming teachers or adding additional security officers would somehow deter them appears to be fundamentally flawed. All it would ultimately do is increase the number of bullets flying in both directions, or as Cyanide and Happiness satirically puts it:

[Notorious]

"Swinging passionately"? - Eh... I don't really think it was that passionate. I was just sharing my point of view with some detailed, personal insight to the way things sort of function in my community and regarding the way that I grew up in my part of the country. I'm not really that passionate on the topic at all. I was just bored, and admittedly a little baked and "in the zone", lol. :P

Sure, and I would agree in regards to the teachers. They have no responsibility to carry and can't be forced or expected to carry firearms to better protect schools, but having a few more people on the security detail of some of these schools could definitely help in keeping stuff like this from happening as frequently. Sure you could say "bullets flying in both directions doesn't make things better", but bullets flying in one direction alone and completely unopposed is guaranteed to cost us more lives every time. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”, right? I think they credit Burke for saying that, even though I'm not 100% that it's true or not that it actually came out of his mouth or from the tip of his pen. I'd say the quote still rings true though, right? When no one counters the horrific endeavors of mad men then things like this will occur and it won't stop until the monster gets bored or someone brave enough steps forward to challenge them. Seems almost archaic, but it's also the purpose of the Police, the Military and so on to protect and keep order. So yeah, long walk for a short glass of water just to say that I think a few more security guards would certainly help, in my opinion.

[Beorning]

Okay, some quick points here:

1. As Glyphstone pointed out, the presence of armed teachers or guards in schools wouldn't be a deterrent to many of the school shooters, because these people *don't think straight*. If they were thinking straight, they wouldn't have done these things. They certainly don't seem to be making rational calculations regarding their survival... I'd even risk saying that, for some of them, conducting a mass shooting might be a covert form of extended suicide.

2. Also - sorry, but I really do think that "a good guy with a gun" that stops a mass shooting or other crime in progress, is a myth. How many times have this actually worked? For some "good guy" to stop a shooter, you don't need only guns in the hands of the teachers etc. You need to have this people trained in *using these guns in combat situations*. Otherwise, most of these people will just freeze or get themselves or others killed. And seriously - do you really want to turn your schools into fortresses? Schools should be safe learning enviroments, not paramilitary camps where teachers are trained to shoot and kill.

3. In general, I'd like to see some trustworthy statistics on how many ordinary people managed to successfully defend themselves from criminals using firearms. How many people were able to prevent being mugged in the street by pulling out a gun? How many cases of that "criminals invade a rural home" scenario have actually happened?

4. Most importantly: Notorious, none of what you wrote actually answers my biggest headscratchers. As in: even if we assume Americans need guns for personal protection, why can't you institute some kind of license you need to get before you buy a gun? Also, do you really need AR-15s to protect yourself on the street or at home? Finally, why can't you do such basic things like the ones suggested in Beau's video - like raising the minimum age for gun owner to 21?

[Psi]

Brief summary - Politicians like Ted Cruz are saying that the best way to stop school shootings is to make schools so that they have only one aperture to cover both entering and leaving.  I'm not sure why this shows up as 'sports news' on Yahoo (unless pointing out how ridiculous Ted Cruz is has become a sport) but here's a text article on Cruz's statement.

So how does every other school in the world operate without mass shootings if the problem is “doors”

Correct me if I’m wrong but just about every school shooting is usually either a current or recently left student - still young enough that I would question the ease they got their hands on so many firearms.

Make them much harder to get at that age.  You can do that without needing mass buybacks although here in Australia we did have buybacks and it worked successfully and people who still want firearms have avenues to get them as long as they follow the checks and balances.

You want a firearm.   Sure.   But for the first x years it’s kept in an armoury at a shooting club until your 25 or if you want it before then and 21 if you undertake x weeks training by someone that’s qualified to assess your skills and your mental state.   

At least if you did hours of training then you might be able to make more of an argument that it’s “a trained militia” rather than a storm the capital style of group.

And the style of firearm could increase the more training you undertake.

If your regional and need it on the land despite your age - single shot or very low capacity.   

You don’t need a high capacity firearm to deal with feral animals.

[Beorning]

Something I saw on FB regarding the idea of arming the teachers:

[Beorning]

Something more on the subject - an old video from Beau on the practicality of armed teachers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o1l2LQGyP8

[RedRose]

When did shootings start in America? Bullying and social problems are nothing new. Little house in the prairie has some strong bullying (the real book). I could skim through if I find it, but it seems they even beat the teacher up.

[Lustful Bride]

When did shootings start in America? Bullying and social problems are nothing new. Little house in the prairie has some strong bullying (the real book). I could skim through if I find it, but it seems they even beat the teacher up.

