School shootings and US Gun Control

[Kurogane]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/may/24/texas-elementary-school-shooting-uvalde-latest

Is there an end?

When will we care about all our children?

[Vekseid]

And end? Personally, I think something has to happen to a lot of the people who vote, before they consider it. Or something so extreme no amount of talking over it will hide the truth.



And this case is horrifying in an entirely different way.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent, “The Court’s decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel.” She called the ruling “perverse” and “illogical,” which doesn’t really do justice to its utter obscenity..

The current court is a travesty on many levels.

[Psi]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/may/24/texas-elementary-school-shooting-uvalde-latest

Is there an end?

When will we care about all our children?

Give the people the vote, don’t just let the politicians decide. Let everyone have their voice heard. 
Don’t limit it by state or county - do a straight up percentage of the US population.

It might surprise them how much support is out there for action against the rules and behaviours that allow this type of tragedy to occur.

[RedRose]

I don't understand the whole gun freedom. I say that as someone who actually can shoot (my dad had such background and wanted me to know). I am glad it is not legal here unless you're a cop or something.

As for me, I'm hearing of the "4 day week" again and not believing it will happen anytime soon, but I'd love it.

[Beorning]

I don't understand the whole gun freedom. I say that as someone who actually can shoot (my dad had such background and wanted me to know). I am glad it is not legal here unless you're a cop or something.

Yeah. And, if anything, why should it be possible for civilians to buy assault weapons? I could understand an argument for owning a handgun or a hunting rifle... but semi-automatic combat firearm? What law-abiding citizen needs this kind of thing?

[greenknight]

For almost 250 years, the US's legal framework for a military/national defense can best be summed up as "the Red Dawn scenario." Futzing with that has (not could, it absolutely has) been used as an excuse to disenfranchise segments of the population. Gun control in America became a major issue to be championed by Ronald Reagan after armed constituents came to see him in Sacramento when he was California's governor, constituents of segment he didn't particularly want to see armed.

That media influencers are promulgating conspiracy theories amounting to shouting fire in a crowded theater is not going to be meaningfully addressed. I'll let you figure out why.... 

[RedRose]

Yeah. And, if anything, why should it be possible for civilians to buy assault weapons? I could understand an argument for owning a handgun or a hunting rifle... but semi-automatic combat firearm? What law-abiding citizen needs this kind of thing?

Oh yes, I won't say some country peasants do not have a rifle, often old/family... But somehow they don't do shootings at malls or worse. I also have visited or lived in countries allowing guns, but there was control... Think Switzerland, or others.

[Psi]

It’s possible for civilians to have firearms, even high powered ones as long as the government does due diligence, it’s tracked and there is some accountability in the system.   Even here in AU I can name people who have guns.   But it’s on one hand, it’s not everyone - and I know the checks and balances they work with to have them.

In my view the “US” as a whole has an unhealthy fetish (ironic mentioning that phrase here) with guns and cannot see past  big money and the NRA.    Both of whom I think are out of touch with many segments of the population out there both within the US and without.

I think what they are forgetting is that the “right to bear arms” is an amendment to the constitution.   
What has been amended once, could be again if someone has the balls to push the process through.

The only thing I fear is how many schools will have these events, how many children will either die as a result of a lack of common sense' or be traumatised by so many shootings before change occurs.
I know there are other first world countries that have high gun to population ratios' but I believe they also require national service as well.   Which means the ownership of said gun is trained to a military level and if they were not mentally stable would not have been.

It can be done, and it won’t be cheap, and it would take years.   But you can start somewhere, and maybe start with the acquisition of guns to begin with.   When you can get a gun legally at 18 but can’t drink legally until your 21 somewhere priorities got screwed up. 

Maybe just flip it around as a first step, let people grow up and mature a few more years before you place a loaded weapon into their hands.

