Yet another school shooting.

[RomaGoth]

Oregon cops respond to report of shooter at community college | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-cops-respond-to-report-shooter-at-community-college/?intcmp=hpbt2)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html



I really want this shit to end already. :(

[GoldenEagle]

Damn.

Seeing reports of anywhere from 10-12 killed.

[panerd]

Yeah so senseless. Not that I see sense in a killing spree of people you hate or that have "wronged you" either but I just can't imagine what is going on in your mind when you just kill random people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just can't imagine what is going on in your mind when you just kill random people.

Let's see how "random" it actually was before we get too deeply into that.
I mean, typically, it isn't truly random at all.

[RomaGoth]

From CNN:


No police officers were injured, but preliminary information indicates 10 people were killed and more than 20 others injured in the shooting, according to Oregon State Police spokesman Bill Fugate.

Investigators are examining social media postings they believe were made by the suspect, according to a source with knowledge of the investigation.

The night before the attack, the alleged shooter appears to have had a conversation with others online about his intentions, the source said.

[molson]

It's vague and doesn't prove identity on its own, but here's the online exchange from last night on - you guessed it, 4Chan. Other posters were actually encouraging him and giving him advice about how to kill more people.

https://i.imgur.com/F90JrJW.jpg

[RomaGoth]

It's vague and doesn't prove identity on its own, but here's the online exchange from last night on - you guessed it, 4Chan. Other posters were actually encouraging him and giving him advice about how to kill more people.

https://i.imgur.com/F90JrJW.jpg

So many fucked up deranged people out there hiding behind a keyboard. Is it getting to the point where we are afraid to leave our homes? Or, should we go on about our lives like normal because they WANT us to be afraid?

[molson]

So many fucked up deranged people out there hiding behind a keyboard. Is it getting to the point where we are afraid to leave our homes? Or, should we go on about our lives like normal because they WANT us to be afraid?

There's much more risk of dying in a car accident or eating bad foods (and a million other things) than there is being killed by a someone randomly.

There's certain dangers and causes of death that our brains have trouble rationally processing the risk of (see the Ebola thread).

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's vague and doesn't prove identity on its own, but here's the online exchange from last night on - you guessed it, 4Chan. Other posters were actually encouraging him and giving him advice about how to kill more people.

https://i.imgur.com/F90JrJW.jpg

Chilling shit IF it does turn out to be connected.

As an aside, I'm not sure I would have guessed 4Chan off the top of my head. Not sure what site/platform I would have guessed if you'd asked me but it didn't immediately leap to mind or anything. I suspect that's just a sign that I'm rather old. (My 17 y/o, when told of the possible link, simply said "of course it was")

[JonInMiddleGA]

So many fucked up deranged people out there hiding behind a keyboard. Is it getting to the point where we are afraid to leave our homes? Or, should we go on about our lives like normal because they WANT us to be afraid?

The 4chan discussion really didn't strike me as being about fear tbh. Cry for help, cheap thrill, delusions of grandeur ... but I don't get much sense that it was about scaring anybody per se.

[Alf]

:popcorn:

Another pro-gun vs anti-gun thread, I suppose. Seeing it from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, those are still a mistery to me.

[RomaGoth]

There's much more risk of dying in a car accident or eating bad foods (and a million other things) than there is being killed by a someone randomly.

There's certain dangers and causes of death that our brains have trouble rationally processing the risk of (see the Ebola thread).

Yeah I get that, but the media loves to shock the public with this stuff. I was more or less just wondering out loud how people are reacting to these incidents.

Move theaters, schools, malls....before Columbine I never thought about something like this happening when I went somewhere. Now, especially with kids, I hesitate a little and wonder if it is worth it anymore.

[RomaGoth]

:popcorn:

Another pro-gun vs anti-gun thread, I suppose. Seeing it from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, those are still a mistery to me.

Nope, none of that, at least here. Although, I think you mean "mystery", right? ;)

[Solecismic]

:popcorn:

Another pro-gun vs anti-gun thread, I suppose. Seeing it from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, those are still a mistery to me.

Not really. The Charlie Hebdo attack was probably scarier because it was so organized and the target (free speech) something we can easily identify with. Certainly stricter gun laws aren't a panacea.

It's sad when people who want to die think there's value in taking others with them.

[Grover]

:popcorn:

Another pro-gun vs anti-gun thread, I suppose. Seeing it from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, those are still a mistery to me.

Really hope this thread doesn't turn into it. Just turns into mudslinging on either side with nothing ever being discussed rationally. No one ever wants to meet in the middle on the issue unfortunately

[RomaGoth]

It's sad when people who want to die think there's value in taking others with them.

So true. Can't help but make the connection with radical Islam either. I have nothing that verifies this shooting did or didn't have anything to do with jihad, but in my opinion the concept you bring up is a sickness that seems to be empowered each time we see it on tv. Guns just happen to be the tool these people use to permeate their distorted views of the world.

[RainMaker]

Is there any confirmation on the 4chan stuff? News agencies are sort of reporting it but that shit is pretty common on 4chan.

[nol]

Is there any confirmation on the 4chan stuff? News agencies are sort of reporting it but that shit is pretty common on 4chan.

This explains a lot.

[Dutch]

I don't even know what 4chan is...and now I never do.

[Neon_Chaos]

It's sad how America is the one advanced country where this happens again and again and again and again.

[Dutch]

It's sad how America is the one advanced country where this happens again and again and again and again.

Who said we were all advanced?

[molson]

I don't even know what 4chan is...and now I never do.

I had to go to urban dictionary to look up what "beta uprising" meant. That's apparently a buzz word that's going around the 4Chan shooting threads to the extent that CNN talked about it today. I guess their spiritual leader is that rich douchebag that shot a bunch of women in California because he couldn't get laid.

[flere-imsaho]

Certainly stricter gun laws aren't a panacea.

I don't need a panacea. Some progress would be nice, though.

[Alf]

It's sad when people who want to die think there's value in taking others with them.

Yes, I can't disagree with that.

[Galaril]

I got this off my girlfriends Fb feed. She is an elementary school teacher and says she goes through the locked drills regular which adds to her worry about this happening someday. I was blown away at the volume of these incidence just in the last 2 1/2 years.

http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook

[BishopMVP]

It's sad how America is the one advanced country where this happens again and again and again and again.The breathless national media coverage of each and every one not only makes it seem like a choice that many other have made, but also provides an incentive to many cowards who feel like girls won't talk to them, or their viewpoint isn't being heard. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/health/contagious-mass-killings-study/

That's far from the only problem, and it wouldn't make them go away, but I have zero doubt that media coverage and the glorification of the shooters does increase the chances of another one. It's been a while since I read it, but the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell had a chapter where he talked about how certain things can turn into a cultural epidemic because young/immature people start thinking society expects them to do a certain thing. And there's clearly no stopping the parasitic media from putting ratings above people's safety.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">How the media responds to a school shooting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UCCShooting?src=hash">#UCCShooting</a> - hope you're safe <a href="https://twitter.com/KP_KaylaMarie">@KP_KaylaMarie</a> ❤️❤️ <a href="https://t.co/HJOUXKYyme">pic.twitter.com/HJOUXKYyme</a></p>&mdash; Ryan Widner (@RyanWiddy) <a href="https://twitter.com/RyanWiddy/status/649699142411816961">October 1, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Grover]

How else is the media supposed to respond to someone posting a tweet about this? She obviously felt safe enough to send out the original tweet.

EDIT: I agree that the media (CABLE NEWS) is part of the problem in the obsessive coverage, but at the same time, they're merely delivering what gives them ratings. They get more eyeballs from crap like this, so they're going to push it.

[BishopMVP]

How else is the media supposed to respond to someone posting a tweet about this? She obviously felt safe enough to send out the original tweet.I'd hope they would show some decorum, but clearly that's gone out the window in favor of getting the story first. There's also a chance she sent out the tweet hoping it might be useful information to followers or people who could conceivably be affected by the ongoing situation, not so that parasites 3000 miles away could use it for a cheap ratings boost. I'd even be a little more understanding if it was only national stations or Oregon ones, but why are local New York or Wisconsin affiliates desperately trying to get an on the ground interview?

I grew up in a great town outside Boston, continue to work at the HS, and I've seen multiple news vans three times. Twice when a pedestrian was struck and killed, once when a HS student committed suicide (occasionally one will show up for a particularly contentious town vote or a big sports game). For the last one I helped the administration throw reporters off campus because they were cornering crying teenagers, then watched them set up their cameras 10 feet off it so they could have our school as a nice backdrop while giving their report and try to interview any student walking past. They're leeches feeding off the pain and misery of others, and the 24 hour news cycle has only made it worse. I understand how ratings work, how freedom of speech works, and that the real problem is the large percentage of people who secretly love hearing about things like this as they complain about it, but I'm going to actively oppose them when I can't avoid them. I hate that I know the names and faces of Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof etc, and I'm sure I'll be bombarded with the name and face of this cowardly douchebag on the wall of TV's at the gym later.

I don't want complete media censorship or silence on events like this, but they long ago crossed the line between respectful reporting and fetishization and glorification of the psychos. I don't have a good answer for how to walk it back and cut down on the cycle, but maybe calling them out on their bullshit and making them feel a little ashamed helps just a little.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't have a good answer for how to walk it back and cut down on the cycle, but maybe calling them out on their bullshit and making them feel a little ashamed helps just a little.

As opposed to calling out the people who watch it all and want even more?

Media responds to demand, because demand = revenue.

I have specific questions about the case I happened to be interested in. Who was the guy, what was his basic motivation, what's the general backstory here (bad relationship? bad grade? utterly random?), and yes I was curious to know the number & type of weapons involved. And that's probably about it. I've managed to satisfy that interest with 15-20 minutes worth of reading since the details started to emerge, no need to Google any of it, it's all been touched upon in stories that readily came into my view from a headline aggregator site. I've seen exactly zero seconds of TV coverage of any kind.

Wanna bet there's a (small) ratings spike for cable news last night though? Or what a leading #hashtag yesterday was? Point being that I don't have to be part of the demand to recognize that it exists.

Pointing the finger at the media instead of the viewing public is a mistake afaic.

[molson]

We take it for granted but reporters are how we get news about what happened, and even historical documentation about what happened. It can be a really dirty job in the trenches, but I understand why people want to know about major events. I was in a reddit thread yesterday where people were simultaneously complaining about "parasite" reporters and jumping all over every new little news tidbit. Where do they think those tidbits come from?

[BishopMVP]

As opposed to calling out the people who watch it all and want even more?You of all people show know disdain can be directed at more than one group at a time. ;) And in fact I did make a point to mention the hypocrites who decry it while secretly driving the demand.Media responds to demand, because demand = revenue.

I have specific questions about the case I happened to be interested in. Who was the guy, what was his basic motivation, what's the general backstory here (bad relationship? bad grade? utterly random?), and yes I was curious to know the number & type of weapons involved. And that's probably about it. I've managed to satisfy that interest with 15-20 minutes worth of reading since the details started to emerge, no need to Google any of it, it's all been touched upon in stories that readily came into my view from a headline aggregator site. I've seen exactly zero seconds of TV coverage of any kind.

Wanna bet there's a (small) ratings spike for cable news last night though? Or what a leading #hashtag yesterday was? Point being that I don't have to be part of the demand to recognize that it exists.

Pointing the finger at the media instead of the viewing public is a mistake afaic.I don't have any problem with going to read a story on it - I usually end up doing that once with these stories for the same reasons you do. I have a problem with wall to wall coverage that pushes it into peoples faces, with affiliates 3000 miles away all trying to break news instead of just having the national team do it and using their information or the reporting from the local station when they feel it necessary to talk about it on the nightly news, and most importantly with people glorifying it to either push an agenda or make money.

Honest question here - if the TV media all agreed at least not to show the pictures of the people who did this and made it something you actually had to search for on message boards and in darker corners of the web, like when a horrific video like a beheading comes out, do you agree it would reduce the chances of at least one of these attacks? If yes, at what point does that start to have more value than some people's need for details? This isn't something the media is unaware of - I actually saw the link to that CNN story yesterday with a February publish date, and it was updated today so it would show up on their front page feed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have a problem with wall to wall coverage that pushes it into peoples faces, with affiliates 3000 miles away all trying to break news instead of just having the national team do it

Those folks are just trying to make a living like the rest of us. More than one career has been made by simply being the person who got something everybody else didn't. I get the pressure, I get the motivation, I can't blame 'em for it.

Honest question here - if the TV media all agreed at least not to show the pictures of the people who did this and made it something you actually had to search for on message boards and in darker corners of the web, like when a horrific video like a beheading comes out, do you agree it would reduce the chances of at least one of these attacks?

No, not really. Not in a meaningful amount (i.e. some tiny fractional percentage maybe). Those who seek attention would likely go bigger to force the media's hand -- "ignore THIS" basically -- that ship has sailed already.


If yes, at what point does that start to have more value than some people's need for details?

If it's public record or legally obtained ... pretty much only on matters of national security afaic.

[ISiddiqui]

Oregon shooter said to have singled out Christians for killing in ‘horrific act of cowardice’ - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/02/oregon-shooter-said-to-have-singled-out-christians-for-killing-in-horrific-act-of-cowardice/)

In one classroom, he appeared to single out Christian students for killing, according to witness Anastasia Boylan.

“He said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,'” Boylan’s father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying his daughter’s account while she underwent surgery to treat a gunshot to her spine.

“And then he shot and killed them.”