Honestly I'd say the first mass shooting as we think of them began in Texas back in 1966 with the Belltower Shooting.

After that they have slowly been getting more frequent, more violent, and more costly in innocent lives.

[TeamVelma]

Honestly I'd say the first mass shooting as we think of them began in Texas back in 1966 with the Belltower Shooting.

After that they have slowly been getting more frequent, more violent, and more costly in innocent lives.

The Belltower shooting was an odd one if I recall, I think the shooters autopsy showed he had a brain tumour which could have had an impact on his behaviour.

IMO America doesn't have a gun problem per se, it's far more deep that that there are lots of guns about, it's that you have (from the outside it seems) and increasingly angry and intolerant culture that happens to be awash with firearms.

[Twisted Crow]

Uh, to add to my 'doors' comment earlier, I am really hoping nobody actually took that seriously given that it was a Late Night with Seth Meyers link. Figured my eyeroll would be enough to convey that I wasn't serious but I think I might need to think about adding more clarity in the same such posts in the future.  ;D

[TheGlyphstone]

We do believe Ted Cruz was serious about it, though. That's mostly what we think is funny.

[Twisted Crow]

Oh yeah, that part doesn't shock me since I never particularly had faith in anything Ted ever spews. What scares me (and why I had felt the need to correct that) is the public nature of PROC. That I fear that someone actually might think Ted's solutions should be taken at all seriously.

[Twisted Crow]

Something else I wanted to share in this discussion were somethings that spoke to me from Jon Stewart. These were from about six months ago?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ju6XKCEpL8

Linking this part of the show because, while largely satirical in nature, comedy might not be what everyone wants 'right up in their face' in this thread. But, I do feel that some progress could be made here in what Jon is swinging at. Perfect solution? A shocking revelation for most people in the thread? Nah, but I think it might be another start in these discussions.

What Can We Do About Gun Violence? | The Problem With Jon Stewart

[Oniya]

Oh yeah, that part doesn't shock me since I never particularly had faith in anything Ted ever spews. What scares me (and why I had felt the need to correct that) is the public nature of PROC. That I fear that someone actually might think Ted's solutions should be taken at all seriously.

I figured you were face-palming at Ted Cruz - which was why I posted the followup text article as I did.  I was also checking to make sure that he had made the 'doors' comment post-shooting, and that it wasn't some older soundbite.  I've now installed a pillow on my desk to prevent face-plant injuries.

I think most of us here are bright enough to assume that a piece done by a popular comedian is going to be mocking the idea pretty savagely, whether or not it's presented in a 'Modest Proposal' form.  (I confess, I didn't watch to see how Seth presented it, but I know someone like George Carlin would have been capable of building it up with apparent earnestness until it collapsed under reductio ad absurdum.)

[Twisted Crow]

To sum up my take on 'enforcement' (just in case no one wants to bother with either video) happens to be a lot of what Jon appears to drive at. It is my opinion that we should be actually cracking down on domestic violence (and those with such a record) in the 'long-game' interest of reducing the damage and the potential for more mass shootings.

As Jon even points out... is it a 'solution'? Not exactly, but I believe it's a place we can start if we can get the right and left to agree that everyone would benefit from such an arrangement. Er... well, perhaps not the NRA, I suppose.  :-\

[Oniya]

Beau added in 'animal cruelty' - which is also on the general serial-killer-warning-list.  (I've watched a lot of true crime in my day.)  Basically, if you have a demonstrated desire and willingness to harm someone/something completely helpless, you probably shouldn't be given the ability to increase your damage per second.

[Twisted Crow]

^ Definitely another point and item we should add here, for sure!

[Beorning]

I must say that this idea of having school buildings with only one entrance / exit really boggles my mind. Does Ted Cruz and the NRA people really think it's a good idea? Or are they just deliberately proposing things like that to generate noise and distract from actual (if inconvenient to them) solutions?

Because if they really think it's a good idea... then their lack of common sense and disconnect from real life is terrifying. A building with hundreds of people and a single exit? Shootings aside, what if there's a fire hazard? Have these guys never heard of incidents when panicked people ended up trampling themselves to death in small spaces???

Seriously...

[Twisted Crow]

Honestly, I just think that's more misdirection. But if Ted really thinks that's going to work, it's not. And as Veks (and Seth in the video) pointed out, that's a plan that will create worse situations for the kids and staff at these schools. Not just for shootings, but one simple fire drill excercise (something schools still do, I'm pretty sure) would demonstrate how that would elevate risk factors for those in attendance.

[Twisted Crow]

I mean, depending on the size of the school, of course. But the point still stands (and I think we can all agree), it's just a terrible idea and more flimsy Ted Cruz bullshit.