[greenknight]

No country in the world has a privately held gun per capita ratio like the US. 2017 estimates put the number at greater than 1, perhaps as high as 1.2. The closest was the Falklands at ~0.6 and Yemen at ~0.5. European countries range from 0 to almost 0.4, notably higher in gun-exporting countries (as is the US), Northern Europe, and the former Yugoslavian successors. (Also, a "military level" is akin to Antonio Banderas' "Pointy end goes in other man" from his training session in The Mask of Zorro. And some folks are better at hiding their "idiosyncrasies" or have ones that are seen as beneficial in the military context.)

The US also has (blatantly racist, even in context) foundational myths fueling a legal framework that expects an armed population to be the primary deterrent and defense from invasion. By themselves, these both individually put severe limits on the ability to functionally restrict gun ownership. Add that American gun control has a long history of its own racist objectives fueling an additional objection to it.

[Lustful Bride]

The US also has (blatantly racist, even in context) foundational myths fueling a legal framework that expects an armed population to be the primary deterrent and defense from invasion. By themselves, these both individually put severe limits on the ability to functionally restrict gun ownership. Add that American gun control has a long history of its own racist objectives fueling an additional objection to it.

This is a part many people forget. We do indeed have gun laws. A lot of them, they just vary state by state and tend to be enforced in a limp wristed manner. Unless the person is disabled, poor, or a person of color. Then the laws seem to mysteriously crack down harder, while Jimbo and Insurrectionist Billy Bob (or super owners who have a dozen + guns and flash them openly in public but have enough money to brush off the consequences) never seem to be given the same level of punishments or attention until they do something violent.

[TheGlyphstone]

I've always believed it to be something along the lines of a deep-seared cultural PTSD, almost. The founding myth we've enshrined is of, as mentioned, armed civilians rebelling en masse to throw off oppression by a hostile government. So at some level, a large portion of the population is convinced we might have to do it again, a portion that has grown larger and more vocal in recent years as anti-government conspiracies have found new soil to grow in.

[Beorning]

I have two questions here:

1. What gun laws are there in the US, exactly? The accounts of how some people (like that recent shooter) obtain weapons seem to suggest that, in some states, you simply go into a shop and buy a gun, a rifle etc. As if it was a dishwasher or something...

2. I wonder if that "right to bear arms" constitutional amendment really means that such a wide range of firearm types should be available to the public? As I said before: I seriously can't imagine any justification for civilians to be allowed to purchase semi-automatic or automatic rifles. This kind of firearm is assault weaponry, you just don't use such guns to defend yourself or your home (unless, I don't know... there *are* regions in the States that are plagued by packs of man-eating mutant beasts or something... *snicker*). Does US Constitution really dictate such weapons should be available on the market? If so, where's the line? If assault rifles can be owned by civilians, why not rocket launchers? Heck, why not fighter planes? All of these fall under "arms"...

BTW. I wonder when will the myth of "we need weapons to defend ourselves against potentially oppressive government" be busted? This isn't 18th century anymore, modern oppressive governments don't operate simply by brute force. If America ever turns into a dictatorship, guns will not protect the public. The world just doesn't work that way anymore...

[TheGlyphstone]

Frankly, that is a complex and thorny enough topic that it deserves its own thread if you want to start one.

[greenknight]

American gun control has a history of being aimed at disarming people of color, full stop. Massachusetts explicitly outlawing black ownership of weapons post Civil War and using their subsequent disability to properly muster for militia service as an excuse for disenfranchisement. And the modern version started by the Mulford Act, signed by then Gov. Reagan.

I've always believed it to be something along the lines of a deep-seared cultural PTSD, almost. The founding myth we've enshrined is of, as mentioned, armed civilians rebelling en masse to throw off oppression by a hostile government. So at some level, a large portion of the population is convinced we might have to do it again, a portion that has grown larger and more vocal in recent years as anti-government conspiracies have found new soil to grow in.

