School shootings and US Gun Control

[Dashenka]

Bear with me here, this is my view on gun control and (school) shootings.

Guns don't kill people, etc...


I'll explain. Get angry with me after you've read my explanation.

There is a process, quite a long one in fact, before somebody grabs a gun (or more) and starts shooting random people. This process could be noticed or it could not. When it is noticed, the person in question should get help. A sane person won't shoot random people after all. Prevent the person from falling so far and so deeply into despair and anger that their only way out is violence.

Proper mental health care is really important, especially now with inflation rising, COVID, countries divided by opinions and a fear for everything. Communicate with people. Don't judge them. If somebody likes guns, don't cast him/her away as a lunatic or a dangerous freak. This is something that is happening all around the world in society. People share their opinions as being the only truth and everybody who disagrees must be a bad person.

There are probably numerous reasons why somebody grabs a gun and shoots people, that fact that nobody picks them up is, in most cases, a problem of society I think.

Another thing why I don't think guns kill people and banning guns or making stricter laws isn't necessarily the solution is by simply looking at the UK and Europe. Guns are, in most countries at least, subject to very strict laws so yes, mass shootings are not as common but they still happen. They often don't make the international headlines but they still happen.

Also, Germany, Sweden and I'm sure other countries as well have seen a much deadlier weapon being used against innocent people. Trucks, (or lorries or semis) have been used to plough into large crowds of people. Pilots using their aircraft full of people to commit suicide, etc.

The underlying problem is the person responsible. Not the weapon of choice because the weapon of choice is always that which available. Restricting gun ownership, no matter how tight, doesn't solve the problem with the people and they will resort to other weapons, like knifes, cars, planes, etc.

In the wrong hands, even a pencil can be a weapon. Guns, in my opinion, are the result of a deeper cause. Take away the guns, the cause of the problem is still there.

[Jerram]

https://ballotpedia.org/Bipartisan_Safer_Communities_Act_of_2022

Expanded background checks for individuals under the age of 21

[Jerram]

Take away the guns, the cause of the problem is still there.

This is a kind of strawman.  Taking away guns (except in red flag situations) isn't a viable option, either legally or practically.  Anti-gunners are loud and vocal about this, and it's useful for people on both sides of the issue, but ultimately, it's just gassing.

Enhanced background checks for under 21 is a start focusing on mental health.  Red flag is a great idea if implemented properly AND the family and other groups authorized to raise the red flags actually do so, something that, as may be obvious, isn't always done. 

[Oniya]

Also, included in the new legislation (source at the link so kindly provided by Jerram):

Providing $11 billion for mental health services, including increased funding for the Medicaid Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic program, increased funding for school-based mental health programs, and investments in pediatric mental healthcare services.

So, working on that 'root cause' is part of the deal.

[Jerram]

In some cities, a 911 dispatcher may send a mental health evaluation team along with an officer where such evaluation is necessary.  This kind of response would be ideal for a red flag call.

[Notorious]

Bear with me here, this is my view on gun control and (school) shootings.

Guns don't kill people, etc...


I'll explain. Get angry with me after you've read my explanation.

There is a process, quite a long one in fact, before somebody grabs a gun (or more) and starts shooting random people. This process could be noticed or it could not. When it is noticed, the person in question should get help. A sane person won't shoot random people after all. Prevent the person from falling so far and so deeply into despair and anger that their only way out is violence.

Proper mental health care is really important, especially now with inflation rising, COVID, countries divided by opinions and a fear for everything. Communicate with people. Don't judge them. If somebody likes guns, don't cast him/her away as a lunatic or a dangerous freak. This is something that is happening all around the world in society. People share their opinions as being the only truth and everybody who disagrees must be a bad person.

There are probably numerous reasons why somebody grabs a gun and shoots people, that fact that nobody picks them up is, in most cases, a problem of society I think.

Another thing why I don't think guns kill people and banning guns or making stricter laws isn't necessarily the solution is by simply looking at the UK and Europe. Guns are, in most countries at least, subject to very strict laws so yes, mass shootings are not as common but they still happen. They often don't make the international headlines but they still happen.

