New Gun Policies Won’t Stop Mass Shootings, but People Can
It is the responsibility of a free people to be aware, to have courage, and to care for one another.
T he United States is facing a puzzling paradox. Even as gun crime has plunged precipitously from the terrible highs of the early 1990s, mass shootings have increased. Consider this: 15 of the 20 worst mass shootings in U.S. history have occurred since the Columbine school shooting in 1999. The five worst have all occurred since 2007, and three of those five were in 2016 and 2017.
It’s horrifying, and governmental solutions are hard to find. Twitter’s fondest wishes to the contrary, the unique characteristics of mass shootings mean that they often escape the reach of public policy. The Washington Post ’ s Glenn Kessler (hardly an NRA apologist) famously fact-checked Marco Rubio’s assertion that new gun laws wouldn’t have prevented any recent mass shootings and declared it true. Time and again, existing laws failed, or no proposed new gun-control law would have prevented the purchase.
The reason is obvious. Mass shootings are among the most premeditated of crimes, often planned months in advance. The shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reportedly wore a gas mask, carried smoke grenades, and set off the fire alarm so that students would pour out into the hallways. Though we’ll obviously learn more in the coming days, each of these things suggests careful preparation. A man who is determined to kill and who is proactive in finding the means to kill will find guns. He can modify guns. He can find magazines.
But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do. When policies fail, people can and should rise to the occasion. Looking at the deadliest mass shootings since Columbine, we see that the warning signs were there, time and again. People could have made a difference.
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik spent at least a year preparing for their attack in San Bernardino, Calif. Farook may have even discussed the attack three years before the murders. A neighbor reportedly witnessed suspicious activity at the the shooters’ home, but was afraid to report what she saw .
The story of Devin Patrick Kelley — the church shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas — is full of warning signs, acts of aggression, and missed opportunities. He was violent, he never should have passed a background check, and he “ displayed a fascination with mass murders .”
Adam Lanza’s family struggled with him for years before he committed mass murder at Sandy Hook. His mother was “ overwhelmed ” by his behavior, and he lived in deep isolation — blocking anyone from entering his room and even covering his windows with black plastic bags.
Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, was known to be profoundly troubled. He stalked and threatened female schoolmates. In 2005, a court ruled that he was “ an imminent danger to others ,” but he was released for outpatient care.
The FBI twice investigated Omar Mateen , the Orlando nightclub shooter, and he once claimed that he was affiliated with al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
The list could go on and on. In fact, evidence of extended mental-health problems, aberrant behavior, or political radicalization is so common that the absence of such evidence in the Las Vegas shooting renders it the mysterious black swan of mass killings.
In 2015 Malcolm Gladwell wrote an extended essay in the New Yorker about school shootings and offered a provocative thesis:
What if the way to explain the school-shooting epidemic is . . . to think of it as a slow-motion, ever-evolving riot, in which each new participant’s action makes sense in reaction to and in combination with those who came before?
Gladwell argues that each new shooting lowers the threshold for the shooters to come. Each new shooting makes it easier for the next shooter to pick up his gun.
Others have used the term “contagion” to describe the wave of copycat killers. Again, each killing inspires the next, and as the killings increase so does the inspiration.
What does this mean? It means that Americans need to be aware that this contagion exists, that this “ever-evolving riot” is under way. We can’t deflect responsibility upwards, to Washington. We’re still the first line of defense in our own communities. We cannot simply assume that the kid filling his social-media feed with menacing pictures is just in “a phase” or that strange obsessions with murder or mass death are morbid, but harmless.
We’ve trained ourselves to mind our own business, to delegate interventions to professionals, and to “judge not” the actions of others. But in a real way, we are our brother’s keeper; and an ethic of “see something, say something” is a vital part of community life.
Instead, we all too often retreat into our lives — either afraid that intervention carries risks or falsely comforted by the belief that surely someone else will do the right thing. We’ve seen this dynamic in other crimes. The worst of the sexual predators revealed (so far) by the #MeToo movement, Harvey Weinstein and Larry Nassar, could have been stopped so much earlier if the people around them had shown just an ounce more courage in the face of known complaints and known misconduct. We didn’t need better laws to stop rape. We needed better people.
One of the greatest challenges for any society is stopping a man who is determined to commit murder, and we’ll never fully succeed. Even the most vigilant community will still suffer at the hands of evil men. But it’s days like these, when children lay dead in school, that we must remind ourselves that we’re all in this together. We have responsibilities, not just to mourn and comfort the families of the lost, but to think carefully about our own communities and the circle of people in our lives — and to take action to guard our own children and our own schools.