It's more the good folk have to defend the land from "the savages" (that they are likely encroaching on is not mentioned.)
US gun laws are generally the following. Main laws are National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), and Gun Owners Bill of Rights of 1986:

   
• You cannot own one if you are a minor (varying age definitions but handguns ownership is federally restricted to 21 years old.) Depending on circumstance, even minors can carry unsupervised (such as 14 year olds engaged in farm work unsupervised. There's snakes and other aggressive wildlife.)
• Transferring a weapon to a prohibited person is a crime in and of itself. This is why background checks are required from dealers. they can't reasonably know everyone who comes into their shop and lacking a background check infrastructure opens them to obscene amounts of liability. Some states expand background check requirements to all gun transfers, even gifts between family members.
• No direct mail order sales (because that's how Oswald got his S-M rifle that he killed Kennedy with.)
• Machine gun ownership is registered. No machine guns made or registered after 1986 for private ownership. There have been a couple for registration amnesties since, but the manufacturing date has never been waived. Interstate travel for these and other NFA items is restricted and generally requires pre-coordination.
• General laws against "brandishing" weapons, which depending on locale can be as loose as openly carrying a pistol in a holster or as restrictive as actually aiming it at someone.
• Varying levels of requirements for concealed carry.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, it isn't just an amendment, it was one of the requirements the most states mandated before they would consider discussing adopting the US Constitution. Its purpose was to prevent the national government from disarming the states and their citizens to claim greater power, based on the aforementioned Red Dawn scenario of US national defense. Remember that prior to the US Civil War, "the United states are" was the prevailing syntax. States saw themselves as separate national entities and "the United States" more as an organizational treaty, similar to the EU, and wanted a bit of security from the others, especially if they were giving up other powers such as a ban in interstate tariffs and forming a common navy. Each state wanted to preserve its militia, by definition the armed public body who will take up their own arms as needed.

Back to my first point, this is how Massachusetts disenfranchised part of their population. The state had a long history of regular drilling of the militia, said musters also being used to validate the jury and voting rolls. The American tradition, later codified via the Congress power in the Constitution to specify the equipping and training of the militia, was that each man would muster with his musket, 40 rounds of ammunition, and three days of food. Because the black population of Massachusetts were prohibited from the first two, they couldn't satisfactorily present themselves for muster. And thus, they were "choosing" to disqualify themselves from jury duty, so why should they be allowed to vote if they "chose" to "abandon" their other civic responsibilities. Yeah, that happened.
To the point about rocket launchers and fighters, yeah, those are legal, but they are all registered and controlled like machine guns  per the NFA. As well as each round of ammunition. I could legally make an RPG and rockets in my garage (they aren't super advanced) and legally register them with the ATF. I will be on the hook for each rocket I build until I certify that I have expended it. Regarding fighters, they have an additional level of FAA oversight just for their general aviation aspect (we tend to not like big, explosive things falling out of the sky), and thus modern combat aircraft are generally prohibited on the basis of a private owners' inability to keep them flight worthy. But if you want a P-51, go wild. There are no special requirements over and above any other prop-driven aircraft, and the only restriction you'll face is if you want to rearm it with its machine guns. You run into all the NFA, FAA, and other restrictions about shooting guns on or from aircraft.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'd add DC vs. Heller to the list, as even though it's not a law per say, it was the landmark Supreme Court ruling that explicitly codified and legalized personal firearm ownership independent and separate from the constitutionally mandated militia.

[Beorning]

Hmmmm. This is very interesting. Could we split it into another thread?

[greenknight]

If that's the case, US vs. Miller is also important because it upheld a ban on sawed-off shotguns because they aren't normal military arms.

[Oniya]

Hmmmm. This is very interesting. Could we split it into another thread?

Done. 