Also, Germany, Sweden and I'm sure other countries as well have seen a much deadlier weapon being used against innocent people. Trucks, (or lorries or semis) have been used to plough into large crowds of people. Pilots using their aircraft full of people to commit suicide, etc.

The underlying problem is the person responsible. Not the weapon of choice because the weapon of choice is always that which available. Restricting gun ownership, no matter how tight, doesn't solve the problem with the people and they will resort to other weapons, like knifes, cars, planes, etc.

In the wrong hands, even a pencil can be a weapon. Guns, in my opinion, are the result of a deeper cause. Take away the guns, the cause of the problem is still there.

I think a lot of this is very fair and very thoughtful, so thank you for saying it. Guns can't be evil. They are just tools, and I'd like to see a lot more focus going into more support for people dealing with mental breakdown and emotional instability related issues. In fact, and this might not be entirely accurate but it is what I had heard, after the Nicholas Cruz shooting happened I believe someone came out and admitted that they had called the police about the kid like... three or four times? Something like that? He'd had a history of episodes that were never addressed or taken seriously. And of course the gun activists went crazy for that one too, but that wasn't just preventable. That was borderline intentionally neglected by the police. Stuff like that almost seems planned after you come to understand just how mishandled that all was.

[Oniya]

I think you're making a seriously fallacious leap to 'borderline intentionally neglected' and 'almost planned'. 

[greenknight]

In some cities, a 911 dispatcher may send a mental health evaluation team along with an officer where such evaluation is necessary.  This kind of response would be ideal for a red flag call.

Except that's not what a "red flag" call is. It is a warrant service. That means a judge held a hearing, which the subject is now unequivocally to be granted notice and allowed to attend and present evidence on their own behalf under the advice of counsel, and decided that this individual can't have their guns. And men with guns are dispatched to take them, likely expecting to use them. Because they're there to take someone's guns....

A 911 call is an emergency response, not a planned raid.

[greenknight]

Let me clarify, this is what was in the bill as finalized in the Senate. Congress.gov has yet to post the text of Public Law 117-159 as signed. "As of 07/08/2022 text has not been received for S.2938 - Bipartisan Safer Communities Act"

[Notorious]

I think you're making a seriously fallacious leap to 'borderline intentionally neglected' and 'almost planned'.

Okay, but I did say "borderline". Obviously I'm not suggesting that any of that was actually the case, but when a precinct actively neglects repeated calls for addressing a potentially dangerous person with a fragile mental state you've got to wonder at least for a split second whether or not these people are complete idiots or if they allowed something to manifest. It didn't have to happen in the first place, and yet people show up with signs about banning guns when the police are the ones who failed those kids in the first place? Just doesn't make much sense to me.

[Dashenka]

I appreciate what you're saying but who's responsibility is somebody their mental health?

There's multiple answers to this, depending on where you are on the political spectrum so let's not try to answer that question.


My point is, it's most definitely not the police's. I know that in the US, police funding is at a multitude as that to European police budgets. But a person calling the police to warn about a person 'acting strange' should be dealt with by people who know what to do.

Cops coming to this person's house, guns drawn and shouting is not going to help this person. Sure it might stop him/her from shooting people but in the end, it won't solve the problem.

Also, included in the new legislation (source at the link so kindly provided by Jerram):

Providing $11 billion for mental health services, including increased funding for the Medicaid Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic program, increased funding for school-based mental health programs, and investments in pediatric mental healthcare services.

So, working on that 'root cause' is part of the deal.

If this is true, that is a good start and a promising prospect.


On a slightly different note:

I read something yesterday regarding the shooting in Chicago and it really made me so sad. There was a family with two young kids at that parade and at hearing the gun shots, which many people believe to be fireworks, one of the children laid down on the ground, grabbing their sibling and protecting her. The parents didn't know at first what was happening.

These kids have been trained at school what to do when there is a gunman around and they got triggered to it, by a sound that all the adults around them thought was fireworks.

