School shootings and US Gun Control

[greenknight]

Note: I forgot to add destructive devices to the NFA list. These are explosives outside of stuff separately controlled for construction purposes. It includes grenades, rockets, etc. As previously noted, NFA items have significantly more scrutiny than other weapons.

[Azy]

A handful of years ago my ex bought a pistol with his tax return.  He was asked for his state ID, and he had to fill out a form.  Everything was submitted by the store employee.  It took about two hours to get the green light.  I thought it would take longer than that.   

I don't have an issue with guns in general.  My dad liked to hunt, and it put meat on our table.  I've been target shooting.  But some of the things I've heard brought up make me question this country.  You have to be 21 to buy alcohol, and now tobacco products.  You have to be 25 to rent a car.  You have to have a license to drive a car.  I heard that most states you do have to be 21 to purchase a gun, but the wonderful governor of Texas decided that it was cool to be able to buy a gun 3 years before you can buy a bottle of whiskey, and no type of carry license required. 

Also, if I remember right, the guy who committed the Las Vegas shooting flew under the radar because he went to different states to buy all of his guns.  Each state knew what he had purchased in that state, but there was no federal registry for anyone to see he was purchasing a lot of firearms in a short period of time.  To me, that seems like an easy loophole to fix.  I'm not anti- gun.  I'm anti- loophole. 

[Beorning]

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.

And that's exactly the reason why you have the problem with mass shootings and other gun violence: the idea that owning a fiream is some sort of fundamental right that can be denied only under severe circumstances.

With all due respect, this idea makes no sense. In modern society, we have all kinds of limitations as to what people can and cannot due. You cannot practice medicine without a medical license, you cannot sell pharmaceuticals just because you want to... heck, you can't even drive a car without obtaining a driving license first. Why? Because all of these activities can cause harm to others, if conducted by people without proper training. And no sensible person protests it, I think. Even though you could argue that owning a car or choosing a job freely is one's right as free person.

Why is that, in the States, when it comes to owning a gun... an object that, if misused, can be insanely dangerous to others... it suddenly becomes a matter of a "right" that cannot be denied? In a modern society, it can easily be argued that being allowed to drive a car is more important than being allowed to own a firearm - and yet, driving a car is a privilege that needs to be earned (by proving one's competence)... and owning a gun is a basic right that shouldn't be denied unless a really good reason is proven to exist?

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.)

I understand, but this is a severely flawed method of screening. Firstly, it does nothing to screen for people who have no record, but might be planning to buy a firearm with the intent of committing a crime. Secondly, not all kinds of mental illness end with a court-ordered involuntary commitment. I don't know how it works in the States, but back here, you really have to be out-of-touch with reality and / or obviously violent to get forcibly committed. Meanwhile, people who commit mass murders aren't so obviously disturbed. They are able to function, even though their illness festers. And only when they lash out, they become obvious cases.

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.

Why not update the law, then? Why not put semi-automatic weapons on the NFA list?

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?

The thing is, there might be more bad teachers than mass murderers... but a mass murderer's actions causes much more drastic consequences. So, I'd say that screening for potential mass murderers (and other people with intent to use their firearms for harm) should be at least as tight as screening for potential bad teachers.

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.

In my opinion, you have to change both your culture *and* your law. And if you have too many guns... heck, then start confiscating them. Put semi-automatic firearms and other weapons with no sensible civilian use on the NFA list. Ban further new sales of these weapons. Increase the penalties for owning unlicensed firearms, especially among felons. And if you think that would put too heavy strain on the prison system, you could in turn change those laws that send drug addicts into prison instead of therapy...

[Oniya]

The laws aren't likely to change that radically until the culture changes - mainly because you've got to get those laws passed, and the lawmakers won't pass things that are likely to get them voted out of office. 

I've seen a couple of reasons cited for why the state databases aren't linked into a national database.  The most reasonable of these is that 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'  (Note that this simply leaves out the bit about a 'well-regulated Militia'.)  The more common one is that if there was a national database, then 'those darn libruls would know where to go when they come to take away owr gunz'.

[greenknight]

Why is that, in the States, when it comes to owning a gun... an object that, if misused, can be insanely dangerous to others... it suddenly becomes a matter of a "right" that cannot be denied? In a modern society, it can easily be argued that being allowed to drive a car is more important than being allowed to own a firearm - and yet, driving a car is a privilege that needs to be earned (by proving one's competence)... and owning a gun is a basic right that shouldn't be denied unless a really good reason is proven to exist?