It is the duty of a free people to be aware, to have courage, and to care for one another. For me, that’s a reminder that I can’t consider a troubled person someone else’s problem. I can’t assume it won’t happen in my school or in my town. Rather than tweet impotently, I’ve armed myself to protect my family and my neighbors; in my past role as a member of a school board, I’ve worked to better secure my kids’ school; and I’ve vowed that if — God forbid — I ever see evidence or warning signs of the darkness of a killer’s heart, I’ll have the courage to seek the intervention that can save lives.
That’s not public policy. It’s personal responsibility. It’s also the best way to confine the contagion that’s killing our kids.
— David French is a senior writer for National Review , a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456436/new-gun-laws-wont-stop-mass-shootings-people-can
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
One of the greatest challenges for any society is stopping a man who is determined to commit murder, and we’ll never fully succeed. Even the most vigilant community will still suffer at the hands of evil men.
On the other hand, arming "a man who is determined to commit murder" with a high-capacity rapid-fire weapon is easy. For many Americans it is much more important to allow everyone to own weapons whose only logical purpose is to kill lots of people very quickly, than to limit the distribution of such weapons.
Apologism for mass murder.
Indeed.
I call bullshit on your bullshit and wish that Vegas shooter had tried to kill or maim hundreds with a crowbar or hammer!
Uneducated response. All people are not allowed to have such weapons, and no one else arms these shooters. Legitimate dealers and gun shows are not allowed to sell them. However, this guns can be obtained on the "black market", from street gangs and other common criminals, or from private citizen. There is no way to stop private sales
True. But the number of fatalities if someone attacks a group of people with a knife or crowbar would be FAR less than if they used a gun, (even a cheap .22 pistol in the right hands, (well, wrong hands as the example may be)), could have done as much damage as this turd did yesterday. The key is mitigating the damage done. I don't want to see guns taken out of the hands of responsible gun owners, that's the LAST thing I want. The key here is keeping guns out of the hands of people that are trying to commit mass murder.THAT'S the hard part.
Oh, yes! We all remember that case where seventeen kids were slaughtered by a guy with a knife...
Apologism for mass murder.
Apologism for mass murder.
Then, how 'bout the Chinese and Japanese men who went on rampages with knives and axes and killed a total of 40 KIDS?
Hmmmm - no guns involved there.
Hmmmm....no thought there; also no facts to back up this bullshit "point."
Just think what they could have done with tools thousands of times more effective than swords
Did you know that 'mass murder' is one of 30,000 most commonly used words? Serial killers are the same as mass murderers, they just do not target large groups at one time (they spread their murderous pleasure out) .. there could be upwards of 25 to 50 active serial killers operating in the US right now, as 'we' type..
I get it Bob, mass murderers are in your face, and targeting (for the most part) children - sadly because they are sitting ducks ..
Why is it so easy for 'potential' mass murderers with "high capacity rapid fire weapons" to gain access to 'our' children's schools? Why is there NO security offered on campuses, except for that which is policing the students themselves? A simple buzz in policy during school hours would stop a percentage of the school mass murderers - have you noticed the mass murderer does not target children at recess?
I am all for comprehensive, as well as common sense this and that - but until 'that magic wand is waved' there is a great deal 'we' can do to protect young people/school campuses ... I will prob be labeled a "Apologist for mass murder" .. but at least I realize it is not some federal government policies on gun control and background checks, which may never happen during 'our' (as in you and me) lifetimes - that will stop these horrific events from happening, as long as the "mass murderers" is allowed unfettered access to their targets .. the massacres will continue.
Just my opinion!
Actually no.
Although many deaths occur with both, mass means within a short period of time in a single location where as serial deaths occur over a period of time at different locations. Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, and FL were mass murders. Ed Kemper, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacey were serial killers.
Actually the school massacre I recall in China in 2012 which involved a sword or knife resulted in no deaths, just lots of injured children. In general the death to injury rate is far lower in incidents which don't involve guns.
Thank you Paula for the examples .... I am well aware of the definitions and the differences - hence I stated:
Perhaps I should have stated that Serial killers differ from mass murderers in that they kill in different locations .. ? Serial killers also can and do kill everyone in the house, does that then make them a mass murderer?
I know - you don't know how to google - just run your mouth.