I don't live in the US so all I know about these shootings is what I read and hear on the news and I knew it was bad but for kids under the age of ten, to get triggered by firework sounds is just beggars believe. I understand that it is a sensitive subject but what are the odds of a school shooting in a particular school compared to the odds of kids having trauma because of the safety lessons they get at school to prevent that?

In short, what is the biggest danger for these kids? The actual guns? Or the fear?

I'd also like to stress out that I don't have the answer to that question. It's, as far as I'm concerned, the definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do I let my kids take the risk of getting shot, or do I let them live with the fear of being shot?

[Notorious]

I appreciate what you're saying but who's responsibility is somebody their mental health?

There's multiple answers to this, depending on where you are on the political spectrum so let's not try to answer that question.


My point is, it's most definitely not the police's. I know that in the US, police funding is at a multitude as that to European police budgets. But a person calling the police to warn about a person 'acting strange' should be dealt with by people who know what to do.

Cops coming to this person's house, guns drawn and shouting is not going to help this person. Sure it might stop him/her from shooting people but in the end, it won't solve the problem.

If this is true, that is a good start and a promising prospect.

Granted, but when people are in an "oh shit, I don't know what to do about this" situation then they call the cops, and I think that's a valid response. Cops aren't supposed to just sit around flicking their toes when someone reports and issue like this. They have protocols to handle these situations. At the very least they should have immediately involved someone who is trained to address and diffuse the scenario, and they should have methods/contacts for reaching out about stuff like this.

I'm obviously not saying that they should go in gun's blazing, take the guy away, put him in jail and then have a person wearing a cop's uniform walk into his cell wearing a pair of glasses at the end of their nose carrying a yellow notepad ready to play therapist. What I am saying, though, is that repeated warnings to the police by someone seeking help from a group of people who SHOULD know exactly who to get involved in a case like that is a perfectly reasonable expectation of them. Ignoring warning after warning after warning is unbelievable, Dashenka. It's not just them not knowing what to do. It's them being too lazy to be bothered with turning the problem over to someone more qualified to handle the situation.

If a firefighter was working with his crew to wash their truck on a bright and sunny day and someone came running down the street screaming that there was a murder going on I'd be pretty pissed off at them if one of them asked, "Well what the fuck am I supposed to do about it. I'm not the police.", when maybe that person didn't have any way to reach out to the police and needed help. Those police could have acted like they gave a shit at all, but they ignored it over and over again. It's not their job to handle the situation, but they should do more than go "Meh, fuck that. I don't get paid to deal with some over-emotional brat." - Seems like a copout.

[Dashenka]

I agree with that. They should do something, at least take it to the right people.

But you cannot expect from police officers to also be trained therapists :)

That's more what I meant.

Of course they shouldn't ignore it. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

[Oniya]

On a slightly different note:

I read something yesterday regarding the shooting in Chicago and it really made me so sad. There was a family with two young kids at that parade and at hearing the gun shots, which many people believe to be fireworks, one of the children laid down on the ground, grabbing their sibling and protecting her. The parents didn't know at first what was happening.

These kids have been trained at school what to do when there is a gunman around and they got triggered to it, by a sound that all the adults around them thought was fireworks.

I don't live in the US so all I know about these shootings is what I read and hear on the news and I knew it was bad but for kids under the age of ten, to get triggered by firework sounds is just beggars believe. I understand that it is a sensitive subject but what are the odds of a school shooting in a particular school compared to the odds of kids having trauma because of the safety lessons they get at school to prevent that?

In short, what is the biggest danger for these kids? The actual guns? Or the fear?

I'd also like to stress out that I don't have the answer to that question. It's, as far as I'm concerned, the definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do I let my kids take the risk of getting shot, or do I let them live with the fear of being shot?

I looked up the information about the shooting, and it took place during daylight hours.  I'd barely be expecting sparklers before noon - you can't get a proper display. 

Knowing what to do in a crisis can actually help people in general feel more empowered.  Take a tornado - back in Ohio, the kids had tornado drills.  In every school, they have fire drills.  I think in more seismically active areas, they even have earthquake drills.  When you're driving in winter, you know what to do if you hit an ice patch and start skidding.  You're hopefully more aware of the possibility, but you know how to react to it.