Because, and this is important, legally every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 55 is a member of the unorganized militia, unless they are a member of the National Guard. This means that except for the period of my majority, I was only in the organized militia, the Guard, for one year. My 24 years of active duty? I was a member of the unorganized militia.

Why does this matter? Because militia muster schemes have been used in conjunction with targeted weapon bans  to disenfranchise segments of the population. The history of gun control in the country has always been a racist tool of disenfranchisement. It is tied to the franchise, whether most of the population realizes it or not. And just as felonies restrict gun rights, they do the same to voting rights.

Driving a car or practicing medicine carry a far greater risk to the general public when mistakes are made. The likelihood of multiple casualties resulting from negligent use of a firearm is exceedingly low. Multi-car collisions are about a weekly occurrence in my burg. They are treated as so commonplace that they become traffic alerts due to the resultant congestion. We don't hear about injuries from negligent discharges.

We don't have a problem with mass shooting because gun ownership is treated as a fundamental right. We have done so for over 230 years. We have more modern cultural problems that lead to misuse.

I understand, but this is a severely flawed method of screening....

That's the US's take on jurisprudence. You can't disenfranchise someone until they do something to warrant disenfranchisement. Just because someone might do something naughty isn't reason enough to preemptively punish them. And driving a car entails as a "background check" presenting your birth certificate to validate that you meet the minimum age to qualify for testing and licensing.

[Twisted Crow]

It is already illegal for average joes to carry a gun into a school. A law is only as effective when it is actually enforced. If it is not enforced, then it is a complete waste of time. The problem is our culture. Always has been. A lot of this could be echoed back to the Prohibition Era, really.

[Twisted Crow]

This is kinda also a whole OTHER problem with the classic gun control discussion usually:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ZoH5P6UIE

[Oniya]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwOVUt7myLU

Just listened to this one - (Heck, still listening to it) - and Beau has some good ideas that don't go into the 'ban something' territory but towards heading off the actual factors that increase the likelihood of gun violence. 

[Twisted Crow]

It's weird how Beau scares me but yet also speaks to my soul on some issues. I'll have to give this one a watch.

[Oniya]

I think that may be part of his effectiveness.  I can't say I agree with him on everything (although I can't give an example from this particular video), but he puts forth ideas that, dadgumit, might work.

[Twisted Crow]

As a former soldier in the Army, I actually like his suggestion to forbid connecting military with advertising such products. And his take on the "tacticool" demographic in general.

[Oniya]

Yep - Dad was Army.  I was right on board with that bit.

[Psi]

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?

I would disagree with that risk matrix.

100% (or close to it) - sorry this stat doesn’t fly.   

100% (or close to it) of educators are not going to commit child sex offences - but they still happen. 
So the checks and balances still happen and every educator agrees to this before walking into the field.
And yes we still hear of it.   But we might hear of 3 or 4 child sex offences a year.  As opposed to what 22 mass school shootings by the 5th month of the year?

But the seemingly common thing from some one outside of the US. 

The school shooters always seem to be from the media reports - young, having just turned “18” and “just purchased” or stolen their families firearms, have some kind of “loner” history and tend to be - as much as I hate saying this as I fit the bill are a “white male”.

You have a profile of the most likely category to become a mass murderer.   If you are ignoring this it’s your own fault. And I’m also not sorry that it just seems to be the least likely demographic to be profiled but maybe you should.

I’m sorry.    At this point f* the 2nd amendment and put in a few more checks and balances.  You have just turned in 18, let’s add a 4-6 week delay before getting a firearm so we can do a state by state search (avoiding the “national database” the liberals might use to identify ppl who have guns).  Your that young let’s include your school records in the suitability checks before we let you get a gun.

Once you hit the age of 21 lower the requirements a fraction and once you hit 25 drop them more.   Maybe a single handgun or rifle and that’s it at 18, a handgun and a shotgun at 21 and then at 25, rifles open up.   The exact kind doesn’t matter rather the qty and capability.

(Cynical view, now your out of school shooting it’s more storm the capitol age)

I don’t agree with the US gun policy in general but there could at least be some fucking common sense applied to it.