Another account came from Autumn Vicari, who described to NBC News what her brother J.J. witnessed in the room where the shootings occurred. According to NBC: “Vicari said at one point the shooter told people to stand up before asking whether they were Christian or not. Vicari’s brother told her that anyone who responded ‘yes’ was shot in the head. If they said ‘other’ or didn’t answer, they were shot elsewhere in the body, usually the leg.”

:(

[Kodos]

Awful. Awful stuff.

[RainMaker]

I know everyone talks about guns and so forth but it does seem like a lot of these people are complete losers who realize this is the easiest way to get their message out. Like the guy even said this before the shooting.

I don't know how to change that either. The media is going to report on what the public wants. Maybe the answer is that these become so common that none of these shooters stand out anymore.

[RainMaker]

I also thought the President's statement was good. But I really wish he would tell us what he wants done. Like give a policy change you want and tell the public to push for it with their representatives.

[stevew]

Sounds like this guy had a bunch of red flags, but of course nobody took 2 craps of care in his direction. It seems like the only way for this crap to be prevented is for more human to human interaction in person.

In lieu of that, I think advancements in sexbots will tone down a ton of the male angst that leads to this sort of thing. And I know this statement sounds dumb but distraction probably helps to put minds at ease

[RainMaker]

I wonder how much social media and this sort of narcissistic society plays a role in this. There is so much desperation from people online for attention. I mean I like aspects of social media but it is bizarre to see people obsessively tweeting photos of what they have for dinner to their 6 followers.

Obviously there are deeper issues at play but some of this feels like people who are so desperate for attention that they will do unspeakable acts just to get their rants in front of people.

[Galaril]

Oregon shooter said to have singled out Christians for killing in ‘horrific act of cowardice’ - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/02/oregon-shooter-said-to-have-singled-out-christians-for-killing-in-horrific-act-of-cowardice/)



:(

I frankly don't know that it matters that he was killing Christians. Whether someone was/is a Christian it shouldn't matter. Right?

[Galaril]

I know everyone talks about guns and so forth but it does seem like a lot of these people are complete losers who realize this is the easiest way to get their message out. Like the guy even said this before the shooting.
.

At the risk of turning this into a pro gun vs anti gun thing.... They are complete losers and not much we can do to stop them from murder but I think we could at least act like we want to cut down on the sheer volume of these killings. I am not smart enough to say what that is but got to be something more than just say "fuck shit happens!":-(

[RainMaker]

At the risk of turning this into a pot gun vs anti gun thing.... They are complete losers and not much we can do to stop them from murder but I think we could at least act like we want to cut down on the sheer volume of these killings. I am not smart enough to say what that is but got to be something more than just say "fuck shit happens!":-(

Well it is true that this happens in our country at a disproportionate rate compared to other first world countries. So the "shit happens" doesn't make much sense because it doesn't happen elsewhere.

The question is why though. Is it lax gun laws? Is it our culture? Is it lack of mental health? I don't know. But I do think it's a topic we should be trying to figure out an answer to. Why the hell is our country so much different from the rest of the world?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I frankly don't know that it matters why he was killing people. Whether someone was/is a Christian it shouldn't matter. Right?

Seems fair to note the motivation though. I mean, it's included as part of other stories so why not this one too, y'know?

[JonInMiddleGA]

At the risk of turning this into a pot gun vs anti gun thing

Pot guns? I knew drugs were insidious but DAMN.

The alignment shifts that would create, my head spins.

;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Odd little tidbit I've seen in several articles today

A neighbor, Bronte Harte, said Harper-Mercer "seemed really unfriendly" and would "sit by himself in the dark in the balcony with this little light."

Now it's quite possible that it was some sort of light I suppose ... but my first thought was "think maybe it was his phone?"

edit: this relates to how we always seem to hear little quotes after incidents but we're really lacking context even then

[Galaril]

Pot guns? I knew drugs were insidious but DAMN.

The alignment shifts that would create, my head spins.

;)

Haha thanks I fixed that:-)

[Galaril]

Seems fair to note the motivation though. I mean, it's included as part of other stories so why not this one too, y'know?

Sure. But doesn't change anything.

[Galaril]

Well it is true that this happens in our country at a disproportionate rate compared to other first world countries. So the "shit happens" doesn't make much sense because it doesn't happen elsewhere.

The question is why though. Is it lax gun laws? Is it our culture? Is it lack of mental health? I don't know. But I do think it's a topic we should be trying to figure out an answer to. Why the hell is our country so much different from the rest of the world?

Well that didn't take long for a politician to say it:-)...Jeb Bush Says 'Stuff Happens' In Response to Gun Violence - Yahoo (https://gma.yahoo.com/jeb-bush-says-stuff-happens-response-gun-violence-203157008--abc-news-topstories.html#)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sure. But doesn't change anything.

I haven't seen -- here nor even in my own social sphere -- a single person suggest that it does.

I'll guarantee that SOMEWHERE either of us could easily find some narrative that spins this as an assault on Christians (indeed, I did see one 9th tier blog post that referred to the shooter as a Muslim, everything I've seen elsewhere suggests that he was more an atheist than anything) but on the whole, that really doesn't seem to be something getting any traction at all.

[Galaril]

I haven't seen -- here nor even in my own social sphere -- a single person suggest that it does.

I'll guarantee that SOMEWHERE either of us could easily find some narrative that spins this as an assault on Christians (indeed, I did see one 9th tier blog post that referred to the shooter as a Muslim, everything I've seen elsewhere suggests that he was more an atheist than anything) but on the whole, that really doesn't seem to be something getting any traction at all.


Good point and I have not seen it either yet.

[Izulde]

Yeah, when my boss asked me about the Christian thing, I said he was probably atheist, just based on the details I'd heard/read (4chan being a huge indicator IMO).

[Coffee Warlord]

Well that didn't take long for a politician to say it:-)...Jeb Bush Says 'Stuff Happens' In Response to Gun Violence - Yahoo (https://gma.yahoo.com/jeb-bush-says-stuff-happens-response-gun-violence-203157008--abc-news-topstories.html#)

It’s a—we’re in a difficult time in our country, and I don’t think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It’s very sad to see, but I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor, because we had—look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis, and the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.

He should have known better than to say it the way he did, and of COURSE everyone latches onto "Stuff Happens", but he's somewhat right.

[ISiddiqui]

Seems fair to note the motivation though. I mean, it's included as part of other stories so why not this one too, y'know?

Indeed. If its an assault on blacks or Muslims or whoever else, it is reported. I think it's one of those things that should be included regardless of who is being targeted. The motivation can be important to note as maybe it may lead to some extra thought (noting that the Charleston shooting targeting blacks did a lot and perhaps some folks who are really militantly atheist may back off on their rhetoric a bit knowing that this sort of thing is what it may lead to when one peddles in hate - regardless of which direction).

[Galaril]

Indeed. If its an assault on blacks or Muslims or whoever else, it is reported. I think it's one of those things that should be included regardless of who is being targeted. The motivation can be important to note as maybe it may lead to some extra thought (noting that the Charleston shooting targeting blacks did a lot and perhaps some folks who are really militantly atheist may back off on their rhetoric a bit knowing that this sort of thing is what it may lead to when one peddles in hate - regardless of which direction).

Agree but one question was it determined the Charleston shutting was because he hated Christians or African Americans . I know it happened in a church but thought it was racially motivated?

[ISiddiqui]

Charleston was racially motivated. This shooting was anti-Christian motivated apparently.

[Galaril]

Charleston was racially motivated. This shooting was anti-Christian motivated apparently.

Yup.

[molson]

There were posters here who blamed the Jared Lee Loughner shootings on the conservative media. That was a fun thread. I think motive, if we know it, it always worth mentioning, but I don't think you can take it literally. These people aren't processing the world the same way normal people are. The shootings yesterday do not represent some broader theme about violent atheists rising up and attacking Christians. (I'm sure you could find that narrative being pushed somewhere on the internet).

I'm starting to think these things aren't about guns or mental illness. There's not a lot of countries which have completely banned guns or who have cured mental illness in the general population. There's many countries where you can acquire weapons if you don't have a criminal record. The reality is, if someone wants to kill you, they probably can, almost anywhere. They can't kill as many as the weirdo did at Sandy Hook if they don't have access to that kind of weapons stash, but they could certainly kill one or two people. And they don't even do that at the same rate, especially against random strangers.

[bhlloy]

Saying "not a lot of countries have cured mental illness" is obviously a strawman, but the fact is most other Western countries do have some form of nationalized healthcare and compulsory mental health care that means it's a billion times less likely that these cases fall through the cracks and people who need mental health care get it. I'd love to see figures on the % of people needing mental health care in the US who receive it vs most of western europe. I would imagine it's probably night and day.

I saw this posted on facebook and honestly, while it's a troll job I can't completely disagree with it

"It's not guns, it's mental health!"
"Great, let's get people mental healthcare!"
"No! The government shouldn't be involved in mental healthcare!"

[molson]

Saying "not a lot of countries have cured mental illness" is obviously a strawman, but the fact is most other Western countries do have some form of nationalized healthcare and compulsory mental health care that means it's a billion times less likely that these cases fall through the cracks and people who need mental health care get it. I'd love to see figures on the % of people needing mental health care in the US who receive it vs most of western europe. I would imagine it's probably night and day.

I saw this posted on facebook and honestly, while it's a troll job I can't completely disagree with it

"It's not guns, it's mental health!"
"Great, let's get people mental healthcare!"
"No! The government shouldn't be involved in mental healthcare!"

Most of these shooters were relatively wealthy and had access to mental healthcare.

The government didn't involuntarily detain them though. I have no idea to what extent that happens in Europe. But that's always been a tough sell here. We've tried to use the criminal justice system for that purpose, but we have real reluctance to lock up law-abiding people who we deem mentally ill. I would love to see that mindset changed. I train police officers on occasion and always emphasize their statutory power to detain people who, due to their mental illness, are threats to themselves or others. Of course, police are only going to be aware of that when someone is acting out in a dangerous way, and a lot of these people are loners who spend most of their time in their homes. And even when there is a situation, people are detained briefly and stabilized and released, at least until they commit their first crime. Adam Lanza was treated and the schools and doctors knew how crazy he was, but I don't think he committed any crimes, or acted out in any way to provide evidence that he was dangerous. I think the mother knew more but was concealing info from authorities, which is easy to do in a country that has relatively strong privacy rights. If there was such evidence though, I'm still not not sure they would have locked him up, because we just don't do that as much as we should.

People struggle with mental illness (and addiction) even when they have resources to treat them. It's a real inexact science. So I don't think it tells the whole story either.

[bhlloy]

You may be right. That being said, it's just a completely different approach. Even if you are wealthy and you have access to mental health care, you are still probably paying for a large part of it out of pocket or spending time convincing the insurance company you really need it. And either of those situations you have somebody who is really motivated to keep the care as cheap and as short as possible.

I'm going to stop there and not go down that road because it ends up in the same old healthcare argument and that does this thread a disservice. But ultimately I do agree with what was posted on fb above.

You can say all citizens deserve access to guns with minimal/no background checks
You can also say the government should not be in the business of providing health care including mental health care and that should be left to private enterprise and the decisions of individuals
But if you do say both of those things, I don't think you can turn around and then be surprised when these kind of shootings keep happening. Maybe as a society we agree with 1 and 2 so much that we are willing to live with 3. But it seems dishonest to me to skirt around the edges and say "why does this keep happening here"

[Ryche]

Do all of these shooters necessarily have a mental illness? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. And that's kind of a scary thought

[JonInMiddleGA]

Rather than quote anyone/anything specific, I'll just say that this is in response to several posts talking about mental health issues & the handling of them in other countries.

Perhaps it's a legitimate possibility that other countries' have people doing a better job of taking care of their own family members than we do. An intentional exaggeration to clarify what I mean there, maybe other nation's aren't as reluctant to lock their own fruitcake relative in the basement as we are*

And, frankly, I'm not criticizing places where that might be the case


* (I just didn't feel like what I meant by "take care of" was clear, and wasn't up to a long-winded explanation of it, the extreme example seemed likely to suffice)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Do all of these shooters necessarily have a mental illness? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. And that's kind of a scary thought

That's probably a fair question.

It's also probably equally fair to wonder aloud how small a percentage of the population isn't diagnosable as "mentally ill" in some form or fashion.

[thesloppy]

This particular fellow certainly seems easy enough to tag. (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/new_details_emerge_on_umpqua_c.html)

It sounds like goofy conspiracy theory, but I find myself questioning the role of not just mental illness, but mental illness medication itself in these shootings. Even the adds for lots of those psychoactive medications contain disclaimers about "may cause homicidal/suicidal urges'. Surely most of the hundreds of thousands of users of those medications get the intended benefit, but what if the cost is that they also push a few nutcases over the edge? Not only do we need to consider throwing more resources into mental health, but we need to consider our culture of treatment, beyond the modern standard of "throw some pillz at it".

An extremely quick & lazy google search reveals a semi-interesting take on the subject, from the journalistic powerhouse, the Los Alamos Daily Post:

A Brief History of Psychotropic Drugs Prescribed to Mass Murderers | Los Alamos Daily Post (http://www.ladailypost.com/content/brief-history-psychotropic-drugs-prescribed-mass-murderers)

[Dutch]

we have real reluctance to lock up law-abiding people who we deem mentally ill. I would love to see that mindset changed.

To prevent mass shootings? Or to prevent any potential crime?

[Easy Mac]

He should have known better than to say it the way he did, and of COURSE everyone latches onto "Stuff Happens", but he's somewhat right.

At least we finally have a Republican candidate come out against the Patriot Act.

Of course, he also said this You Don't Pass a Pool Fencing Law After a Child Drowns, Says Jeb, Who Did Just That (http://gawker.com/you-dont-pass-a-pool-fencing-law-after-a-child-drowns-1734383068)

[BillJasper]

At least we finally have a Republican candidate come out against the Patriot Act.