[Azy]

It is definitely American culture. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbXTDuwSVkk

This is the first video he posted about the subject three years ago.  There was something I couldn't put my finger on exactly when thinking about the issue, but when I watched this I think he nailed it.  This was the third in a series, and the first two were more gun education.  In several videos he mentions that a gun is a tool, but no one is on Facebook posing with a power drill, only an AR15 because it looks badass.  Our action movies are full of gun battles and explosions.  It is a bit of a fetish.     

[stormwyrm]

To the point about rocket launchers and fighters, yeah, those are legal, but they are all registered and controlled like machine guns  per the NFA. As well as each round of ammunition. I could legally make an RPG and rockets in my garage (they aren't super advanced) and legally register them with the ATF. I will be on the hook for each rocket I build until I certify that I have expended it. Regarding fighters, they have an additional level of FAA oversight just for their general aviation aspect (we tend to not like big, explosive things falling out of the sky), and thus modern combat aircraft are generally prohibited on the basis of a private owners' inability to keep them flight worthy. But if you want a P-51, go wild. There are no special requirements over and above any other prop-driven aircraft, and the only restriction you'll face is if you want to rearm it with its machine guns. You run into all the NFA, FAA, and other restrictions about shooting guns on or from aircraft.

So now let's go totally reductio ad absurdum here. What prevents one from owning a private arsenal of nuclear weapons? If I take all the necessary radiological precautions to satisfy the NRC I don't think there is any real issue. Ballistic and cruise missiles might be dicey, but those aren't the only ways to deliver a nuclear weapon.

[TheGlyphstone]

That specific example actually is prohibited, not by a specific law but by the federal criminal code of the US.. 18 U.S. Code § 832 specifically. You can legally own a private nuclear reactor if you are rich enough and satisfy the radiological safety laws, but trying to turn your fissile material into a bomb will get you severely arrested. Only governments get to play with nukes, and one going missing is a Very Big Deal so the movie stock plot if buying a nuke on the black market is pretty much a no go too.

[Keelan]

1. What gun laws are there in the US, exactly? The accounts of how some people (like that recent shooter) obtain weapons seem to suggest that, in some states, you simply go into a shop and buy a gun, a rifle etc. As if it was a dishwasher or something...

So, while this is indeed a complicated answer as indicated by Glyphstone, I can run through Arizona's process which is as close to 'go to the store for groceries and come home with an AR-15' as I'm personally aware of:

So, I decide I want a firearm, so I find a store that sells them. They're required to be registered as an FFL (Federal Firearms License) which is required to sell a firearm, and my experience is many of the people employed at this business are also individually FFLs (I have not asked all of the ones I've known, hence why I'm saying 'many' and not 'most' or 'all').

So, now that I'm there I can look through, select the firearm I'm interested in, and then start the process of purchasing by filling out paperwork. I must have my Arizona ID on me, and it must be valid, and then comes paperwork (Form 4473 IIRC), wherein I provide personally identifiable information, indicate that I do not have reason to believe myself to be prohibited from buying or owning a firearm (aka, I am not a felon, accused of or charged with DV, etc), and the FFL also completes sections of the paperwork to include the serial ID on the firearm in question (which it is required to have). The FFL is now responsible for retaining these records for an extended period of time, but i do not recall how many years or if it's ad infinitum...

So, now that I've filled out the paperwork, time for the NICS - National Instant Background Check System - which is conducted in the FBI's system. NICS takes a couple minutes to over an hour (that occurred during 2020 due to system load), and it's essentially running your info against an FBI database. It'll come back as one of three results: Decline, Delay, and Proceed.

-Decline means that the FFL cannot legally make the sale; it usually means something on the NICS flags you as a prohibited person, such as being on a terrorist watchlist or a felon. You do not get your gun unless the FFL decides he wishes to break the law.

-Delayed is intersting; the FBI basically says here that they cannot make a determination, as they do not have enough information. The FBI now has 3 business days to gather more information themselves, and provide either a Decline or Proceed response. However, if the FBI does not respond within 3 business days, by day 4 federal law says that the FFL may go ahead and proceed with the transaction legally, and you can get your gun then.