[Mr Quixotic]

I can't help but post the classic Jim Jeffries 'Gun Control' skit here:

As an Australian who shakes my head at the lack of checks and balances and the firearm culture in the states, everything he says here makes sense to me!

And, if it's not 'guns' that are the problem but mental health (not that US has more issues with that than countries who don't have school shootings) or culture, wouldn't it an idea to limit access to weapons capable of killing multiple people in a minute, at least until those issues are fixed!

Warning: Excessive vulgar language

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

[Oniya]

And, if it's not 'guns' that are the problem but mental health (not that US has more issues with that than countries who don't have school shootings) or culture, wouldn't it an idea to limit access to weapons capable of killing multiple people in a minute, at least until those issues are fixed!

Then we have the flip side of:
Person 1:  It's not guns that are the problem, it's mental health!
Person 2:  Okay - so let's do something to make sure that everyone has access to mental health services.
Person 1:  *gasps*  I'm not going to let my taxes go to that!

[TheGlyphstone]

Because universal health care is SOCIALISM, dontcha know.

[elone]

Because universal health care is SOCIALISM, dontcha know.

There you have it!  Let's face it, there are too many in congress who are beholding to the NRA or believe that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct.  It is all about money and power as it always is. The only way to get meaningful gun control is to boot those crazies out of congress and put people in there who act for the people (nationally, not locally).  Where is the national referendum on policy that will allow those against gun control to gracefully back away. Follow the money, follow the desire to stay in office (power) and follow the right wing nuts who are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. The extreme left is not much better. We are doomed to repeat killings because inaction is the status quo. I have no faith in our government to do aything worthwhile in this regard.

[RedRose]

The obsession with socialism puzzles me. I mean, one of the projects the French far right has, is MORE help for moms (still no reason to vote for them). As a teacher I quit the day I have to carry. What the hell? I'm not a bodyguard, a cop or willing to risk anything like an accident.

[Psi]

The obsession with socialism puzzles me. I mean, one of the projects the French far right has, is MORE help for moms (still no reason to vote for them). As a teacher I quit the day I have to carry. What the hell? I'm not a bodyguard, a cop or willing to risk anything like an accident.

It goes back to the Cold War - anyone that suggests universal anything is seen as a Russian Communist.   
This puts aside the fact that universal health care would never have been an option under that form of government.

They would rather be linked with being a Neo-Nazi than a Communist.

The whole healthcare also leads into the current Roe vs Wade issue where they want to stop abortion, but won’t provide any supports after birth.   

Killing an unborn baby that’s not yet sentient - bad - so I am going to take away your rights to your own body.
Killing a child in a school - that’s just a stat, and don’t dare take away my right to a gun.

[Twisted Crow]

But, the real problem is doors, tho...  

[Oniya]

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.

[Vekseid]

Was it the Virginia Tech shooting where the guy chained the doors on the only exit so no one could escape?

[Oniya]

https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/prevail/docs/VTReviewPanelReport.pdf  (Link to the report given to Governor Kaine in 2007)
https://idighardware.com/2019/04/virginia-tech-remembering-the-lessons-learned/ (link to the article that led me to that report.)

Sure was.

'The chaining had the dual effect of delaying anyone from interrupting his plan and keeping victims from escaping.'

[Notorious]

Personally I'm pro gun and as for a short and sweet explanation as to why I'll just say that I imagine it like this. Cops around the country are already outnumbered by criminals of all kinds by at least 10 to 1, but likely far more than that, and to better support that assumption, and yes it is an assumption and not rooted in absolute fact supported by some overly complex set of statistics, I'll support that comment with this...

There are just over 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers "from sea to shining sea" and there are just over 330,000,000 Americans presently residing in the states that are of legal documentation, so it can't be that hard to imagine that there are at least ten-or-so million criminals of varying types. Not only that, but if we're being nit picky we have to increase these numbers by at least ten or so million in the overall population count because there are tens of millions of illegally immigrated people in this country. I don't personally have a problem with it because I'm middle isle and waved byebye to supporting either side of the political world long ago, but it does inflate the numbers and further support my point. If I was to wager a guess I'd say there are around 350,000,000 people living in America, and that's a very reasonable estimate because I honestly think there are a whole lot more than that, but again I'm not sure either way. It's not hard to imagine that regardless of the actual numbers, yes our police officers are vastly outnumbered by the criminals in our country.