Of course, he also said this You Don't Pass a Pool Fencing Law After a Child Drowns, Says Jeb, Who Did Just That (http://gawker.com/you-dont-pass-a-pool-fencing-law-after-a-child-drowns-1734383068)

I think Jeb is just running because it was expected of him. I'm not sure his heart is really in it.

[Coffee Warlord]

At least we finally have a Republican candidate come out against the Patriot Act.

Of course, he also said this You Don't Pass a Pool Fencing Law After a Child Drowns, Says Jeb, Who Did Just That (http://gawker.com/you-dont-pass-a-pool-fencing-law-after-a-child-drowns-1734383068)

He's a politician. Of course he's a hypocrite!

Of course, on the flipside, that pool fence measure was passed 109-8 in the state house. He didn't exactly have a lot of choice.

[Dutch]

Is the fence-free pool tied to some sort of Constitutional right that Im missing. Is this a valid comparison?

[Galaril]

So I am curious to hear the particulars of the shooting in Oregon as to what type and number of guns this wacko had, how he got them ( were they his or a relatives) how much ammo did he have.

[Dutch]

I don't know what types he had....doesnt really matter, but they were all legally registers and he had plenty of ammo.

[Galaril]

I don't know what types he had....doesnt really matter, but they were all legally registers and he had plenty of ammo.

Yeah it absolutely does matter at least in my mind. Did he walk into the school with two assault rifles with two thousand rounds of ammo or did he walk in with a pair of hunting rifles with two boxes of ammo? I get they were all legal. It seems just about anything is legal with our gun laws.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah it absolutely does matter at least in my mind. Did he walk into the school with two assault rifles with two thousand rounds of ammo or did he walk in with a pair of hunting rifles with two boxes of ammo? I get they were all legal. It seems just about anything is legal with our gun laws.

He actually only used a pistol. There was (what I gather was) an AR-15 he stored/hid in another room but never used it.

Oregon's top federal prosecutor says the shooter used a handgun when he opened fire on classmates at an Oregon college, killing nine and injuring nine others.

Interim U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said Friday Christopher Harper-Mercer stashed a rifle in another room and did not fire it. He says it's impossible to know what the shooter had planned for the rifle.

[cartman]

A semi-auto pistol can often times hold more rounds than an AR/AK. I have a Smith and Wesson 9mm that can carry 17 rounds in each magazine.

[albionmoonlight]

Is the fence-free pool tied to some sort of Constitutional right that Im missing. Is this a valid comparison?

Almost everything I hear about Jeb is that he's a manager at heart. I don't think that he's a politician at heart. He's a great manager, so he sees a problem and starts to think of solutions. Deadly accidents involving pools? Let's weigh the pros and cons of new regulations of pools. Can we save lives with reasonable expense and a minimum of interference with enjoyment? Deadly accidents involving guns? Let's weigh the pros and cons of new regulations of guns. Can we save lives with reasonable expense and a minimum of interference with enjoyment? That's the first place his brain goes. Trying to solve the problem.

A natural politician would have gotten up and led with rhetoric about the Constitution and just gone from there.

I'm a Democrat, so I want the Dems to win the presidency in order to be a veto to the GOP legislature. But if I had to pick a public figure to put in charge of something large and important based solely on skill, I would probably pick Jeb. He likes solving problems, and he seems pretty good at it.

[Dutch]

Yeah it absolutely does matter at least in my mind. Did he walk into the school with two assault rifles with two thousand rounds of ammo or did he walk in with a pair of hunting rifles with two boxes of ammo? I get they were all legal. It seems just about anything is legal with our gun laws.

Assault rifle is a glorified name for a military looking hunting rifle. Hell, even if we banned AR-15's, that would force him to use shotguns....

In any event, it's illegal to kill people, what makes you think people will obey gun laws? And what kinds of punishment would you hand out differently if they were legal or not? The only thing that I see happening with strict gun laws is normal citizens are going to be defenseless. I hate to say it, but murder or attempted murder with guns should hold the same weight. You fire a gun at a human being and you are done playing the game of free citizen. Pinning these horrific crimes on white GOP southerners attached to the NRA is just a no-gain political stunt.

[rowech]

For me, it still always comes back to why do other countries not have these things on a weekly basis? They have things happen but it's not all the time, nor is it often as bad. Is it guns, mental health, income gaps, what is it? If you say that it's all of these things then you are saying, it's just American culture and the idea this is something we just have to live with is asinine.

For me it's about mental health and the way we treat it but I'm sick of watching the same discussions over and over as we as a country sit around with our thumbs up our asses hoping it's going to blow over. God forbid the day that several of these people link up. Then we might find out how bad things can really be. We have to start trying to develop ideas and working the problem and not just living with it.

[cartman]

In any event, it's illegal to kill people, what makes you think people will obey gun laws?

It is illegal to steal things, what makes you think people will obey robbery laws?

It is illegal to drive drunk, what makes you think people will obey DUI laws?

It is illegal to use non-public information to trade stocks, what makes you think people will obey insider trading laws?

That is a horrible strawman argument that really needs to stop.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That is a horrible strawman argument that really needs to stop.

You mean like the bullshit surrender on drug laws? That certainly seems to be popular with the leftists that want to restrict gun ownership, so goose, gander, etc.

Also, none of the things you mention is a constitutionally protected right, so apples & oranges could come into play as well.

[cartman]

You are aware that the right to bear arms as a constitutional right is not absolute? Otherwise convicted felons and the like would legal be able to legally own weapons.

[Dutch]

It is illegal to steal things, what makes you think people will obey robbery laws?

It is illegal to drive drunk, what makes you think people will obey DUI laws?

It is illegal to use non-public information to trade stocks, what makes you think people will obey insider trading laws?

That is a horrible strawman argument that really needs to stop.

No, you just created the straw man. Read the part of my post where I start with, "I hate to say...." and it lines up nicely with all your reversed logic.

[JPhillips]

You mean like the bullshit surrender on drug laws? That certainly seems to be popular with the leftists that want to restrict gun ownership, so goose, gander, etc.

Also, none of the things you mention is a constitutionally protected right, so apples & oranges could come into play as well.

Make America great again. Repeal the 21st amendment!

[Dutch]

You are aware that the right to bear arms as a constitutional right is not absolute? Otherwise convicted felons and the like would legal be able to legally own weapons.

It's not absolute. The VAST majority of guns are handguns, rifles and shotguns. Most other weaponry is illegal or extremely hard to get legally. While we get up in arms about this, in the end, it was 10 people. Drug dealers and thugs are still dishing out 10,000 deaths each year and its because of drugs, not mental health. And yet here we are again blaming those card-carrying NRA "gun-nuts" of the GOP flavor.

[cartman]

The VAST majority of guns are handguns, rifles and shotguns.

So, what kind of gun ISN'T a handgun, rifle or shotgun?

[Galaril]

Assault rifle is a glorified name for a military looking hunting rifle. Hell, even if we banned AR-15's, that would force him to use shotguns....

In any event, it's illegal to kill people, what makes you think people will obey gun laws? And what kinds of punishment would you hand out differently if they were legal or not? The only thing that I see happening with strict gun laws is normal citizens are going to be defenseless. I hate to say it, but murder or attempted murder with guns should hold the same weight. You fire a gun at a human being and you are done playing the game of free citizen. Pinning these horrific crimes on white GOP southerners attached to the NRA is just a no-gain political stunt.

Good points that I admit are things to consider. I think we might eventually have to consider some type of deterrence to mass murder or murder with guns other than just plain old lethal injection. A life of hard labor in a coal mine or in the future life if hard labor on an asteroid in space just brain storming death by acid bath. As violent as American culture has gotten it would have to be a pretty horrific death to deter people. But then we come back to people who would never allow that and also there is no way to deter crazy.

[Dutch]

So, what kind of gun ISN'T a handgun, rifle or shotgun?

Machine guns?

[cartman]

Machine guns?

Aren't those considered short barreled rifles?

[MIJB#19]

Do all of these shooters necessarily have a mental illness? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. And that's kind of a scary thoughtYes, I think it's reasonable to assume every single one of them had psychological issues severe enough to have a complete breakdown, these aren't split-second loss of awareness decisions. It takes too much time between the decision to grab the gun and the actual shooting for this to be an act of temporary meltdown.

[MIJB#19]

It's not absolute. The VAST majority of guns are handguns, rifles and shotguns. Most other weaponry is illegal or extremely hard to get legally. While we get up in arms about this, in the end, it was 10 people. Drug dealers and thugs are still dishing out 10,000 deaths each year and its because of drugs, not mental health. And yet here we are again blaming those card-carrying NRA "gun-nuts" of the GOP flavor.The desire to consume drugs (in my opinion) is actually a signal of mental illness.

[Galaril]

Machine guns?

So in about half the states in this country people can
But automatic weapons albeit they go through a lengthy FBI background check as long as they are not an ex con or have a record of domestic violence they can get one of the 300,000 automatic weapons fire up there. As for ARs, they now can empty 30 rounds in a few seconds.
CNN's Don Lemon says automatic weapons are easy to get | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/26/don-lemon/cnns-lemon-says-automatic-weapons-are-easy-get/)

[Dutch]

So in about half the states in this country people can
But automatic weapons albeit they go through a lengthy FBI background check as long as they are not an ex con or have a record of domestic violence they can get one of the 300,000 automatic weapons fire up there. As for ARs, they now can empty 30 rounds in a few seconds.
CNN's Don Lemon says automatic weapons are easy to get | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/26/don-lemon/cnns-lemon-says-automatic-weapons-are-easy-get/)

Right, by "extremely hard to get" I mean, most people don't bother with it. You can empty a 9mm pretty quick too. 30 round mags are available....ban those...okay, you'll need to bring two...neither is very accurate at that rate of fire though. The vast majority of the 10,000 annual homicides are done when the shooter fires less than 6 rounds anyway...

[Dutch]

The desire to consume drugs (in my opinion) is actually a signal of mental illness.

Agreed, but at least those are passive mental problems and not aggressive mental problems. Although, drinking or being high while driving tends to eliminate the overall benefit, I suppose.

[cartman]

Right, by "extremely hard to get" I mean, most people don't bother with it. You can empty a 9mm pretty quick too. 30 round mags are available....ban those...okay, you'll need to bring two...neither is very accurate at that rate of fire though. The vast majority of the 10,000 annual homicides are done when the shooter fires less than 6 rounds anyway...

So you are on board with limiting magazines to 5 rounds or fewer?

[Dutch]

If anything, I was implying you want to ban everything that has 30 or less rounds! But no, I wasn't implying anything like 5 or less only.

[MIJB#19]

Agreed, but at least those are passive mental problems and not aggressive mental problems. Although, drinking or being high while driving tends to eliminate the overall benefit, I suppose.Plus, they could be minor at first, but can rather quickly lead to bigger problems.

[Solecismic]

We have to remember that, despite attention from the media rivaling that of missing Malaysian airliners, the sum total of people killed in rampage-type shootings per decade is about equal to the number of people who die in traffic accidents in America on a single summer day.

You'd have far more impact on the lives of innocent people with a $1,000 fine for texting and driving. I also would guess that increased penalties on those who drink and drive has had an enormous impact.

I don't own a gun. I don't want a gun. I don't get warm and fuzzy thinking about my neighbors owning machine guns (and I'd bet at least one of them does).

But I view gun restrictions as somewhat similar to abortion restrictions. That most attempts to restrict gun ownership are a slippery slope toward an authoritarian control.

And I view restrictions as somewhat pointless. Many of our larger urban areas have the strictest laws against gun possession. Yet the murder rates are much higher in many of these areas.

As for restrictions on the mentally ill, I'm just not sure how that would work. But I am for restrictions on felons and my guess is that people who dangerously mentally ill - at least to a point where we would consider invoking this type of law - are already felons.

[flere-imsaho]

The desire to consume drugs (in my opinion) is actually a signal of mental illness.

Including, or not including, alcohol?

[flere-imsaho]

You'd have far more impact on the lives of innocent people with a $1,000 fine for texting and driving. I also would guess that increased penalties on those who drink and drive has had an enormous impact.

Look, I agree with these ideas, but once again comparing guns to cars is false equivalence of the highest order.

[Dutch]

Including, or not including, alcohol?

Including.

[flere-imsaho]

What if you drink wine/beer/cocktails because you like the taste?

[lighthousekeeper]

interesting map (not realted to school shootings, but gun deaths in general)

http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths

[gstelmack]

Aren't those considered short barreled rifles?

Just for funsies:

No. In rough order of development:

Rifles are a long-barreled gun with a rifled barrel. Comes from the transition from smoothbores to rifled barrels. Fire one round per pull of the trigger.

Carbines are short-barreled rifles, sometimes firing less powerful ammunition. M1 from WWII, and the M4 these days - M4 can be full auto, but the short barrel tends to put it in the "Carbine" designation.

Machine guns were the early fully-automatic weapons, that continuously fired by holding the trigger down. Ma Duece, the MG42 from WWII, etc.

Submachine guns are machineguns that fire pistol ammunition, so they generally have less kick which made them controllable enough to carry, not have to get mounted. Tommy Gun, Schmeisser MP-40, MP5, etc.

Automatic rifles are shrunk machine guns that can fire from a bipod with a magazine, not belt-fed like most machine guns. Then you get things like the SAW that put the belt in a magazine and are more portable than the machineguns but fire like them. BAR is the most famous and original prototype, and the current SAW is considered one but you have the blurred line towards "Light Machinegun".