[Oniya]

Honestly, I just think that's more misdirection. But if Ted really thinks that's going to work, it's not. And as Veks (and Seth in the video) pointed out, that's a plan that will create worse situations for the kids and staff at these schools. Not just for shootings, but one simple fire drill excercise (something schools still do, I'm pretty sure) would demonstrate how that would elevate risk factors for those in attendance.

According to Little Oni, these are still a thing.  Nah - Ted's just trying to point the finger away from things that would actually work.  Its the whole 'You haven't even tried my suggestion.' tactic.

[Notorious]

1. Which I agreed with, just so you're aware. I don't think teachers have any business trying to handle firearms as though it's somehow their responsibility when it's not and they're not getting paid extra money for helping to secure the school. I do, however, feel like if some teachers did choose to carry a firearm plus the school having security would certainly help to combat school shooter situations as long as they're trained to and knowledgeable regarding how to handle them. I don't see how there's any argument for that, but in my scenario the teachers are firstly choosing to carry and secondly are trained well in the handling of said firearm.

2. I mean... there's that video of the old dude pulling out his pistol at the church and blowing away the Texas Church Shooter, right? That happened a couple of years ago and that was literally caught on live stream because the church was streaming their service I believe. Here's the link to that story:

Linky Link

Texas Church Shooter

"How many times have this actually worked? For some "good guy" to stop a shooter, you don't need only guns in the hands of the teachers etc. You need to have this people trained in *using these guns in combat situations*. Otherwise, most of these people will just freeze or get themselves or others killed." - I kind of felt like the whole training thing was implied, but I guess not. Anyway, yes. The teachers would need to be well trained and it would have to be an elective responsibility.

"And seriously - do you really want to turn your schools into fortresses? Schools should be safe learning enviroments, not paramilitary camps where teachers are trained to shoot and kill." - I mean... I don't want any guns in schools at all, actually. I'd prefer no security too, personally. So no, I don't want schools to become fortresses, obviously. I think you might not be understanding that I'm very indifferent with politics and have my feet firmly planted in the middle isle. I want the same things that most Democrat voters want, actually, but the place where myself and most Democrats disagree is HOW we get those things that we want mutually. I feel like a lot of Democrats aren't understanding the impracticality of their desires. Like the "go green" initiatives that we hear about pretty frequently. I want to go green too, but shutting down all of the power plants in this country would destroy it pretty much over night, and if we did shut down all of those plants and dared to look at China with expectant expressions they would tell us to go fuck ourselves and we'd still have an enormous carbon emotions problem that we could do nothing about. But that's a potential tangent. I won't go on that journey, lol.

3. "In general, I'd like to see some trustworthy statistics on how many ordinary people managed to successfully defend themselves from criminals using firearms. How many people were able to prevent being mugged in the street by pulling out a gun? How many cases of that "criminals invade a rural home" scenario have actually happened?" - You could ask the exact same question and replace the word "firearms" with "mace", and guns are FAR more efficient at deterring unwanted visitors than mace could ever be. And if mace is less efficient than firearms then we should send out the message to all women that they can toss their useless mace cannisters. Yeah?

4. "why can't you institute some kind of license you need to get before you buy a gun?" - I thought some states did actually require licenses to purchase rifles, but I honestly can't remember which ones... at least above a certain caliber, I know you have to have a license for SOME, but something small like 5.56 might be an exception.

"Also, do you really need AR-15s to protect yourself on the street or at home? Finally, why can't you do such basic things like the ones suggested in Beau's video - like raising the minimum age for gun owner to 21?" - Well most AR-15 rifles are chambered in 5.56/.223. In fact the AR-15 sort of got pigeonholed in the gun community as the 5.56/.223 weapon style of choice, and by extension I consider M4 models to sort of get that same type of association with 5.56/.223, but that's just a personal opinion. You can chamber AR-15 style rifles in higher or lower calibers too, of course, but most tend to be in that sort of standard 5.56/.223 caliber.

I say that to illustrate a point. A standard 5.56/.223 round minus the cartridge is about the same size as a 9mm chambered pistol and these are not very large rounds at all. Both of these rounds are intended to be higher penetration rather than stopping power rounds like a .45 chambered firearm would be, for example. So actually a typical AR-15 rifle, which would most likely be chambered in 5.56/.223, actually makes an exceptional home defense firearm along with the 9mm pistol. At least if you shoot someone with a 5.56/.223 chambered weapon it would have a high likelihood to just pass straight through muscle tissue and not do much damage. If you use a shotgun with a slug you could put a hole the size of a softball in someone's chest... If I'm about to take a shot I might very well prefer to take a 5.56/.223 over any other round, to be honest. x D

As for raising the minimum gun age to 21 years of age? Uh... yeah, go for it. I'd be all for that, actually. I totally support it.