-Proceed is the most straight forward; no major red flags, and the FFL can now sell you the weapon. However, while he legally CAN sell you the weapon, he does not legally HAVE to sell you a weapon (per my understanding), if since the time of the NICS being initiated he has reason to believe you are attempting a a straw purchase* (purchasing the firearm on behalf of someone else), an imminent threat to yourself or others (talking about death, looking extremely depressed or agitated, talking about 'those X bastards' or 'that bitch'), exhibiting signs of serious mental illness (paranoia, agitation, hearing voices, etc), or etc.

So, I got the Proceed response, I paid for my weapon, I managed to not appear crazy, sketchy, or otherwise a risk... I now have a gun. From there, as it's Arizona, I don't need to register my weapon, nor can I be compelled to unless I want to turn it into an NFA item**. This process above is also the process for non-NFA firearms; NFA Firearms require tax stamps, federal paperwork, federal registration, etc.



*: Examples I've heard of potential 'red flags' for a straw purchase:
-the person is attempting to purchase a firearm with someone else present
-the person has someone else present, whom is allegedly a spouse or family, and one attempts to pay after the other does the NICS check
-the person has someone else present who does not have an ID on them to verify that they are family/have same last names
-the person came in with someone else who pretended to look around the store as if they were unrelated and seems too interested in the person making the sale
-the person came in and someone waiting outside the store seems to be paying a lot of attention to them
-the person came in and someone else is waiting in their car for them

**: NFA ITems - National Firearms Act - federally restricts and tracks the purchases, transfers, and ownership of certain weapons:
-Machine guns (a firearm that through one single direction action of the trigger is capable of firing more than one round)
-Short Barrel Rifles (a weapon with a stock, designed to be held with 2 hands, and with a barrel shorter than 16")
-Short Barrel Shotguns (as above, but with less than 18" barrel)
-Destructive Devices (explosives, grenades, incendiary devices, etc)
-Suppressors (these are self-explanatory)
-Any-other-Weapons (AoW, and despite it's name it's more a catch-all for anything that is not legally a 'Firearm', 'Pistol', 'Rifle', 'Shotgun', or one of the other definitions)

[Psi]

So, now that I've filled out the paperwork, time for the NICS - National Instant Background Check System - which is conducted in the FBI's system. NICS takes a couple minutes to over an hour (that occurred during 2020 due to system load), and it's essentially running your info against an FBI database. It'll come back as one of three results: Decline, Delay, and Proceed.

I don’t know about the legislation there, but to me that sounds like a less comprehensive background check then someone who is going to work in a school undergoes.

You want a weapon designed to kill - sure sign these forms, I’ll throw your name into a database and if it comes back green your good to go.   A single, one off check…  There is a common phrase here - Only in America.   It’s not a good phrase.

various states vary slightly here but the requirements to work in schools are far far higher.   And that’s to teach, not kill.

here they look for:

• a charge or conviction for any offence in Australia, even if no conviction was recorded (this includes spent convictions, pending and non-conviction charges)
• 
  child protection prohibition orders (both respondents and subjects to the application)
• 
  disqualification orders
• 
  reporting obligations under the Child Protection Acts for the state, territory or nation
• 
  disciplinary information from certain organisations (this includes information about teachers, childcare licensees and foster carers)
• 
  domestic violence information
• 
  other information about the person that is relevant to deciding whether it would be in the best interests of children to issue a valid check
• 
  police investigative information relating to allegations of serious child-related sexual offences, even if no charges were laid.

The term it’s valid for depends on the state, but it’s monitored and any negative changes to your registered record in linked systems will flag notifications for a review and notifications to your employer if it affects the check status.