Assault rifles are the cross-breed, that fire full automatic with rifle rounds like machine guns do. 3-round burst modes were introduced because you can't fire more rounds than that accurately from something like that. AK-47, M-16, etc.

Things like barrel length, size of round, and firing modes tend to be the key differentiators, but there are also lots of hybrids that can make classification tricky. For example, is an AR-15 really an assault rifle, when the whole point of an assault rifle was the automatic fire for suppression that a regular rifle could not do? And an Uzi is not a machinegun.

That's why it's more important to talk about the specifics you are worried about, such as how many rounds can you fire before reloading. But even if you limit magazine size, that just asks for the shooter to carry more guns - most of these guys are already doing that.

[Dutch]

Well said.

[BishopMVP]

Including.So the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of this board, is or has been mentally ill? Alcoholism or abusing drugs is often a sign of underlying mental illness, but the idea that anyone who has a couple drinks or some marijuana is mentally ill is ridiculous.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of this board, is or has been mentally ill?

I'd say you could diagnose more than half this board with some degree of some mental illness, yes.

As you could over half the general population IMO.

[Butter]

We have to remember that, despite attention from the media rivaling that of missing Malaysian airliners, the sum total of people killed in rampage-type shootings per decade is about equal to the number of people who die in traffic accidents in America on a single summer day.

There are about 90 traffic deaths per day in the USA. In 2013, there were just under 33,000 traffic deaths for the entire year.

So far this year, there have been 379 deaths in "mass shootings (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015)" across the United States.

Yes, many of them likely by illegal guns, but many also not. So this idea that one day of traffic deaths = one decade of rampage shooting deaths is wrong.

Not to mention the over 40,000 incidents of gun violence that aren't mass shootings (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) that occur every year... of which there is a death rate that is about 1/3 of the traffic death rate. Just over 10,000 people this year alone.

A lot of those people probably still would've died if there was a ban on guns. But how many would not? Is there a number that would warrant action?

Your idea that gun control is a slippery slope that will lead to authoritarian banning is exactly the kind of thinking that prevents anything from happening. I know that I am naive, but wouldn't trying something be better than just writing off our inability to act to the Constitution whenever this comes up?

[BishopMVP]

I'd say you could diagnose more than half this board with some degree of some mental illness, yes.

As you could over half the general population IMO.I think smoking cigarettes is disgusting, I don't understand why people chose to start doing it, but I'm not going to call them crazy or mentally ill. Heck, caffeine is a drug that is technically abused by millions of Americans every day. At a certain point calling everyone mentally ill means no one is mentally ill and it's counterproductive.

[ISiddiqui]

I came across this today, which is quite interesting:

Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

Of course it's nigh on impossible to get rid of guns in the US, but there is a definite linkage it seems.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I know that I am naive, but wouldn't trying something be better than just writing off our inability to act to the Constitution whenever this comes up?

That provision of the constitution is more valuable than all of those lives, or 10x those lives, or 1000x those lives.

And that's the bottom line.

It is a right that provides more weight to all of the others.

[BishopMVP]

I came across this today, which is quite interesting:

Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)


Of course it's nigh on impossible to get rid of guns in the US, but there is a definite linkage it seems.I think "gun availability" is less of the issue, but culture isn't easily measured. I don't think guns are markedly harder to get in all of New England than they are in all of The South, but there's large cultural differences. There's a culture where guns are considered normal in the south, or the west, or in inner cities (even those up here like Roxbury, Springfield etc).

I don't think that makes us any less likely to have a school shooting because those are the acts of deranged individuals, but that list of "mass shootings" is a completely different animal. I only checked the first 2 Massachusetts ones, but I'm sure they'd all be the same areas - Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Springfield, maybe Worcester or Lynn. Lumping those in with school or workplace shootings is a mistake imo, as is pretending that there's any statewide (let one national) law that will be effective for both.

[AENeuman]

I struggle every year how to approach the gun topic in my government class. My opinion does not ever come up, but just presenting the issue is complicated.

It seems to me there are 3 main pro-gun groups/approaches:

1. Protection from bad guys
2. Protection from the government
3. Tradition, hobby, etc

As for my opinion:
Number 1 seems to do more harm than good. From family violence, suicide, mistakes/accidents, etc.

I agree with number 2 in so far as I do not think the institution that has the most irresponsible history of gun abuse is the best one to decide if I'm responsible.

Number 3 also seems reasonable, and similar to many other countries.

[Solecismic]

There are about 90 traffic deaths per day in the USA. In 2013, there were just under 33,000 traffic deaths for the entire year.

So far this year, there have been 379 deaths in "mass shootings (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015)" across the United States.

Yes, many of them likely by illegal guns, but many also not. So this idea that one day of traffic deaths = one decade of rampage shooting deaths is wrong.

Not to mention the over 40,000 incidents of gun violence that aren't mass shootings (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) that occur every year... of which there is a death rate that is about 1/3 of the traffic death rate. Just over 10,000 people this year alone.

A lot of those people probably still would've died if there was a ban on guns. But how many would not? Is there a number that would warrant action?

Your idea that gun control is a slippery slope that will lead to authoritarian banning is exactly the kind of thinking that prevents anything from happening. I know that I am naive, but wouldn't trying something be better than just writing off our inability to act to the Constitution whenever this comes up?

I forgot the word schools, sorry. Assumed it from the thread title.

What does gun control mean? How are we going to get the guns out of the places where the most gun deaths occur - mostly places where some of the strictest gun control laws proposed already exist?

[nol]

I forgot the word schools, sorry. Assumed it from the thread title.

What does gun control mean? How are we going to get the guns out of the places where the most gun deaths occur - mostly places where some of the strictest gun control laws proposed already exist?

I'd say the easiest way to get guns out of the places where the most gun deaths occur (the home) would be to disabuse people of the macho fantasy that owning a gun makes them a big, bad crime-stopper. In actuality, one is orders of magnitude more likely to use one to commit suicide (or worse, to have some kid in the home use it to accidentally kill themselves) than to stop a random home invasion.

[BishopMVP]

I'd say the easiest way to get guns out of the places where the most gun deaths occur (the home) would be to disabuse people of the macho fantasy that owning a gun makes them a big, bad crime-stopper. In actuality, one is orders of magnitude more likely to use one to commit suicide (or worse, to have some kid in the home use it to accidentally kill themselves) than to stop a random home invasion.I don't know many people at all that keep a gun in the house, and know all the stats that say you're as likely to kill a family member as an intruder, but I think there is something to the idea that the potential for a homeowner to have a gun does act as a deterrent to some people who would commit home invasions. It's strictly a hypothetical anyway, but if you ban home gun ownership (or self-defense inside the home), without getting all the guns away from criminals of course there would be some who would take advantage of that.

[molson]

I struggle every year how to approach the gun topic in my government class. My opinion does not ever come up, but just presenting the issue is complicated.

It seems to me there are 3 main pro-gun groups/approaches:

1. Protection from bad guys
2. Protection from the government
3. Tradition, hobby, etc

As for my opinion:
Number 1 seems to do more harm than good. From family violence, suicide, mistakes/accidents, etc.

I agree with number 2 in so far as I do not think the institution that has the most irresponsible history of gun abuse is the best one to decide if I'm responsible.

Number 3 also seems reasonable, and similar to many other countries.

A big one out here is protection from animals, especially protection of pets and livestock. I guess it's not really "a pro-gun groups/approach" that's very vocal, but that's the main utility of guns for a lot of people in rural areas, especially those that aren't really "gun people" normally.

[Groundhog]

I struggle every year how to approach the gun topic in my government class. My opinion does not ever come up, but just presenting the issue is complicated.

It seems to me there are 3 main pro-gun groups/approaches:

1. Protection from bad guys
2. Protection from the government
3. Tradition, hobby, etc

As for my opinion:
Number 1 seems to do more harm than good. From family violence, suicide, mistakes/accidents, etc.

I agree with number 2 in so far as I do not think the institution that has the most irresponsible history of gun abuse is the best one to decide if I'm responsible.

Number 3 also seems reasonable, and similar to many other countries.

I promised myself I'd stay out of gun topics on this board but....... :D

1. Agree. Ratio of people saved because they had again vs. number of people killed through accidents/intentional incidents involving legal guns is a bit out of wack for this to hold much water with me.

2. This one in particular is the one that makes no sense to me, more so than the others. Having weapons to protect me against my own government is the kind of thing I would probably think of if I lived in Sierra Leone. Do I trust my government? Not really. Do I think having a rifle would do me any good if push came to shove - to the point where point #1 is worth forgetting? No. Chances of me taking up arms against my own government, 0.0000000000001%. Chances of me being shot by a legal firearm, much higher.

3. I have a problem with 'tradition'... just because something has happened for a long time, doesn't make it a good idea. I don't have a problem with 'hobby' though. Australia's gun laws get a lot of press, but you can still own a gun to hunt, a gun if you own a farm, etc. It's just very difficult and there are a lot of checks involved.

[Arles]

Campus Shooting Came After Fight Between Two Groups of Students - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-shooting-reported-northern-arizona-universitys-flagstaff-campus/story?id=34363113)

There was a shooting at Northern Arizona University last night (at around 1 AM). It looks like two groups of people got in an argument at a frat house and an 18-year old had a gun and opened fire on one of the groups. He killed one student and injured three others.

I've usually been pretty libertarian when it comes to the gun issue, but I think there has to be a way to start addressing this issue without taking hunting rifles, shotguns and "one round per shot" handguns from lawful people. I honestly don't know the exact solution, but for the first time I'm atleast open to the discussion.

[Dutch]

We need more cops with aggressive search & seizure capabilities. Get into the homes and take the guns by force if necessary. It's the only way to get them all.

[flere-imsaho]

I've usually been pretty libertarian when it comes to the gun issue, but I think there has to be a way to start addressing this issue without taking hunting rifles, shotguns and "one round per shot" handguns from lawful people. I honestly don't know the exact solution, but for the first time I'm atleast open to the discussion.

Turn your first sentence into legislation. Done.

[RomaGoth]

Campus Shooting Came After Fight Between Two Groups of Students - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-shooting-reported-northern-arizona-universitys-flagstaff-campus/story?id=34363113)

There was a shooting at Northern Arizona University last night (at around 1 AM). It looks like two groups of people got in an argument at a frat house and an 18-year old had a gun and opened fire on one of the groups. He killed one student and injured three others.

I've usually been pretty libertarian when it comes to the gun issue, but I think there has to be a way to start addressing this issue without taking hunting rifles, shotguns and "one round per shot" handguns from lawful people. I honestly don't know the exact solution, but for the first time I'm atleast open to the discussion.

Yeah this sucks. My alma mater.

[britrock88]

I think there has to be a way to start addressing this issue without taking hunting rifles, shotguns and "one round per shot" handguns from lawful people.

Acknowledging that not all guns are created equal is key.

[flere-imsaho]

IMO, Step One is obtaining agreement on what are legitimate reasons to own a gun. Things probably flow in a relatively straightforward manner from there.

Of course, Step One is not exactly easy.... :D

[RomaGoth]

Acknowledging that not all guns are created equal is key.

Acknowledging that not all people are created equal is also key.

[britrock88]

Acknowledging that not all people are created equal is also key.

:thumbsup:

Beyond that, I don't particularly belong in this thread. Have fun! Be productive!

[bhlloy]

Who the fuck brings a gun to a college party?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Who the fuck brings a gun to a college party?

Not unheard of. I mean, wasn't that the whole thing at Auburn a few years back? (the shooting(s) at the apartment complex?) Also, it's not all that unusual for someone to fire off a few rounds at a frat party around here, just not usually at someone. I've heard that mentioned more than once just from hearing stuff from Greek row.

[NobodyHere]

Who the fuck brings a gun to a college party?

someone who is embarrassed to bring a knife?

[Dutch]

So the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of this board, is or has been mentally ill? Alcoholism or abusing drugs is often a sign of underlying mental illness, but the idea that anyone who has a couple drinks or some marijuana is mentally ill is ridiculous.

I could be wrong, I'm no doctor, but I'll side with the science. So whatever that says is good with me.

[Dutch]

Who the fuck brings a gun to a college party?

Depends what neighborhood they grew up in. Might've been ingrained since birth to always be ready to fight at a partay.

[Dutch]

Former Marine agrees to 15-year sentence after jury deadlocks in deputy shooting | Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/jury-deliberates-fate-of-former-marine-on-trial-for-shooting-hillsborough/2249084)

So this dude is got enough mental issues for me to say he needs to go away. But after 10-years in....prison....this dude is going to go back out on to the streets? I'm sure that will end well...

[BishopMVP]

Who the fuck brings a gun to a college party?When I saw them at UMass it was football players from the south or drug dealers from Springfield/Holyoke. Although from what I knew no one ever actually fired shots and most of the time they weren't even loaded, just used for the occasional pistol-whipping or to pull out if someone showed a knife.I could be wrong, I'm no doctor, but I'll side with the science. So whatever that says is good with me.

You're not a scientist either but that doesn't stop you from being extremely skeptical of the public claims surrounding climate change. You really think there are fewer agendas and less money to be made in the psychology/pharmacology field?

[Dutch]

You're not a scientist either but that doesn't stop you from being extremely skeptical of the public claims surrounding climate change

Not exactly. I am extremely skeptical of the solutions being presented when no scientific fact has been established yet. As of right now, we are 99% in agreement that humans *may* have some influence on climate. Outside of the obvious--developing nations are over-populating--we still aren't entirely sure...and I'll grant that we can do something now, but we don't know how much we should throw at it.