As a parent, I hate that my kid has to be aware of this stuff, but it's better than being caught like a deer in the headlights.

[Notorious]

I agree with that. They should do something, at least take it to the right people.

But you cannot expect from police officers to also be trained therapists :)

That's more what I meant.

Of course they shouldn't ignore it. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

No worries, but in that case we totally agree.

[GloomCookie]

In a move I'm sure has lawyers salivating already, UPS has cancelled accounts to gun stores and those who receive these gun parts and has stated they intend to seize and destroy any gun parts currently in transit. UPS is allowed to refuse service to customers, but the seizing of parts in transit is illegal and they will probably be facing a huge number of lawsuits over it.

https://youtu.be/m8VWPzgWsus

[TheGlyphstone]

Doing a quick Google search, I can only find one source on that which isn't a gun-nut forum discussion, and that is R/liberalgunowers (which is admittedly also a gun nut discussion subforum). But according to that, this was only the account of a single gun store, not a national policy change, and I can find nothing concrete about supposedly destroying parts in transit. So im holding my cards on 'likely exaggerated but not entirely false' until someone can find something concrete - im sure the UPS has very good lawyers who would know their own limits. Plus DeJoy is still in charge and I cant see him making such a sweeping policy alteration for ideological reasons.

[Oniya]

im sure the UPS has very good lawyers who would know their own limits. Plus DeJoy is still in charge and I cant see him making such a sweeping policy alteration for ideological reasons.

While United Parcel Services probably does have some very good lawyers, DeJoy isn't associated with it (although he did have some stock in it prior to his current appointment).  Trump put him in charge of the United States Postal Service.

[TheGlyphstone]

While United Parcel Services probably does have some very good lawyers, DeJoy isn't associated with it (although he did have some stock in it prior to his current appointment).  Trump put him in charge of the United States Postal Service.

Im going to go put on the cone of shame and sit quietly in a corner now.

[Oniya]

I did have to look up which private company/ies DeJoy had been invested in, and whether he properly divested.  (He's still in with one of the subcontractors to the Postal Service, XPO, which has seen an increase in business since he took office, and his Amazon shares appear to have been converted to stock options.)

[Notorious]

In a move I'm sure has lawyers salivating already, UPS has cancelled accounts to gun stores and those who receive these gun parts and has stated they intend to seize and destroy any gun parts currently in transit. UPS is allowed to refuse service to customers, but the seizing of parts in transit is illegal and they will probably be facing a huge number of lawsuits over it.

https://youtu.be/m8VWPzgWsus

When the hell did this happen? That us just... WILDLY out of order for any company. That's gonna bring an absolute shitstorm to their organization.

[HairyHeretic]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bdk/ups-ghost-gun-rules-brownells

That seems to have a bit more detail on the story.

[TheGlyphstone]

Okay, that article is way less sensationalist and actually makes sense. If 'ghost guns' without serial numbers are a loophole in the rules and getting cracked down on, all UPS is doing is refusing to become an accessory to a crime.

It also explains why the 2Anuts are flipping out, because they're all about the Gubmint Gonna Take Der Gunz.

[GloomCookie]

The issue I keep seeing crop up is that UPS is somehow checking what's in the package, despite supposedly not having the 'right' to do so... which is bullshit.

Even the United States Postal Service (USPS) has different classes of mail that can and can't be searched without a warrant (Link: https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Can-my-mail-be-opened)

UPS and FedEx both have similar policies in place, even if I can't directly find a source for their policies and guidelines.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity, I looked up the US Postal Service's policy on mailing firearms. 

Only licensed manufacturers and dealers may mail or receive handguns. Even though unloaded rifles and shotguns are mailable, mailers must comply with applicable regulations.

Of particular note was that certain pieces of firearms may not be mailed (frames and receivers were specified) and there appears to be a significant paper trail involved.  Affidavits, signature upon delivery, en-route tracking, and so forth.