In reply to bobzilla :
My frustration is that there are politicians that blame the mass shootings are a variety of other factors then guns and those factors certainly do have a major effect on it but then do berkeley all about it.
In reply to bobzilla :
My frustration is that there are politicians that blame the mass shootings are a variety of other factors then guns and those factors certainly do have a major effect on it but then do berkeley all about it.
In reply to 02Pilot :
It's hard not to be driven by emotion when the guns are used in such emotional crimes, such as murdering 19 schoolchildren.
Rand seems to advocate for a lot of the same things we are saying here: child-access prevention laws were one of their strongest recommends (safe storage for gun owners), along with waiting periods and a reduction in suicide, and background checks reducing violent crime. So if the non-partisan think tank has objective data showing these three controls work, why can't we agreee on passing them?
93EXCivic said:In reply to bobzilla :
My frustration is that there are politicians that blame the mass shootings are a variety of other factors then guns and those factors certainly do have a major effect on it but then do berkeley all about it.
Our mental health care in this country is atrocious. We have parents unwilling to have their children seek help, or even allow them. We've made it the topic that shall not be discussed. Something simple to treat like depression is just ignored or passed over because "people should just be happier". Throw on two years of lock downs, boogie men and some of the most divisive rhetoric from all tptb and I'm surprised we don't have MORE issues.
Clean house with all of them. Can we get a mulligan and start fresh?
In reply to Javelin :
I guess you missed the "not one more inch" from me. You don't want to ask me my feelings on it because I can guarantee that you won't like it much.
bobzilla said:In reply to Javelin :
I guess you missed the "not one more inch" from me. You don't want to ask me my feelings on it because I can guarantee that you won't like it much.
Nothing is more fun than the guy that says "you won't like my opinion" a few times, refuses to give it, then complains "people really don't want to discuss it". People are discussing it for 11 pages, it looks like YOU don't want to for some reason.
In reply to bobzilla :
It's not one inch from you or I though, that's what I don't understand. It would change literally nothing about how we would access purchasing a gun, it would only affect people who are not allowed to own one. That kind of hardliner rhetoric is what causes the exact kind of knee jerk reactions you don't like.
Which speaking of, exactly what new laws and erosions are you speaking of? My state passed a gun reform bill in 2014, so I know of new ones affecting me. I don't know if any new federal laws in the last 15-20 years that actually passed.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
you're right. I already said why and I'd prefer to no be part of Margie's newest patio extension.
And with that I am out. Nothing I say is going to change anyone's mind as it is and it's best to just let it be. Y'all fix the world. I'm'a be over here trying to live my life.
bobzilla said:93EXCivic said:In reply to bobzilla :
My frustration is that there are politicians that blame the mass shootings are a variety of other factors then guns and those factors certainly do have a major effect on it but then do berkeley all about it.
Our mental health care in this country is atrocious. We have parents unwilling to have their children seek help, or even allow them. We've made it the topic that shall not be discussed. Something simple to treat like depression is just ignored or passed over because "people should just be happier".
I think that sigma is changing at least my generation and younger at least it seems to be. But if it is too expensive and hard to get then it still is going to be a problem.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
I know plenty of left leaning people who believe that one has a right (and in some cases duty) to have a firearm and be proficient with it. The lie that it is a political divide is engineered to be a wedge issue.
I'm hard left, and I own guns and support the right to own. I might disagree with the conservative's tendency to permit all sales of nuclear missiles and C4 at the flea market (exaggerating), but I think if you've proven the proficiency, knowledge, and sanity benchmarks, I say that many firearms should have the freedom to be owned.
I do not, however, think that it has anything to do with an outdated document that the founding fathers specifically gave us the imperative to alter as times change. We're talking about a document that blatantly defines women as a non-societal member without the right to vote or work, permitted slavery, specifically outlined how to legally continue slavery after abolition, and defined POC as 3/5ths of a human. Most people agree that women and minorities should vote and have equal rights which is why we amended the constitution (with obvious caveats for how they have been somewhat ineffective). Nearly 60% of Americans believe we need stricter gun control laws, and only 11% feel we need less restrictive gun laws (source: Gallup poll and Pew Research poll). So why aren't we making more gun laws? Because the Senate where these laws would be made is an example of a representation of republic, not democracy, and with a pretty evenly mixed party representation along with the NRA and gun manufacturers pumping money into republican pockets, it's not going to happen.