To put it in a language you could probably understand better. We know that the Middle East is a problem. We don't know exactly why, but the consensus is that it needs to be fixed. So we throw money at it. We know more would help, but we aren't sure exactly how it helps, how much is needed, or how long we would need to spend it to see positive results. When we threw ungodly amounts of money at it through two wars, we saw some change, but we had to bail because our economy was tanking. The Liberals, aren't interested in a 10-year war against Global Warming...they want every last cent to go towards it indefinitely. We could very well sink our economy chasing after a fantasy (fixing Climate Change)...that's what I'm skeptical about. Not the scientific research that broadly states that "humans are at least somewhat responsible".

Sorry to go off-topic.

[cuervo72]

To put it in a language you could probably understand better.

Sorry for going off-topic, not sorry for being really condescending!

[Dutch]

Sorry for going off-topic, not sorry for being really condescending!

He's a Red Sox fan...it almost happens naturally. :)

[stevew]

There were so many basement type classrooms in our school and I always familiarized myself with the exits almost out of second nature. Like anyone with violence in their heart could have barricaded this certain doorway and ran up a huge body count if they hit the one wing where this room I always had class in was in. Maybe I'm just hyper aware or something.

[PilotMan]

I'm gonna bump this one because today in KY there was another school shooting. This one saw 2 killed and 17 injured when a 15 yr old opened fire during classroom change.

I wonder if Bevin will propose mandatory guns for every student to combat the 2nd amendment threat that shooting will (possibly...fuck no, they gave up trying long ago) bring.

I've got 2 in HS, and even though they are 4.5 hours away, it's still my state and it leaves me feeling just a bit more uneasy.

[NobodyHere]

Maybe we should ban schools so this doesn't happen again.

I mean guns aren't going to get touched in any meaningful way.

[NobodyHere]

dola,

I just wonder what was going on in the kid's life that he felt that he needed to shoot up a school and guaranteeing himself life in prison or an early grave.

[cougarfreak]

I'm gonna bump this one because today in KY there was another school shooting. This one saw 2 killed and 17 injured when a 15 yr old opened fire during classroom change.

I wonder if Bevin will propose mandatory guns for every student to combat the 2nd amendment threat that shooting will (possibly...fuck no, they gave up trying long ago) bring.

I've got 2 in HS, and even though they are 4.5 hours away, it's still my state and it leaves me feeling just a bit more uneasy.

Trust me, it does me too. Crazy times for us school admins.

[Ksyrup]

Marshall County is about 3 hours from here and way out in SW KY, so I don't know anything first-hand, but it's only about an hour from where Caitlin goes to college and she has a teammate from Paducah, which is close by. Not sure if this info is going to ultimately come out as the truth, but what they are hearing is the shooter is a bullied band member who targeted athletes.

[miami_fan]

I have become one of those people who sees one of these stories and just says Ok. I never thought I will be this indifferent about school shootings.

[PilotMan]

I have become one of those people who sees one of these stories and just says Ok. I never thought I will be this indifferent about school shootings.

Me either. It's not even top billing in the news any longer. They simply happen and we move on. USA Today has it as one of the higher up stories, and had a notification for it yesterday. CNN has it buried behind a literal mountain of trump. Fox doesn't even have it on their lead page, but they do have a story about a teacher stripping and chasing kids. It's not a lead on Reuters either. It's just one more day in the life of a high school kid in the USA.

[PilotMan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/us/kentucky-school-shooting.html

ATLANTA — On Tuesday, it was a high school in small-town Kentucky. On Monday, a school cafeteria outside Dallas and a charter school parking lot in New Orleans. And before that, a school bus (https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/01/06/police-no-one-injured-when-iowa-school-bus-window-shot-out/1010403001/) in Iowa, a college campus (https://www.sbsun.com/2018/01/10/shots-reported-fired-at-cal-state-san-bernardino-classes-canceled/) in Southern California, a high school (http://q13fox.com/2018/01/04/bullet-fired-into-window-at-highlines-new-start-high-school-but-no-injuries/) in Seattle.
Gunfire ringing out in American schools used to be rare, and shocking. Now it seems to happen all the time.


The scene in Benton, Ky., on Tuesday was the worst so far in 2018: Two 15-year-old students were killed and 18 more people were injured. But it was one of at least 11 shootings on school property recorded since Jan. 1, and roughly the 50th of the academic year.

[stevew]

another one?
looks bad

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Police-Respond-Marjory-Stoneman-Douglas-High-School-Parkland-474078423.html

[NobodyHere]

another one?
looks bad

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Police-Respond-Marjory-Stoneman-Douglas-High-School-Parkland-474078423.html

At least 20 injured. If only we could reach these people before they do this.

Shooter at large after gunfire at Florida high school-police (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at-least-20-injured-in-shooting-at-florida-high-school-media/ar-BBJ8HLr?li=BBnb7Kz)

[RainMaker]

Hopefully injuries are just from running away and not bullets. The school shootings really mess me up.

[CrimsonFox]

I had to open my big mouth :(

[digamma]

I wanted to throw up when I saw this thread bumped.

[CrimsonFox]

I dislike congressman saying things at this point

[CrimsonFox]

Congressman said there are numerous fatalities. And that lots still inside. They showed someone being put in the back of a police car. I really don't think they know much yet.

[B & B]

Shooter is a student and is in custody.

[tarcone]

My BIL worked about 20 minutes South in another HS. Said this school is in an upper socio-economic area.

It can happen anywhere.

[Logan]

I was scrolling Twitter and what I'm guessing was a Snapchat video taken from inside a classroom started autoplaying, with numerous shots ringing out. God almighty.

[PilotMan]

Just another state sponsored shooting. Meaning if the govt gave a fuck, something would have been done by now. Now it's accepted and always someone else's fault.

[miami_fan]

My BIL worked about 20 minutes South in another HS. Said this school is in an upper socio-economic area.

It can happen anywhere.

My nephew goes to college in Tampa but went to high school in Broward. When I told him about today's shooting, his reaction was similar to the reaction I gave my parents when discussing students smoking weed in the bathroom. This is now normalized behavior.

[NobodyHere]

Just another state sponsored shooting. Meaning if the govt gave a fuck, something would have been done by now. Now it's accepted and always someone else's fault.

What law did you want passed that this shooter wouldn't break?

[PilotMan]

How about anything that makes progress toward the goal of ending school or public shootings? Anything?

[CrimsonFox]

The sheriff sure likes the word 'horrific'

[tarcone]

Do we outlaw violent video games? Those can be part of the problem.
Get rid of violent movies? Those,, also, are part of the problem.

The quote from miami_fan underscores the issue. People are desensitized to violence. And that is a United States thing. This country has always been violent. We treat violence like France treats sex.

Im not sure there is anything you can do. Unless you are able to entirely change the culture of this country.

[digamma]

So glad you asked.

It is always hard to talk about specific incidents and I'm not sure it is the best policy to react to specific incidents. But hey, most of us take our shoes off at the airport now!

When you look at it from a broader perspective, the most effective way to reduce gun violence is to have background checks for all gun sales, including private gun sales arranged through the internet or at gun shows. Data shows (and we actually have this because there are about 20 states and DC that have these laws) that background checks for all gun sales reduce gun deaths by up to 50% across the board. This includes suicides, which in many states account for more than half of gun deaths. It includes domestic violence related shootings and it includes officer involved shootings. Would background checks stop every shooting? No, but they have proven hugely effective.

There are lots of other smaller things we can do around permitting and training requirements that also show positive impact.

We can also try to get rid of bad laws like Stand Your Ground laws and Permitless Carry laws which show an uptick in gun deaths.

Or we can do nothing. Offer thoughts. Offer prayers. And keep reading about individual incidents that when added together become a scourge on our nation. We really don't have to live this way. But we choose to do so.

[digamma]

Do we outlaw violent video games? Those can be part of the problem.
Get rid of violent movies? Those,, also, are part of the problem.

The quote from miami_fan underscores the issue. People are desensitized to violence. And that is a United States thing. This country has always been violent. We treat violence like France treats sex.

Im not sure there is anything you can do. Unless you are able to entirely change the culture of this country.

This is largely a myth. Kids across the globe play the same video games and see the same movies yet don't have access to guns in the same way Americans do.

[CrimsonFox]

20 injury 1 dead

[PilotMan]

So glad you asked.

It is always hard to talk about specific incidents and I'm not sure it is the best policy to react to specific incidents. But hey, most of us take our shoes off at the airport now!

When you look at it from a broader perspective, the most effective way to reduce gun violence is to have background checks for all gun sales, including private gun sales arranged through the internet or at gun shows. Data shows (and we actually have this because there are about 20 states and DC that have these laws) that background checks for all gun sales reduce gun deaths by up to 50% across the board. This includes suicides, which in many states account for more than half of gun deaths. It includes domestic violence related shootings and it includes officer involved shootings. Would background checks stop every shooting? No, but they have proven hugely effective.

There are lots of other smaller things we can do around permitting and training requirements that also show positive impact.

We can also try to get rid of bad laws like Stand Your Ground laws and Permitless Carry laws which show an uptick in gun deaths.

Or we can do nothing. Offer thoughts. Offer prayers. And keep reading about individual incidents that when added together become a scourge on our nation. We really don't have to live this way. But we choose to do so.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/614/639/9df.gif

[Logan]

While I applaud it too, I've come to the sad realization that I've seen others make: if it didn't happen after Sandy Hook, it's never going to happen.

[NobodyHere]

This is largely a myth. Kids across the globe play the same video games and see the same movies yet don't have access to guns in the same way Americans do.

Even with Americans with access to guns, the violence rate has dropped while the popularity of video games has increased the past 30 years.

[digamma]

Fair point, but relative to peer nations we are away off the benchmark.

[digamma]

While I applaud it too, I've come to the sad realization that I've seen others make: if it didn't happen after Sandy Hook, it's never going to happen.

I get the discouragement, but there is incremental progress. Even in 2016 when Trump was elected, four ballot measures across the country related to background checks or permitting passed. In 2017, Virginia voters for Northam ranked gun safety as the #2 issue in the campaign. It's not a taboo issue anymore. There is still a steep hill to climb--the NRA has had a huge head start and financial advantage--but incremental change is occurring (though obviously not at the federal level).

[RainMaker]

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1823016659

[larrymcg421]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yJqfNroFp8U" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[panerd]

Maybe our country just isn’t as civilized as we have been led to believe?

[CrimsonFox]

holy fuck....17 dead. another sandy hook. I really didn't think there'd be such a staggering death count after the early reports.

[NobodyHere]

The news is saying that the shooter was an expelled student who had made previous threats against other students.

[NobodyHere]

holy fuck....17 dead. another sandy hook. I really didn't think there'd be such a staggering death count after the early reports.

St. Valentine's Day Massacre 2.0 I guess.

[Ksyrup]

Looks like we got off relatively easy in KY a few weeks ago. Awful.

My parents lived in Coral Springs for about 5 years in the early 90s. My brother went to Taravella, a HS close by. I remember when Stoneman Douglas opened. This shit is beginning to be like cancer - it's so prevalent, everyone will soon be touched by a mass shooting one way or another.

[Edward64]

So glad you asked.

It is always hard to talk about specific incidents and I'm not sure it is the best policy to react to specific incidents. But hey, most of us take our shoes off at the airport now!

When you look at it from a broader perspective, the most effective way to reduce gun violence is to have background checks for all gun sales, including private gun sales arranged through the internet or at gun shows. Data shows (and we actually have this because there are about 20 states and DC that have these laws) that background checks for all gun sales reduce gun deaths by up to 50% across the board. This includes suicides, which in many states account for more than half of gun deaths. It includes domestic violence related shootings and it includes officer involved shootings. Would background checks stop every shooting? No, but they have proven hugely effective.

There are lots of other smaller things we can do around permitting and training requirements that also show positive impact.

We can also try to get rid of bad laws like Stand Your Ground laws and Permitless Carry laws which show an uptick in gun deaths.

Or we can do nothing. Offer thoughts. Offer prayers. And keep reading about individual incidents that when added together become a scourge on our nation. We really don't have to live this way. But we choose to do so.

Not sure if its the "most effective" but agree on background checks on gun show and private sales (e.g. there are already background checks needed except in those 2 circumstances I think).

Don't think I agree with getting rid of Stand Your Ground laws. If I understand this correctly, there is no doubt I should be able to shoot any intruder in/outside my house that I think is a threat.

I think its playing the long game. Its educating the younger generation to be more aware of threats, possible threatening behavior, have the frank discussion and show impact of these killings to victim's families.

(It seems this kid threw up a bunch of warning signs and the other kids knew about it. More to come if this was reported to authorities and if & why they failed to act)

Definitely make gun ownership harder to come by (its way too easy). As a law abiding citizen, don't take away my ability to acquire guns but do make sure that I'm law abiding, not mentally unstable etc. and educated & trained to use the weapons.

[JPhillips]

outside my house that I think is a threat.



No.

[Edward64]

No.

Absolutely.

If I kill a Halloween trick-or-treater by mistake, let me be judged and pay for my crime if found guilty.

[JPhillips]

That does nothing for the dead kid or the dead kid's family.

Outside your home you have way too much chance to be wrong about actions and intentions. I think is a threat is a license to kill for damn near any reason.

[Edward64]

That does nothing for the dead kid or the dead kid's family.

Outside your home you have way too much chance to be wrong about actions and intentions. I think is a threat is a license to kill for damn near any reason.

Don't dispute that. That is why my comments also included more gun controls, more checks, more education and training.

Will there still be mistakes, yes. Then let that person be judged and pay for the crime.

[JPhillips]

So if I shoot your kid it's all okay because I'll go on trial?

There are a multitude of legal reasons for a stranger to be on your property. You feeling threatened by one of them is no reason to give you a license to kill.