[Beorning]

Yeah, that Arizona process for buying weapons seems very lax, honestly speaking. It seems to me that you'd have to be an obviously untrustworthy person (like a convicted felon) to be unable to buy a gun legally. This system doesn't filter out people with criminal intent who haven't committed any crime yet, or mentally disturbed people (unless they are *very obviously* disturbed and the seller is actually paying attention)...

I'd have to check, but as far as I remember, Polish process for buying a firearm requires you to obtain a firearm license before you even attempt to buy anything. And obtaining the license involves screening by the police *and* a mental health professional...

Also - is it me, or are all those US laws related to firearms somewhat... inconsistent? It was mentioned that there's a federal-level regulation that a person younger than 21 y.o. cannot own a handgun - but then, it seems that it's legal for a 18 y.o. to buy an AR-15? Also, why are machine guns and some shotguns counted as NFAs - but weapons like AR-15 aren't?

(BTW. What falls "Any Other Weapon" classification? Swords, crossbows..?)

On another note - Beau's video linked above is really insightful. He certainly touches on an important aspect of the problem. On the other hand... I really don't think it's just a cultural problem. Meaning, I don't think it could be solved by making the American gun culture healthier. In my opinion, USA really needs tightening of gun control laws.

Poland has never had *any* mass shooting incident (I hope it doesn't change). Why? Because the gun control is way tighter than in the States. It certainly isn't due to cultural factors: we have our own share of political radicals and potentially violent disturbed people, too. Here's a (warning: drastic) example:

A decade or so ago (IIRC), there was an incident here when a guy picked up an axe, walked into town and murdered a completely unfamiliar little girl that was walking out of a shop. When arrested, the guy admitted he was unemployed, frustrated, angry - and just felt the need to hurt *someone*. So, he grabbed the deadliest object he own, he spotted a victim and lashed out...

Now: this is, IMHO, exactly the same kind of mental disturbance that drives some of the mass shooters in the US. The difference was the scope. This guy here, he didn't own a gun and he wouldn't be able to buy a gun easily. So, he grabbed an axe and managed to kill only one person before he got stopped. What he did was tragic and disgusting... but it was *one* death. I have no doubts that, if this guy had a gun, he'd go out and start shooting random people in the crowd. How many people would've died, then?

[greenknight]

Regarding the NICS check, it is as effective as the inputs. Courts are supposed to file convictions in the system. If they don't, the individual doesn't appear as a prohibited person. And only convictions matter. This is a case of denying someone the exercise of their rights (regardless of whether you think such should be a right or not.) One should not lose their franchise simply because they got detained and released simply because they were at a protest.

As tio what the NICS looks for, felonies, misdemeanors of domestic violence, and adjudications of mental illness are the only disqualifiers of one's rights in the US. Adjudication means the mental illness was presented in a court and a judge agreed that the person in question was mentally ill (and usually results in involuntary commission to a psychiatric facility.)
NFA is a relic of the prohibition environment that fostered the development of organized crime. The "weapons" concerned were those favored by those organizations; machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, and weapons concealed as other things (AOWs). It was passed in 1934. Semi-automatic versions of other weapons are a newer phenomenon than the NFA.

Regarding the child care/teacher's licensing scheme, yes. The risk for bad teachers is far higher than the risk for owning a gun. 100% (or close to it) of gun owners are not going to commit mass murder. Even 1% doing so would mean one would expect close to a million incidents. What is the likelihood that someone we expect this scheme to prohibit would harm a child?

And, yeah, Beau's spot on. And consider also, segments of the mass media simply don't care that they are indoctrinating the population (because it brings them the ad revenue?). They won't acknowledge they are part of the problem. Talking heads have been amplifying the rhetoric for at least 2 decades. When dad is screaming at the TV, "Yeah, that's right!" because someone is spouting BS meant to rile him up, what is the effect on the child? What worldview do they grow up with?  Yeah, it's us. And we have too many guns for bans to put a dent in it. We have to change our culture and I don't if the will to do it exists.