But, we do get lots of thoughts and prayers, so there's that. 
bobzilla said:In reply to Steve_Jones :
you're right. I already said why and I'd prefer to no be part of Margie's newest patio extension.
And with that I am out. Nothing I say is going to change anyone's mind as it is and it's best to just let it be. Y'all fix the world. I'm'a be over here trying to live my life.
As I have said a few times, this thread is not to try and change minds, I started it so I could understand where others sit on a hot issue and why, that's all. So far in 11 pages it's been civil. From what I see you don't want to participate for some reason, and that's ok. No need to announce it though, just don't click.
Like a bunch of us in this thread, I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately. So I surprised myself when I realized that it didn't even cross my mind when I sent my three kids off to school today. Not one bit. I reminded them to be careful crossing streets. I then thought to myself how strange it was that such a horrible tragedy saddened me deeply and occupied much of my thought, but didn't add any personal worry. I think it's because I've always been a numbers guy. I'm more worried overall, but not for my immediate family. I read through the links 02Pilot sent (good reads BTW.) What stood out to me was that these events are so statistically rare with diverse circumstances that it's really hard to come to any conclusions or make predictions. Each incident presents a new range of data that can skew the overall results. People tend to look for patterns, so we grasp at any perceived pattern- the weapon used, the age of the monster, mental state, etc., thinking if we can break the pattern, we can achieve results. But the sample size is so small, it's tough to discern if what we identify as a pattern really is a pattern. So I got to thinking, what makes these events rare? Is it barriers to the act, be it gun laws, locked doors, etc.? Are we reaching some of the would be monsters before they act? Or is it that people that are capable, willing, and accepting of the consequences the rare ingredient? Maybe there are only so many people who are this evil. That kind of sounds like a good thing, but the increase in frequency is unsettling. Is it part of the randomness of the low sample size? Or are more monsters being created? We've seen spikes in this behavior throughout history and throughout the world, is this one of the spikes? I think we need to put as much of not more focus on halting the creation of these monsters as we do setting up barriers.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Rare? There's been 27 school shootings in 2022 already, which is more than 1 per week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2022/01
This looks stable enough that I'll add my thoughts, for what they're worth. I really want to steer clear of anything reasonably political, I say reasonably because so much of this whole thing has been attached to various political aspects. So, without further ado, my thoughts:
[This post has been edited to try not to stir up something.]
I don't believe guns are the cause. Or rap music. Or video games (entirely). Or single-parenting. Or a host of other unhelpful things that spring to mind in all of us.
I say not entirely for video games because they, along with entertainment, could conceivably have some effect on an individual well before the event. I am not a shrink so I will leave it at conjecture and possibility. The reason I say that it is conceivable, and the thing that I think we can all agree would be much easier to do something about (relative to taking firearms), is the dehumanization required to look someone in the eye and shoot them. I never saw combat (aviation) but it took years after EAS'ing to realize the little tools I had learned from the Corps to dehumanize someone. It's ugly and not conducive to being a functional member of society except when it comes to getting through a crowd quickly. Dehumanization is where entertainment could, possibly, play a part and I leave it to the experts to decide. I think that the dehumanization, twisted up with hate and anger and spite, is something that is exacerbated by the wealth of information and communication available online. (I would like to cite a podcast called Rabbit Hole by the BYT for this, Podcast Review) That is to say that I don't think that the transformation is something that happens overnight so I believe that someone who wanted to harm others could be lead to a way to do it, whether by chemistry courses streamed from a college or news coverage of Ukraine v. Soviet Union. What I believe is missing is a fully-formed safety net that has something between "ask my friend if they're OK" and "call the cops to maybe get my friend killed". The dehumanization/radicalization that occurs is a process that requires medical guidance to correct and I have seen things likening it to Stockholm-esque victims in that you don't poke and mock them but support them to find their own way out.