[NobodyHere]

So if I shoot your kid it's all okay because I'll go on trial?


Isn't that how the legal system works?

[Edward64]

So if I shoot your kid it's all okay because I'll go on trial?

There are a multitude of legal reasons for a stranger to be on your property. You feeling threatened by one of them is no reason to give you a license to kill.

If my kid was acting in a threatening manner where you felt justified in shooting, yes.

If it turns out you were wrong, I will enjoy thinking about all the close relations you'll have with other inmates.

[JPhillips]

I can kill your child, but it will all be okay because you'll fantasize about me being raped.

Jesus.

[Edward64]

I can kill your child, but it will all be okay because you'll fantasize about me being raped.

Jesus.

Its interesting how your logic has progressed on this discussion.

Let's agree to disagree and not waste anymore cpu cycles.

[miami_fan]

Not sure if its the "most effective" but agree on background checks on gun show and private sales (e.g. there are already background checks needed except in those 2 circumstances I think).

Don't think I agree with getting rid of Stand Your Ground laws. If I understand this correctly, there is no doubt I should be able to shoot any intruder in/outside my house that I think is a threat.

I think its playing the long game. Its educating the younger generation to be more aware of threats, possible threatening behavior, have the frank discussion and show impact of these killings to victim's families.

(It seems this kid threw up a bunch of warning signs and the other kids knew about it. More to come if this was reported to authorities and if & why they failed to act)

Definitely make gun ownership harder to come by (its way too easy). As a law abiding citizen, don't take away my ability to acquire guns but do make sure that I'm law abiding, not mentally unstable etc. and educated & trained to use the weapons.

Let's be fair to the authorities. The kid can throw up all the warning signs in the world. We don't take those threats seriously until after the fact. Remember those threats are supposedly just words.

Not really feeling like debating the whole guns thing again. I prefer to get an early start on celebrating some of the heroes.

Reports say Stoneman Douglas assistant football coach stepped in front of bullets | Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/high-school/article200170559.html)

[NobodyHere]

Let's be fair to the authorities. The kid can throw up all the warning signs in the world. We don't take those threats seriously until after the fact. Remember those threats are supposedly just words.

Not really feeling like debating the whole guns thing again. I prefer to get an early start on celebrating some of the heroes.

Reports say Stoneman Douglas assistant football coach stepped in front of bullets | Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/high-school/article200170559.html)

I wonder how many kids throw up warning signs and how many resources it would take to mitigate them all.

[panerd]

Something needs to be done. My libertarian view points on the federal government don’t carry the company line on this shit. I will however point out a huge problem with “they should have prevented it”

I am a middle school teacher and ever since Jonesboro and Columbine I have thought in my head “this kid wouldn’t surprise me” etc. I have probably said this about 10-15 kids over the years. Obviously none of them have shot up the school. What exactly would the solution be? Lock them all up for being weird? I mean we are taking thousands of kids right? Obviously most of these shooters are going to be outcasts and picked on. I just think there is a lot we can do t help them but this falls on the shooter and not the school if they kicked him out and he came back to murder people. Fuck him.

[RainMaker]

Nothing will be done because most of the country does not care. The rest find perverse pleasure in these events because it allows them spew hatred toward others which they revel in.

Sandy Hook was the test. We didn't care that elementary school students had their brains blown out. This isn't even a blip on the radar anymore. It's a sick country with a sick culture. There's no coming back from that.

[digamma]

Not sure if its the "most effective" but agree on background checks on gun show and private sales (e.g. there are already background checks needed except in those 2 circumstances I think).

Would you like me to say most proven impact?

It varies by state but private gun sales not subject to background check make up about 35% of gun sales. In Minnesota where I live it is slightly higher.


Don't think I agree with getting rid of Stand Your Ground laws. If I understand this correctly, there is no doubt I should be able to shoot any intruder in/outside my house that I think is a threat.

I am not sure if you're stating this correctly. The Castle doctrine has always allowed you to defend yourself in your home. Stand Your Ground extends the Castle Doctrine to any place and eliminates a duty to retreat. In non-Stand Your Ground states, you have a duty to retreat if there is a safe way to escape a threat. In Stand Your Ground States, there is no duty to retreat if you subjectively perceive a threat. What we see in Stand Your Ground states is an increase in gun deaths, no deterrence on crime and a disproportionate impact on communities of color (in terms of increased gun deaths).

I think its playing the long game. Its educating the younger generation to be more aware of threats, possible threatening behavior, have the frank discussion and show impact of these killings to victim's families.

(It seems this kid threw up a bunch of warning signs and the other kids knew about it. More to come if this was reported to authorities and if & why they failed to act)

No problem with any of this, but like with video games, we see approximately the same rate of mental illness and other factors as peer nations. It comes back to access.

Definitely make gun ownership harder to come by (its way too easy). As a law abiding citizen, don't take away my ability to acquire guns but do make sure that I'm law abiding, not mentally unstable etc. and educated & trained to use the weapons.

Agreed.

[Chief Rum]

So glad you asked.

It is always hard to talk about specific incidents and I'm not sure it is the best policy to react to specific incidents. But hey, most of us take our shoes off at the airport now!

When you look at it from a broader perspective, the most effective way to reduce gun violence is to have background checks for all gun sales, including private gun sales arranged through the internet or at gun shows. Data shows (and we actually have this because there are about 20 states and DC that have these laws) that background checks for all gun sales reduce gun deaths by up to 50% across the board. This includes suicides, which in many states account for more than half of gun deaths. It includes domestic violence related shootings and it includes officer involved shootings. Would background checks stop every shooting? No, but they have proven hugely effective.

There are lots of other smaller things we can do around permitting and training requirements that also show positive impact.

We can also try to get rid of bad laws like Stand Your Ground laws and Permitless Carry laws which show an uptick in gun deaths.

Or we can do nothing. Offer thoughts. Offer prayers. And keep reading about individual incidents that when added together become a scourge on our nation. We really don't have to live this way. But we choose to do so.

Seems sensible to me. These are logical, acceptable changes that aren't Ban All Guns type reactions that get nowhere with a good portion of the population.

[stevew]

waitwhat? 17 dead? I thought it was 1 dead and 20 injured?

[NobodyHere]

Never trust early reports

[AENeuman]

Something needs to be done. My libertarian view points on the federal government don’t carry the company line on this shit. I will however point out a huge problem with “they should have prevented it”

I am a middle school teacher and ever since Jonesboro and Columbine I have thought in my head “this kid wouldn’t surprise me” etc. I have probably said this about 10-15 kids over the years. Obviously none of them have shot up the school. What exactly would the solution be? Lock them all up for being weird? I mean we are taking thousands of kids right? Obviously most of these shooters are going to be outcasts and picked on. I just think there is a lot we can do t help them but this falls on the shooter and not the school if they kicked him out and he came back to murder people. Fuck him.
+1. Very well said.

Early this week they installed intruder door bars in my school. Was not at all taken lightly- strange, awful and scary times...

[Hammer]

Shocking news. I am not sure a lot of people in the U.S. appreciate how unusual and crazy it seems for your children to be shooting each other to a Western European. Blaming video games is laughable. Look at your gun laws. End of story. Just reading a story about arming teachers in Colorado. Yeah why not give them an rpg too. How about addressing the root cause!

[AlexB]

18th school shooting this year apparently. In 55 calendar days. With holidays and weekends, that’s basically one every other day. There definitely isn’t a problem though, and nothing can be possibly be done about it.

There needs to be a 10 step equivalent here, but it’s difficult to see how many shootings will need to occur before people see that there is an issue. And nothing will happen until that acknowledgement takes place.

[CrimsonFox]

My thoughts are that guns caused this and my prayers to God are to get rid of guns.

[CrimsonFox]

waitwhat? 17 dead? I thought it was 1 dead and 20 injured?

that was the early report. They really knew nothing except that a sheriff and a congressmen said "many casualties". Then it went to 1 and 20....not till many hours later that they actually gave a count.

[CrimsonFox]

This is a report about the shooter.

The stories told by classmates about him are very disturbing...

Nikolas Cruz Named as Alleged Florida School Shooter | Time (http://time.com/5159134/who-is-the-florida-shooter-parkland-nicolas-cruz/)

[Drake]

Even as a gun owner/enthusiast, I'd fully support a system for like the one Canada has.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q9El7gEvJWU" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Long video, but worth a watch if you're interested in what sensible gun control can look like.

[tarcone]

How about start by raising our children right? You know, in a 2 parent home.

Maybe teach them the difference between right and wrong?

Teach them there are consequences, both positive and negative.

I would love to see data on gun deaths caused by people that were taught these things compared to those that werent.

It all starts at home.

[PilotMan]

How about start by raising our children right? You know, in a 2 parent home.

Maybe teach them the difference between right and wrong?

Teach them there are consequences, both positive and negative.

I would love to see data on gun deaths caused by people that were taught these things compared to those that werent.

It all starts at home.
Maybe your 2 parent home sucks.

I'm not sure exactly what you're postulating here other than lets do a better job at raising or kids.

Is it government or societal requirements for 2 parent households? Do we need to take a play from the Amish and shun those who divorce?

Government mandated parenting classes where kids are later examined and if they don't pass the parents are punished?

I can't see you supporting anything like this.

There's a sad fact in aviation that every regulation comes from someone's death. Why can't we get somewhere with the same concept when it comes to guns? Progress has to start with incremental steps. But simply it has to start.

[Logan]

18th school shooting this year apparently. In 55 calendar days. With holidays and weekends, that’s basically one every other day.

For context (like it's really needed), that's the same number which has taken place in the rest of the world combined. Over the past 20 years.

[PilotMan]

Why do I feel like the response from Congress to all this is going to be more guns everywhere?

[Edward64]

I am not sure if you're stating this correctly. The Castle doctrine has always allowed you to defend yourself in your home. Stand Your Ground extends the Castle Doctrine to any place and eliminates a duty to retreat. In non-Stand Your Ground states, you have a duty to retreat if there is a safe way to escape a threat. In Stand Your Ground States, there is no duty to retreat if you subjectively perceive a threat. What we see in Stand Your Ground states is an increase in gun deaths, no deterrence on crime and a disproportionate impact on communities of color (in terms of increased gun deaths).

You are right. I stand corrected here.

[Edward64]

Early this week they installed intruder door bars in my school. Was not at all taken lightly- strange, awful and scary times...

My wife teaches at a middle school. You are supposed to be buzzed in (which is better than nothing and would only delay a determine attacker) and they are supposed to lock classroom doors and the kids inside if there is an incident.

She was told to not let anyone in, including kids left outside if there was a shooter in the halls. Obviously a horrible dilemma, a calculated risk and TBH, I'm not sure what I would do in that situation if there was a shooter in the hallway and kids banging to get in.

[Logan]

Kimmel Writer Calls Out GOP In Blistering Replies To 'Prayers' After Florida Shooting | HuffPost (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bess-kalb-nra-tweets_us_5a84ee69e4b0058d5565cbac?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=main_fb&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">$4,418,012.00<br>Four million four hundred eighteen thousand and twelve dollars from the NRA. <a href="https://t.co/kPZQIPTg42">https://t.co/kPZQIPTg42</a></p>&mdash; Bess Kalb (@bessbell) <a href="https://twitter.com/bessbell/status/963919702727651328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Just one example.

[miami_fan]

How about start by raising our children right? You know, in a 2 parent home.

Maybe teach them the difference between right and wrong?

Teach them there are consequences, both positive and negative.

I would love to see data on gun deaths caused by people that were taught these things compared to those that werent.

It all starts at home.

A) He was adopted into and raised in a 2 parent home up until his father dies of a heart attack "many years ago" and his mother died in November 2017 of pneumonia

B) Can it be argued that he was taught the difference between right and wrong and this is the result? What if what's right means doing what he did yesterday because he felt threatened and felt the need to defend himself from a threat? I am not defending his actions. I don't know if that is the case or not. It is a possibility, right?

C) I don't know what the lessons of consequences would do for Nikolas Cruz at the point he was at yesterday. I am curious about the positive and negative consequences of his victims, their families and the society at large.

I am interested in exploring some of the other elements of these senseless shootings outside of guns. Unfortunately, I think most of those will be consumed by the same constraints that consume the guns debate

[Kodos]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tPLoW4eFwiM" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's a quick video on how Japan handles the gun problem. Seems a whole lot better than ours.

[BYU 14]

How about start by raising our children right? You know, in a 2 parent home.

Maybe teach them the difference between right and wrong?

Teach them there are consequences, both positive and negative.

I would love to see data on gun deaths caused by people that were taught these things compared to those that werent.

It all starts at home.

A) He was adopted into and raised in a 2 parent home up until his father dies of a heart attack "many years ago" and his mother died in November 2017 of pneumonia

B) Can it be argued that he was taught the difference between right and wrong and this is the result? What if what's right means doing what he did yesterday because he felt threatened and felt the need to defend himself from a threat? I am not defending his actions. I don't know if that is the case or not. It is a possibility, right?

C) I don't know what the lessons of consequences would do for Nikolas Cruz at the point he was at yesterday. I am curious about the positive and negative consequences of his victims, their families and the society at large.

I am interested in exploring some of the other elements of these senseless shootings outside of guns. Unfortunately, I think most of those will be consumed by the same constraints that consume the guns debate

Miami Fan is spot on, I didn't grow up in a two parent home and was in to bad shit as a teenager, but sports got me straightened out and gave me a greater purpose. In my subsequent years coaching I have known kids that fit your stereotype that went down bad paths and kids that didn't do the same thing. Hell, if you have me on FB you saw I went to a funeral of one of the latter last month. One parent homes in a bad socio-economic setting may be at greater risk for overall violence, but I have seen no correlation to mass shootings that says they are a greater risk.