Let's just say my 10 to 1 estimate is accurate(which would actually require that we inflate the number of police by 200,000 so that we can round up to an even one million). That would mean that about .35% of the American population are gang members, felons, in some sort of organized crime ring/family or something like that. That seems like a fair number and it would mean that about one in every 300 people is, for lack of a better word, a scumbag. That, to me, seems pretty charitable, but we could be even MORE charitable and cut that number in half, and yet even then the odds stacked against the police are still five "outlaws" for every one "sheriff". That would be five million out of three-hundred and fifty million or just .17.5% of the population.

So, we pass some new gun laws, citizens are not allowed to own guns, police collect and repurpose or recycle the guns, the unsavory, modern day "outlaw" tells the police to go fuck themselves and then we have the police who are allowed to own guns. Maybe with all of the police available in the big cities the average, every day citizen doesn't see much of a difference, but the rural and suburban citizen? Their lives change dramatically. Crooked people aren't crooked because they're stupid. They're crooked because they don't give a shit about you and they certainly don't care if they hurt or take from you. So when they become aware that average Joe has a next to 0% chance that they are carrying a firearm then... yeah, it's gonna be far more likely that someone will walk up to you, stick a gun in your face and say "Yes I think I will have myself that new generation iphone you just bought the other day. Thanks friend!"

And that'll just be the suburbs. For people in rural areas, which I'm kind of an expert in(I'm from Louisiana, by the way. Redneck heaven, and yes, dealing with people here got super old for me more than a decade ago...), it's just not an option to not have a gun in the home just in case. There's a town called, and yes I shit you not, Farmerville an hour away from where I live that has a population of just over 3,600 people and they've got a whopping police department of about ohhhhhhhhh... 15 cops. Heaven forbid one go on a week long vacation and then another one get sick, because if you call the cops on any given day that they're ALL AT WORK and you're still gonna have about a 10 to 20 minute response time. Guaranteed. And if not everyone's accounted for or if something happens late at night they'll see you anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and maybe not for longer than that. You rely on the cops here when someone kicks in your back door, well... if they intend to kill you anyway or you challenge them despite them having a gun then you're very likely to just end up dead.

For me it's not that gun laws need to be more or less strict and it's not about taking the guns out of the hands of any and all average citizens completely. I'd much prefer for no one to own guns and everyone to play nice, but that isn't realistic. So for me it's about the fact that if you DO... take guns out of every standard American's home across the country then you will be sentencing many people to death, but you won't ever get to see that glaring number in front of your face until a few years later when tens of thousands of people have lost their lives when they otherwise could have defended themselves.

To those in big cities, by all means, go for it. I implore you to try a gun free Chicago or gun free Boston or something, because that actually could work AFTER enough years of enforcement, but that being said there is no way that this will ever, ever be viable for the entire country as a whole and it just never will be. And not only that, but if you did run a gun free big city experiment in cities like Chicago and Boston then the gun fights between cops and the unsavory citizen would skyrocket as the city tries to enforce its new gun free policies, so you'd have a huge uptick in gun deaths after trying to go gun free regardless. At least that's what it seems like to me, but I'm just one dude with one opinion. I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree and think that things would go differently, and hey maybe they're right. This just seems like to me the most likely scenario. I think America would become more lawless for sure, and the military can't be depended on to reinforce the police when America's influence around the globe is already spread so thing. Not only that, but calling back assets from other countries is unbelievably expensive and we're in what appears to be an economic recession... so yeah, lol. My brain is overthinking tonight.

My brain is all hopped up on coffee and I'm firing on all cylinders even though I feel out of sorts and distracted, lol. xD

[Notorious]

Additionally, just to put my two scents in where security is concerned in schools, I think it's wild that some people want to put guns in the hands of teachers, but I will say that knowledge can sometimes unnerve even the most determined of people... If these psychos who shoot up schools like this knew that some of the teachers might be packing then it might make them think twice, at least.

Realistically I think that we should be depending on more than just one or two people to secure an entire school. I think that the numbers should be doubled or even tripled. We live in an interesting time, and people don't seem as well balanced as they used to be. More stress, tension and unrest leads to more loose cannons and long, gray days. A few more people who could deal with gunman with equal opposition I think would be appropriate, but hey what do I know?