I don't want to touch the firearm aspect of that issue because I believe that there is room for compromise there. I don't believe that we can compromise on a better formed safety net and public awareness campaign that stresses help over blame and should even help foster a healthier society. This is not to say that I picture a reversion to McCarthy-ism, rather it's closer to Suicide Prevention and comes from a place of love and concern.
In sum: Look out for those close to you and they'll look out for you. No government overwatch required.
mtn said:Chicago is also not the hotbed of gun violence that many think it is. On a per capita basis, it is safer than 25 other cities - including St. Louis, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Philly, Kansas City, and Wilmington DE, for example.
As a Kansas Citian and Missourian with family in St. Louis, I can attest to our gun violence rates being way out of line for the population of our largest cities.
We have relatively lax laws on acquiring and having guns in Missouri. Guns and Ammo considers Missouri #12, The Federalist Papers has us at #10. I'm convinced that easy access to guns is part of why KC and STL have more homicide than Chicago.
I don't hate guns and I don't mind people having them. I don't need one myself, but I have enjoyed target shooting with friends. I really dislike irresponsible people being irresponsible with instruments of death, and let's be blunt that's what guns are. Abstractly, they are devices for moving projectiles quickly, which is cool in a nerdy way. In practical terms, the main purpose is to kill or threaten death; there are times when such a tool is necessary.
I think everyone should know how to safely disposition a weapon if found (something I ought to learn as well) because gun safety should be part of a culture where guns are prevalent.
If you are not able to keep such items out of the hands of kids or others who would not use them responsibly, you shouldn't have a gun.
I'm a parent to a second grader, but I'm also the son of recently retired educators and I'm married to an educator. It appalls me that so many in our country are unwilling to even consider any changes that might result in fewer parents left with their children ripped apart by the machines of war. There are more than an isolated few people who are absolutely not willing to discuss it or even acknowledge that we as a country have a violence problem. Sadly, the obstinate few don't have to win the debate with any reasonable argument, they just silence it and more people die.
Javelin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Rare? There's been 27 school shootings in 2022 already, which is more than 1 per week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2022/01
Of note is that while all of those occurred on school grounds, most are not what people think of then they think "school shootings" e.g. a lot of them are people shot in school parking lots in fights, accidents and such, so effectively, could be considered a general shooting (or not at all) depending on how you want to classify things. The only one that seems to be close (other than Uvalde) is the guy shooting rounds into the school from across the street (I am a bit surprised I heard nothing of that one), but still not the intrusion style shooting most think of.
Not good either way, but many would be considered semi-typical in a bad neighborhood (I don't know which ones are in bad neighborhoods of course).
Edit ... not sure of the source so waiting for more reliable sources.
In reply to aircooled :
Does that matter though? We're talking about guns. If kids are getting access to a gun, that's a problem. It doesn't matter if they shot 1 person or 100, it's still a minor in possession of a deadly weapon and using it on school grounds (and yes I realize a few of the ones this year are adults on school property, which is another problem). There's been 304 fatal school shootings since Columbine, and over 1,000 school shootings total including thwarted attempts and accidental discharges. We all agree that 2A doesn't apply to minors, so how are they getting them? Clearly it's too easy.
There's also been 818 mass shootings in the US in 2022 so far. That's insane. There's only been 148 days. So every day there has been over 5.5 shootings on average with 4 or more victims. That shouldn't happen. That's 22 people dead per day in mass shootings. Think about that.
There's some sobering statistics here:
https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/blog/gun-violence/16-facts-about-gun-violence-and-school-shootings/
The leading cause of death among children is guns. Over 300,000 students have been present at a school during a shooting.
Mass shootings in general here:
In reply to Javelin :
Assuming that average carries to the end of the year, that's 2 thousandths of a percent of the total US population.
These numbers don't carry any nuance and, because of that, they don't carry any clearly defined solution. "Mass shooting" has become a useless term.
Having said that, per the CDC, the number of children killed by firearms spiked 30% between 2019 and 2020. Most were homicides, followed by suicides. I can think of one thing that would have had that kind of impact over the course of the year.