And the big thing I see now is so many kids have just become numb to consequences as the acts they see on TV have become more frequent and perpetrators take on almost a celebrity status. You can teach right/wrong/consequences all you want, but you are competing with outside forces that don't reinforce them and in some cases glorify them. We had the same issues to a degree when I was a kid, but chose fists as the weapon of choice and not an assault rifle.

Society as a whole needs to take more accountability and keep talking about it. I support the second amendment, but there are so many holes in the laws governing gun rights it isn't even funny and they need to be addressed, along with a serious look at how America handles those with mental health issues that may be at risk for committing these types of atrocities.

You just can't put all of this on parents, while the government continues to tweet thoughts and prayers and do absolutely nothing.

[Johnny93g]

There are lots of sick, disturbed, angry, lost, and bad people in the world. Lots. This stuff just doesn't happen at the pace USA is experiencing it.

I'm not here to shit on the country, or anything like that. America is obviously doing it wrong, and it makes me sad.

The view from the outside is money matters way more then blood. The thoughts and prayers are meaningless.

How long until the next one? Two days, a week....It's inevitable at this point, right....What a sad thought...

[Drake]

Heard a great quote the other day that said (summarizing): The system you've got in place is perfectly designed to achieve the results you're getting.

Maybe one mass shooting is an aberration, but at this point, I think we have to conclude that the system the U.S. has in place (across the spectrum: education, mental health, quality of life expectations, notions of freedom and rights, etc.) is perfectly designed to produce mass shootings.

I think it's fair to say that we don't really want mass shootings...but it's also fair to say that we want not to have to change more than we want to end mass shootings.

[panerd]

Can we all agree that something also has to change with the media coverage? “Third highest ever” “let’s learn more about the asshole who just gunned down 17 people...” “here’s how he did it” These nut jobs almost always end up idolizing previous shooters and want to refine and top their body count. There has to be a better way to cover this doesn’t there?

[Hammer]

How about start by raising our children right? You know, in a 2 parent home.

Maybe teach them the difference between right and wrong?

Teach them there are consequences, both positive and negative.

I would love to see data on gun deaths caused by people that were taught these things compared to those that werent.

It all starts at home.

Our parenting and society is no better than yours. Our kids don't shot each other because they can't get hold of guns.

[panerd]

Our parenting and society is no better than yours. Our kids don't shot each other because they can't get hold of guns.

Agree with you on some of the cases but this one (and columbine and countless others) seem to be clear neglect on the part of the family that was housing him. “Oh you are mentally unstable just make sure to lock your AR-15 up in the gun safe”

[Johnny93g]

Agree with you on some of the cases but this one (and columbine and countless others) seem to be clear neglect on the part of the family that was housing him. “Oh you are mentally unstable just make sure to lock your AR-15 up in the gun safe”

I think right there is the disconnect us non americans are seeing. We don't have an AR-15 to lock up in the gun safe...

[Edward64]

I think right there is the disconnect us non americans are seeing. We don't have an AR-15 to lock up in the gun safe...

Had to do a quick lookup, not trying to draw any conclusions right now.

Surprisingly, Canadian gun ownership is actually higher than I would have thought.

2. Firearms Ownership in Canada - Firearms, Accidental Deaths, Suicides and Violent Crime: An Updated Review of the Literature with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html)
In the previous literature review, the author indicated that about 25 percent of Canadian households own some sort of firearm (Gabor, 1994: 9). A recent Department of Justice Canada report indicated that, based on the combined findings of several studies, 26 percent may be the most reliable figure (See Block, 1998:3). In total, it is estimated that about 3 million civilians in Canada own firearms.
:
:
Overall, surveys suggest that more people in rural areas own firearms than in urban locations. For example, 37.3 percent of respondents from small towns own a firearm compared to 2.8 percent in communities with populations over one million. Residents of small towns are also more likely to own long guns than people living in large cities: 33.6 percent compared to 1.2 percent respectively (Block, 1998: 24).

[Johnny93g]

Had to do a quick lookup, not trying to draw any conclusions right now.

Surprisingly, Canadian gun ownership is actually higher than I would have thought.

2. Firearms Ownership in Canada - Firearms, Accidental Deaths, Suicides and Violent Crime: An Updated Review of the Literature with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html)

My extended family owns lots of guns. They hunt alot as the live up north. I've seen them many times, visits, and all that. I've never seen a gun in my life....

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions either, but it's just not a regular part of life here. It's not on my mind. It's not even an afterthought.

[Hammer]

Agree with you on some of the cases but this one (and columbine and countless others) seem to be clear neglect on the part of the family that was housing him. “Oh you are mentally unstable just make sure to lock your AR-15 up in the gun safe”

A lot of you guys really don't get it do you. If you don't have guns nobody will be shot. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

[panerd]

A lot of you guys really don't get it do you. If you don't have guns nobody will be shot. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

I get it, in fact you are replying to a guy that doesn’t think we need all the guns we have. I’m also saying that if the kid is a nut job and you tell him “make sure to lock up your gun in the safe” then you are part of the problem. Guns and shitty parenting (or in this case shitty guardianship) don’t have to be mutually exclusive do they? Columbine they were out blowing shit up in the backyard. Those parents should have been doing some jail time or paying some fine at least. Maybe it cuts back on one shooting, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

[BBT]

Is parenting that much of an issue in this situation...he was 19 and, under the law, was allowed to own the weapon that he used. Did we talk about the Las Vegas shooter's parenting situation and how he grew up?

If he was mentally unstable, Trump removed the checks on mental stability when buying a gun last year.

We also let folks buy guns at 18...but they can't drink until they are 21.

Recently, there was a rash of eating Tide Pod memes going around...the government stepped in immediately to force Tide to change their product to look less appetizing. We all take our shoes off at the airport because one idiot tried to hide a bomb in his. Yet, nothing continues to get done about guns other than easing restrictions.

In regards to studying shooters, Trump cancelled all funding and projects by the CDC to do exactly that. Means we have to rely on the media, who have limited info to these crimes once the FBI steps in.

I'm all for folks having guns, but there have to be more checks than there are now.

[Edward64]

Is parenting that much of an issue in this situation...he was 19 and, under the law, was allowed to own the weapon that he used. Did we talk about the Las Vegas shooter's parenting situation and how he grew up?
:
:
I'm all for folks having guns, but there have to be more checks than there are now.

I'm all for more checks and balances. I don't parents should be necessarily blamed either. I'm a parent and know its tough to assess/judge with an impartial POV. However, there should be some accountability.

Don't think the full story is out yet on this case so will wait until we know more.

[miami_fan]

Can we all agree that something also has to change with the media coverage? “Third highest ever” “let’s learn more about the asshole who just gunned down 17 people...” “here’s how he did it” These nut jobs almost always end up idolizing previous shooters and want to refine and top their body count. There has to be a better way to cover this doesn’t there?

This actually leads to an interesting question. I am probably as reluctant to restrict the first amendment anymore that we currently do as gun rights activists are of to restricting the second amendment. Am I willing to give up the good information that comes from the current media coverage in order to reduce the glorification of the event? It is easy for me to say yes today. I am not sure what my reaction would be when present with the actual restrictions tomorrow. I would hope that learning more about the asshole will lead someone, some group to do something that might prevent the next massacre and help the troubled persons who may do it. I also know that a restriction here will lead to attempts to more restrictions further down the line to censorship. Am I willing allow the first restriction?

If you ask me if I am willing to sacrifice all the AR-15's in the country to prevent another massacre, the answer is a resounding yes. BTW, I don't own an AR-15, have no desire to own one and getting no joy from shooting one. I lost nothing from not having an AR-15 specifically The more important question for me is what is my "AR-15"and I am willing to sacrifice it, in order to prevent these tragedies from happening? I don't have a quick answer to that one. I don't think I am the only one without an answer.

[Hammer]

I hear what you are saying Panerd and I don't think you are wrong. We have absolutely the same things going on as you do in regards to shitty parenting. It produces the same disturbed and unhinged kids as in the U.S. I don't think that will change in a hurry.

The difference is your kids can get hold of guns. Our kids can't. Your kids shoot people our kids don't. They might stab someone worse case scenario but we can't ban kitchen knives. 1 or 2 people might get killed by a fruit loop before they get over powered. Better than 17.

It comes down to a question, is it more important to have guns in society for whatever reason you want them or is it more important to stop all the needless killing? It seems quite a lot of folks are brainwashed right now. They have their blinkers on and just accept things as they are. A lot of folks are entitled, think they are above all this. Just get rid of all the guns it all goes away.

[Edward64]

It comes down to a question, is it more important to have guns in society for whatever reason you want them or is it more important to stop all the needless killing? It seems quite a lot of folks are brainwashed right now. They have their blinkers on and just accept things as they are. A lot of folks are entitled, think they are above all this. Just get rid of the all the guns it all goes away.

Are there exceptions to getting rid of all the guns by law abiding citizens?

No hunting rifles, no guns for people living in rural areas, ranchers getting rid of varmints or home protection etc.?

I am for more gun control (and don't claim to have all the answers) but getting rid of "all guns" for law abiding citizens just seems going too far.

[Butter]

I think it's fair to say that we don't really want mass shootings...but it's also fair to say that we want not to have to change more than we want to end mass shootings.

The entire alt-right movement is based on not wanting to change. In fact, they want to roll back society to the pre-Civil Rights era.

It doesn't just work that way. You can't snap your fingers and force a society back 50 years to a time when abortions were banned and open racism was expected in many corners of society.

The apathy around our entire society is based around not wanting to change. Who really wants to get up and go to a rally when posting on Facebook or a message board gives you immediate and visceral feedback?

It's going to take people actually getting angry enough to physically do things to "take back America" for the people instead of the motivated minorities (and by this I mean racists and those who are happy with the current state of mass shootings).

[PilotMan]

Imagine how much we'd be hearing about a need for a change in the law if the murderer had been Muslim or an immigrant. Would politicians say, "this is no time to politicize this tragedy, first we must morn. "

No they wouldn't.

[Shkspr]

Local story I found interesting, not getting any national exposure because of the Parkland murders, and technically involving the shooting of a student:

Yesterday morning, an armed gunman took over 100 people hostage at a homeless shelter/community center here in town. An unarmed student along with shelter security confronted the gunman and managed to disarm him.

Then the police arrived on the scene and shot the student who'd disarmed the gunman. (http://amarillo.com/local-news/news/crime-and-courts/2018-02-14/apd-shoots-faith-city-mission-student-who-d-taken-gun) Luckily, no fatalities, but my wife works at the hospital they took the victim, so she was torn last night between really wanting to talk about it, and not being allowed to say anything.

[Logan]

Imagine how much we'd be hearing about a need for a change in the law if the murderer had been Muslim or an immigrant. Would politicians say, "this is no time to politicize this tragedy, first we must morn. "

No they wouldn't.

I imagine we'd also hear about the need for change if one of the NRA-funded politicians was among those burying their kid.

[Edward64]

Local story I found interesting, not getting any national exposure because of the Parkland murders, and technically involving the shooting of a student:

Yesterday morning, an armed gunman took over 100 people hostage at a homeless shelter/community center here in town. An unarmed student along with shelter security confronted the gunman and managed to disarm him.

Then the police arrived on the scene and shot the student who'd disarmed the gunman. (http://amarillo.com/local-news/news/crime-and-courts/2018-02-14/apd-shoots-faith-city-mission-student-who-d-taken-gun) Luckily, no fatalities, but my wife works at the hospital they took the victim, so she was torn last night between really wanting to talk about it, and not being allowed to say anything.

That's messed up.

[Ben E Lou]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Leader of white nationalist group has confirmed suspect in Florida school shooting was member of his organization.</p>&mdash; The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/964195101621870594?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[CU Tiger]

I hear what you are saying Panerd and I don't think you are wrong. We have absolutely the same things going on as you do in regards to shitty parenting. It produces the same disturbed and unhinged kids as in the U.S. I don't think that will change in a hurry.

The difference is your kids can get hold of guns. Our kids can't. Your kids shoot people our kids don't. They might stab someone worse case scenario but we can't ban kitchen knives. 1 or 2 people might get killed by a fruit loop before they get over powered. Better than 17.

It comes down to a question, is it more important to have guns in society for whatever reason you want them or is it more important to stop all the needless killing? It seems quite a lot of folks are brainwashed right now. They have their blinkers on and just accept things as they are. A lot of folks are entitled, think they are above all this. Just get rid of all the guns it all goes away.

I think the challenge that many non Americans can't appreciate is one of volume. Now full disclosure, I am an avid gun advocate and collector. I strongly support the Second Amendment, while also recognizing the need for REASONABLE restrictions (we all get lost in the "what is reasonable" wash imho) ...

But for a moment in time lets just assume that we instantly banned all guns and decided to allow forcible confiscation (civil war here we come, but lets pretend) Estimates on number of firearms in the US range from 350,000,000 to over 500,000,000. For a nice comparison there are an estimated 325,000,000 ACTIVE working cell phones in the US.(100,000,000 cell phones in Germany) think about all the old cell phones you have in a drawer somewhere. Now imagine what it would take to find and confiscate all those cell phones.

Its a physical impossibility. There are an estimated 750,000 law enforcement officers in the US. If every cop in America found and confiscated 1 gun per day, it would take 2 years with no other enforcement activity.

Its just an insurmountable option at this point in time. And that is before you even get to the point of what reasonable control is.

It is my belief that many want an easy answer. One that doesnt exist. This isnt a problem someone else can solve, in my opinion.