@Psi - "You don't need a high capacity firearm to deal with feral animals."

"High Capacity" is really more in reference to 50 round mags, 60 round mags, 75 round mags and drum mags and stuff that can hold 100+ rounds. Most don't really think about it, but 30 round mags really aren't high capacity, at least in regards to industry standards and such. They're more of a baseline/standard for 5.56 and 7.62 chambered weapons primarily, just like a number of other variously chambered weapons which would also come equipped with clips of something like 20 to 25 or 30 round mags. That being said, though, you certainly do not need 25 or 30 round mags in order to hunt, and I can totally understand that side of the left leaning argument. I'm inclined to agree that 5 to 10 round clips would be far more appropriate for rifle owners to be using in America, but I don't personally believe that changing this will have any profound effect on a person's ability to get a their hands on a gun and ultimately cause a nightmare scenario. And yes, I know that the argument is more about how MUCH damage someone can cause in shorter amounts of time because of higher capacity magazines, but most people don't even own REAL high capacity magazines in the first place because 30 is pretty standard for AR and AK models. If we could make some slight adjustments so that they be produced with 10 round mags instead and if we could eventually have that become the standard, though? Yeah, I would definitely be in support of limiting clip capacity, personally.



Additionally I don't take anything seriously that a politician says because I've been so disenchanted by the Republicans and the Democrats over the years, but if Cruz did say that and meant it, well, it wouldn't surprise me. I just think that it could also be performative bullshit meant to ruffle feathers too. Republicans love saying dumb shit just to get under Democrat voter's skins and these days it's harder to figure out if the Cruz types of the political world are actually serious or not. If he was serious, though? Well... I'd say it serves as a perfect example for why I don't listen to shit he or any of the rest of them say. They're all so full of shit it's absolutely mind blowing that we vote for these people.

Like... genuinely blows me away that we went from Obama to TRUMP... TO BIDEN... how the fuck are we here? Holy shit it's a horror movie.    x D

[Iniquitous]

I'll just leave these here for my opinions on the matter of guns.



and

[Notorious]

@Iniquitous - Regarding that Unobtainium Daydreams tweet the process in Japan appears to be so convoluted that the average citizen can't meet all of these expectations and if they actually do meet expectation then it takes a very unreasonable amount of time and resources which in the end makes going through all of the trouble of getting a gun in the first place a nightmare and not worth it. It's not really solving a puzzle if the puzzle doesn't really exist to begin with, right? That's why Republicans are so obnoxious about their gun rights. Because they're under the impression that "you don't really need to ban guns if you can just put enough barriers between guns and citizens that it makes no sense to want to try and get one for all of the trouble", so they refuse to compromise now on anything. Now we just have two parties that won't budge on a damn thing.

Buddy of mine is from Japan, actually, and he's very conservative and a big 2A guy. It surprised me a lot, but to each their own. I'm not nearly so worried about it as he is. He also told me that he's basically shunned from one side of his family who still lives in Japan and can't visit home anymore because his beliefs run so counter to the very Liberal leaning views of the rest of his family. Kinda messed up, but... I dunno. People and politics make such a bad combination.

[Iniquitous]

@Notorious -

That is the point.  There are too many guns in the hands of citizens, it's too easy to get guns in this country.  The state I live in doesn't even require a permit to own a gun anymore and that means this state is just a mass shooting waiting to happen. Hell, it hasn't even been a month since a high school graduate was killed at his graduation by another graduating student.

I don't believe that 2A was meant to be set in stone for all eternity.  Obviously, there is a problem - no one can truthfully say there isn't one.  If the republicans want to scream it is a mental health issue then make health care universal so it can be addressed. (They won't)

Teachers don't get paid enough as is to just teach our kids (not to mention the republicans are making it harder by banning books and demanding they not teach actual history to the kids because it makes the republicans uncomfortable) and they don't have the budget to buy supplies so don't tell me the county governments are suddenly going to have the budget to purchase firearms, ammo, AND the cost of training every teacher so they can be armed. That's bullshit.  Not to mention, that makes the teacher target #1 for a shooter intent on taking out as many as he can before he dies.  Sure, let's put a target on their backs while we deny them pay raises, deny them the budget for supplies needed to actually teach our kids, and suddenly expect them to take a bullet for our kids.

No one needs a personal arsenal of assault weapons. No one needs several thousand rounds of ammunition.  As it stands right now, I am so thoroughly happy that my children are out of school and I do not have grandchildren yet because I can promise you this - I would not be sending them to school. I'd find the money to hire a private tutor and have them homeschooled.