It's only useless because it happens so often. A ' mass shooting' is four or more people. I'm good with the definition. I think it means that the shooter doesn't target a single person or two for murder.
In reply to Teh E36 M3 :
It's useless because it doesn't identify any information about the shooter, the victims, or the situation that could lead to a deeper analysis in order to formulate a solution that's likely to have long-term success.
It's great if you're trying to rush a bill through Congress and need easily digestible talking points, though.
In reply to Turbo_Rev :
It's useful in this context because of a gun's ability to kill 4 people. Especially when we are discussing people that do not have the right to possess these weapons like minors and felons. Your statement reads that that if a felon kills 4 gang members, it shouldn't be included in a discussion about gun control? My position is the opposite, even with a motive at hand, there's 0 reason why that person should have had access to the firearm in the first place.
And push through what laws? Name 1 federal gun law passed in the 2000's.
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/
There were 3. But I think you meant gun control laws. But I would say state legislators are just as guilty and they muddy the waters for the same reason. That's where you'll find way more bills passed.
If you want of list of what's currently being considered in the House on Thursday, I can get you the list but it's also just a Google search away. Red Flag laws, AWB, magazine capacity restrictions, it's the usual. I'm not going to flirt with the statement "that will never happen" when it relates to what I consider a natural right that every human possesses. Then there's the ATF director being considered. He is not what anyone would call "gun friendly".
Anyways, you've read my statement wrong; nowhere did I even imply something like a felon killing 4 gang members shouldn't be included. I'm actually saying the opposite: you need to know that it was a felon and 4 gang members. I'm saying conflating that scenario with, say, a school shooter doesn't do anything useful if you want to have a discussion that leads to effective solutions. There is 0 reason for that person to have that firearm in the first place, not that it bothered them too much. Is the way to keep guns out of a kid's hands the same way you would keep guns out of a felon's hands? You can say "buyback", "ban", or "prohibition" but even then, what about the interim? 393 million guns aren't going to evaporate overnight.
Or you could start with distinguishing between the two and get to that solution right out of the gate. Why anyone thinks a decisive, inflammatory, and vauge conversation about anything is going to get anything meaningful done in a country with a 4 year election cycle is beyond me.
Javelin said:In reply to aircooled :
Does that matter though?....
In terms of shootings, no. In terms of school shootings, I think it does.
It can be very difficult to solve a problem if you do not measure it properly. In the least it will be hard to tell if you made a real difference.
In many of the cases shown, it appears as if many of those are more community (or national) problems, not school specific issues.
It looks like Turbo and I are referring to the same basic concept.
In reply to Javelin :
n reply to aircooled :
Does that matter though? We're talking about guns. If kids are getting access to a gun, that's a problem. It doesn't matter if they shot 1 person or 100, it's still a minor in possession of a deadly weapon and using it on school grounds (and yes I realize a few of the ones this year are adults on school property, which is another problem). There's been 304 fatal school shootings since Columbine, and over 1,000 school shootings total including thwarted attempts and accidental discharges. We all agree that 2A doesn't apply to minors, so how are they getting them? Clearly it's too easy.
There's also been 818 mass shootings in the US in 2022 so far. That's insane. There's only been 148 days. So every day there has been over 5.5 shootings on average with 4 or more victims. That shouldn't happen. That's 22 people dead per day in mass shootings. Think about that.
Yes it matters, it matters a lot. Please read the articles that 02Pilot linked, and I specifically mentioned. I was talking about the specific example that drove this and the national conversation. While I understand why you want tie it to gun violence in general, doing so can appear opportunistic to the very people you need to convince and you will lose them. When two high school kids get in a fight in a parking lot and one pulls a gun, that is tragic. But there are already a number of solutions to that problem and it is incomparable to a mass shooter targeting a grade school at random. I don't want to rehash the whole article, but it breaks down the various types of mass shootings. Domestic related that usually are contained to a family. Crime related which is criminals shooting other criminals or in the commission of another crime. And the rarest, the indiscriminate mass shooter who is looking to kill as many as possible and does not usually plan to survive the event. All tragic, but there are very different ways to address all three. My post specifically addressed the third.
You'll need to log in to post.