Look at yesterday - It was already illegal to murder someone. It was already illegal to possess a gun on school grounds. What is the magic bullet law that he says,'Well I will brake 25 laws today, but that one...oh that one I wont break'

And I cant explain to someone that doesnt value firearm ownership, why I feel the way I do. I just am not a good enough arguer I suppose to convince anyone. I can merely tell you how strongly I value it and hope it impresses upon you the opposition faced.

I would sooner remove the right to free speech than the right to bear arms.
I would sooner lose the right to freedom of religion than the right to bear arms.
I would sooner lose my home and all my worldly possessions before I lost my firearms and the rights to have them.
I acquaint it to the trite marketing slogan "God made man; Samuel Colt made them equal". Like it or not might makes right in the world. Might comes in many ways - political power, physical power, financial power etc. But in a SHTF scenario without the right to physically defend yourself you are nothing more than a sitting target. I rest easy knowing that if the day comes I will die fighting not live conquered.

From my position we must do something to curb violence, we must and we will. But removing firearms isnt a tenable position for me to even discuss.

[CU Tiger]

<iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; width: 500px; height: 204.467px; padding: 0px; border: medium none; max-width: 100%; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" data-tweet-id="964195101621870594" title="Twitter Tweet" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I wonder if this will be substantiated in any way or if this is ISIS claiming responsibility for Hurricanes killing Americans.
<iframe scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.36c0c29c73929bf937f4c70adb1a29e4.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com" style="display: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Drake]

Then the police arrived on the scene and shot the student who'd disarmed the gunman. (http://amarillo.com/local-news/news/crime-and-courts/2018-02-14/apd-shoots-faith-city-mission-student-who-d-taken-gun) Luckily, no fatalities, but my wife works at the hospital they took the victim, so she was torn last night between really wanting to talk about it, and not being allowed to say anything.

I'd be interested in seeing who picks up the medical bills for this shooting. The cynical part of me says it'll be on the student/his parents.

[Hammer]

Are there exceptions to getting rid of all the guns by law abiding citizens?

No hunting rifles, no guns for people living in rural areas, ranchers getting rid of varmints or home protection etc.?

I am for more gun control (and don't claim to have all the answers) but getting rid of "all guns" for law abiding citizens just seems going too far.

It really depends how much the #### number of people getting shot every year bothers you.

I don't mean to come across as a know it all or anti U.S. You guys do a lot of things better than us and we can learn from you. But you are really struggling with this one as it is so ingrained in your culture.

You take the guns away from law abiding citizens. Damn right. You take away the hunting rifles. It won't cause anyone to starve to death.

To an American it might sound extreme. To me it is common sense and normal. Just the way it is. If there are no guns nobody gets shot.

Police don't carry guns in my country. They don't need to. We have armed response units who sit around drinking tea and playing pool until there is a terror threat every year or so. Not a response needed to the general criminals very often. Our criminals are probably as bad as yours but as there are no guns it isn't such a problem..

[Mike Lowe]

We're ok with a country having weapons, just not big powerful ones like a nuke that can do a lot of damage...


We're ok with an American having a handgun, just not big powerful guns like an AR-15 that can do a lot of damage...


Oh wait, some people still don't care about that second paragraph I guess...

[Kodos]

I would sooner remove the right to free speech than the right to bear arms.
I would sooner lose the right to freedom of religion than the right to bear arms.
I would sooner lose my home and all my worldly possessions before I lost my firearms and the rights to have them.
I acquaint it to the trite marketing slogan "God made man; Samuel Colt made them equal". Like it or not might makes right in the world. Might comes in many ways - political power, physical power, financial power etc. But in a SHTF scenario without the right to physically defend yourself you are nothing more than a sitting target. I rest easy knowing that if the day comes I will die fighting not live conquered.


So instead, you will condemn more children to die helplessly at the hands of a fellow gun owner.

[CU Tiger]

So instead, you will condemn more children to die helplessly at the hands of a fellow gun owner.

No. I dont condemn anyone.

My idea of a "solution" would be seen as too barbaric and most definitely outlawed by the Eighth Amendment.

But again you dont want discussion, you just want to lob accusation at me. I get it. I like guns so I'm the enemy.

It's not a black and white issue. We live and die by the shades of grey.

[CU Tiger]

You take the guns away from law abiding citizens. Damn right. You take away the hunting rifles. It won't cause anyone to starve to death.

To an American it might sound extreme. To me it is common sense and normal. Just the way it is. If there are no guns nobody gets shot.


How do you protect yourself, your property, your family and your pets from wildlife? Real question. I've lost livestock this month to coyotes. I've killed 20+ coyotes since January 1.

How do rural Germans protect themselves, or should everyone move into a city.

[CU Tiger]

We're ok with a country having weapons, just not big powerful ones like a nuke that can do a lot of damage...


We're ok with an American having a handgun, just not big powerful guns like an AR-15 that can do a lot of damage...


Oh wait, some people still don't care about that second paragraph I guess...

Remember there hardcore 2A guys think average US citizens should be allowed to poses tanks, fighter jets and yes even Nukes.

I dont fall into that category, but lots do.

[Kodos]

No. I just can't stand that so many seem to value their right to own guns over the right of people to live without being shot by a lunatic with a gun. And that our government is bought and paid for, so no common sense strides can be made toward curbing the problem.

[Kodos]

How do you protect yourself, your property, your family and your pets from wildlife? Real question. I've lost livestock this month to coyotes. I've killed 20+ coyotes since January 1.

How do rural Germans protect themselves, or should everyone move into a city.

I would rather you have to worry about your pets being killed by wildlife than for parents to have to worry if their kids will be shot at school. Poison the coyotes maybe?

[cuervo72]

Perhaps if the coyotes had to be buzzed in by the office before having access to the livestock.

[Logan]

Kill the coyotes with your hunting rifle. No one in this country legitimately thinks we're ever going to make possessing a gun illegal. Let's just move the fuck on from this already.

[Hammer]

I appreciate how you feel CU Tiger. I can live with hurting your feelings if it saves lives. You are brain washed. You can't see that, but you are. Your culture has moulded your feelings into what they are now but that culture has to change for your country to move forward.

It might take 20 or 30 years to sort this out. Maybe it will need enough time for a generation to pass away and the new generation will more readily accept things as they are.

The generation before me thought drink driving was okay. They did it all the time before laws were passed then they probably did it less often! Smoking in public places was perfectly normal 20 years ago. It was a pleasure to many people. You walked into a pub and your clothes were smelling of smoke the next day. Now there is no smoking in public facilities. People disagreed, feelings got hurt. It happened anyway and it happened for the better. Times move on and things can change.

[RainMaker]

How do you protect yourself, your property, your family and your pets from wildlife? Real question. I've lost livestock this month to coyotes. I've killed 20+ coyotes since January 1.

How do rural Germans protect themselves, or should everyone move into a city.

Maybe we could copy the other countries that are vastly superior to us in this area?

[Fidatelo]

My extended family owns lots of guns. They hunt alot as the live up north. I've seen them many times, visits, and all that. I've never seen a gun in my life....

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions either, but it's just not a regular part of life here. It's not on my mind. It's not even an afterthought.

I think you touch on something important: mindset. For whatever reason, in Canada we don't have a strong revolutionary mindset, nor a strong self-defense mindset. It's never seriously crossed my mind to own a gun for protection, or that I might want to own one in case my government needs a reminder that it works for me. I know people who own guns (including my father), but they are strictly hunting rifles, for hunting. I don't know anyone that owns a handgun or some AR-15 or whatever. In those times when I lie awake and think about what I might do in the case of an intruder, my mind goes to blunt objects like bats or hockey sticks, and those seem sufficient. Heck, even our old Prime Minister Jean Chretien defended himself from a home intruder with a stone sculpture.

In America the mindset is very different. The relationship with the government appears to be far more antagonistic, and the undercurrent of possible/inevitable revolution seems ever present. It's not as hard to understand why someone might feel a need or desire to own weapons that may help to defend larger-than-self values that they see at risk of infringement. It's less clear to me why the self-defense mindset also appears to be more prolific and oriented towards guns, but as an outsider it does seem clear that it is at a whole different level.

[CU Tiger]

No. I just can't stand that so many seem to value their right to own guns over the right of people to live without being shot by a lunatic with a gun. And that our government is bought and paid for, so no common sense strides can be made toward curbing the problem.


I'm not trying to be a dick, really I am not.
If I am coming off that way, please forgive me.

Why guns though? Why is that the tool you decide to attack.

Far, far more people die in car crashes, or from alcohol, or cigarettes every year then die from guns.

Where is the outrage over these things. Hell without cars people would walk more, be healthier, the air would be cleaner, there would be no dependence on foreign oil. Healthcare costs would plummet...no one NEEDS a car anymore than anyone NEEDS a gun. Just let the trained government officials have the only cars and they can transport us where they want us to go.

The government can haul our foods and goods. Hell we can convert all the now unnecessary gas stations to homeless shelters.


BTW I'm a car guy as well. I have 16 tagged and registered cars and 3 more projects. I dont condone banning them either...but Id sooner ban cars than guns.

How many more innocent kids have to die because their moms dont buckle them up. Just outlaw the damn cars already

[Fidatelo]

How do you protect yourself, your property, your family and your pets from wildlife? Real question. I've lost livestock this month to coyotes. I've killed 20+ coyotes since January 1.

How do rural Germans protect themselves, or should everyone move into a city.

How many guns do you own? I feel like 1 simple hunting rifle should be adequate wildlife protection. If you own more, why?

[Kodos]

I'm not trying to be a dick, really I am not.
If I am coming off that way, please forgive me.

Why guns though? Why is that the tool you decide to attack.

Far, far more people die in car crashes, or from alcohol, or cigarettes every year then die from guns.

Where is the outrage over these things. Hell without cars people would walk more, be healthier, the air would be cleaner, there would be no dependence on foreign oil. Healthcare costs would plummet...no one NEEDS a car anymore than anyone NEEDS a gun. Just let the trained government officials have the only cars and they can transport us where they want us to go.

The government can haul our foods and goods. Hell we can convert all the now unnecessary gas stations to homeless shelters.


BTW I'm a car guy as well. I have 16 tagged and registered cars and 3 more projects. I dont condone banning them either...but Id sooner ban cars than guns.

How many more innocent kids have to die because their moms dont buckle them up. Just outlaw the damn cars already

Because guns are the main tools little Tommy uses when he gets butthurt at school and decides to even the score.

People know that using cars carries with it an inherent level of danger. If they are like me, they take steps to limit the danger. I paid extra to get a car that has safety features like airbags, blind spot warnings, lane departure warnings, etc. I took reasonable steps to mitigate the danger. I take public transportation from the train station to New Haven. I drive about 3 miles to get to the station and ride 30 miles in to work.

Cars aren't used to intentionally kill innocents as often as guns are. This is just throwing mud in the water to stop the focus on guns. I can live with accidents easier than I can live with intentional mass murders.

Cigarettes? Ban 'em. Fine by me. Alcohol? Stricter laws and stronger enforcement for infractions. Drink and drive? License gone for 5 years. Second offense - jail time, license gone for life.

[Logan]

I'm not trying to be a dick, really I am not.
If I am coming off that way, please forgive me.

Why guns though? Why is that the tool you decide to attack.

Far, far more people die in car crashes, or from alcohol, or cigarettes every year then die from guns.

Where is the outrage over these things. Hell without cars people would walk more, be healthier, the air would be cleaner, there would be no dependence on foreign oil. Healthcare costs would plummet...no one NEEDS a car anymore than anyone NEEDS a gun. Just let the trained government officials have the only cars and they can transport us where they want us to go.

The government can haul our foods and goods. Hell we can convert all the now unnecessary gas stations to homeless shelters.


BTW I'm a car guy as well. I have 16 tagged and registered cars and 3 more projects. I dont condone banning them either...but Id sooner ban cars than guns.

How many more innocent kids have to die because their moms dont buckle them up. Just outlaw the damn cars already

People die in car "accidents", numbnuts. Trust me, the rest of us aren't trying to change gun laws because idiots like Plaxico Burress shoot themselves in the leg.

[RainMaker]

I'm not trying to be a dick, really I am not.
If I am coming off that way, please forgive me.

Why guns though? Why is that the tool you decide to attack.

Far, far more people die in car crashes, or from alcohol, or cigarettes every year then die from guns.

Where is the outrage over these things. Hell without cars people would walk more, be healthier, the air would be cleaner, there would be no dependence on foreign oil. Healthcare costs would plummet...no one NEEDS a car anymore than anyone NEEDS a gun. Just let the trained government officials have the only cars and they can transport us where they want us to go.

The government can haul our foods and goods. Hell we can convert all the now unnecessary gas stations to homeless shelters.

BTW I'm a car guy as well. I have 16 tagged and registered cars and 3 more projects. I dont condone banning them either...but Id sooner ban cars than guns.

How many more innocent kids have to die because their moms dont buckle them up. Just outlaw the damn cars already

The primary use of cars is for transportation. They are rarely used as weapons and when people die, it's because of accidents.

With that said, cars are heavily regulated. We are constantly pushing new safety standards to automobile makers. We require people to pass tests to acquire a license to drive. We make laws for drivers to protect them such as wearing a seat belt, having children in proper seats, not driving under the influence, etc. When there are horrific incidences with cars, we almost immediately pass laws to fix them.

Also the argument that no one needs a car over a gun is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. If you gave a choice to people, the car would overwhelmingly win. You literally can't participate in modern society in many parts of the country without one. 70% of adults don't own a gun and manage to avoid being eaten by rabid coyotes.

I understand you like your toys. I don't even have a problem with people owning them. But lets drop the really stupid comparisons.