On 14 December 2012 between 7 and 8 a.m. local time , a 36-year-old villager identified as Min Yongjun [2] stabbed 24 people, including 23 children and an elderly woman, [3] in a knife attack at Chenpeng Village Primary School ( simplified Chinese : 陈棚村完全小学 ; traditional Chinese : 陳棚村完全小學 ; pinyin : Chénpéng Cūn Wánquán Xiǎoxué [note 1] ), Wenshu Township , Guangshan County , Henan province, China. [1] [4] [5] [6] The children targeted by the knifeman are thought likely to be between six and eleven years of age. The attack occurred as the children were arriving for classes probably at 8:00 or maybe even 9:00. [5
On Tuesday, 6 May 2014, at least six people were injured in a knife attack in Guangzhou , China. At least one suspect was shot and detained by authorities. It was believed by some witnesses that about four suspects were involved, and were carrying large knives. [1]
Masahiro Kanagawa ( 金川 真大 Kanagawa Masahiro , 1983 – February 21, 2013) was a Japanese man who went on a stabbing spree in the city of Tsuchiura on March 23, 2008, which left a 27-year-old man dead and seven others wounded.
In the evening of 1 March 2014, a terrorist attack occurred inside the Kunming Railway Station in Kunming , Yunnan , China . At around 21:20, a group of eight knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city's railway station . [2] Both male and female attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants [3] [4] and captured one injured female. The incident, targeted against civilians, left 31 civilians and 4 perpetrators [1] dead with more than 140 others injured. [5] [6
The Nanping school massacre／stabbings (Chinese: 福建南平校园惨案) occurred at Nanping City Experimental Elementary School in the city of Nanping , Fujian Province , People's Republic of China , in which a man used a knife to kill eight children and seriously wound five others. [1]
Yan Yanming (Chinese: 闫彦明) (1983 – January 18, 2005) was a Chinese mass murderer who entered a dormitory at the Ruzhou Number Two High School in Ruzhou, China on November 26, 2004, with a knife and attacked twelve boys, killing nine of them. [1] [2]
The Sagamihara stabbings were committed on 26 July 2016 in Midori Ward , Sagamihara , Kanagawa , Japan. 19 people were killed and 26 others were injured, 13 severely, at a care home for disabled people. [1] [3]
The Shimonoseki Station massacre took place on September 29, 1999, when Yasuaki Uwabe, then aged 35, drove a car into the Shimonoseki Station . Exiting the car, he proceeded to stab passers-by at random until apprehended at the scene. As a result of his actions, five people were killed and 10 others were injured;
Even left the links for you to click and find out more about it.
When you're ready for your lesson on how to google, let me know.
5 incidents in China over a 12 year period, in a country of 1.4 billion people ? Divide 40 by 1.4 billion and then again by 12 years to get your rate.
One terrorist attack by 8 men? Why throw that one in?
2 incidents from Japan. Again negligible.
Any country that restricts guns, suffers from knife attacks, but not to kids schools and colleges every week like home sweet home.
Outside the US? The UK reports a knife attack every 4 minutes.
People and poverty suck.
The Kunming attack (wherein the 8 perpetrators also included 1 woman) was by Uighur Muslim terrorists, and I think Split Personality is absolutely correct in its not being relevant to the count. The government here in China deals VERY QUICKLY and VERY DECISIVELY with such behaviour, which is why it is such a rare occurrence. I do recall about a deranged man attacking young children in a school. You might note, though, that none of the incidents referred to guns being used. I think people have a better chance of surviving a knife or cleaver attack which requires the attacker to come close, than with a gun attack where the ability to defend is so limited. In any event, the inclusion of those incidents in this argument is nothing better than trying desperately to make a comparison where guns are NOT used as weapons, and the incidents per 100,000 population, as statistics are usually used for fair comparison, is NOT shown, because it would demonstrate how ridiculous that comparison would be.
I feel SO much safer in China than I think I would be if I were in the USA. Statistics don't lie and the gun crimes in the USA compare with the gun crimes in the most uncivilized third world countries.
In my opinion, however, it is too late for the USA to even try to limit gun crimes. The proliferation of guns among the population is SO EXTREME that control at this point is impossible. As well, the protection for gun ownership afforded by the Second Amendment gives the NRA and its adherents all the balls and avenue it needs to increase the proliferation. No other country has that "weapon" to deny control. The fact is that there are SO MANY guns owned in the USA that it is most likely EASY for anyone who would not qualify for ownership to get one illegally, and as well I don't think that what controls are available are particularly effective anyway because of lax enforcement of them either through greed or negligence. Otherwise, how is it that unstable persons are able to obtain them?
So all I can say is you have no real choice other than to live with so many guns and the consequences therefrom.
Oh, and by the way, I've noted comments that members are happy that being armed (the Second Amendment) since it gives them the means to make sure of the citizens' rights to control their government, as compared to dictatorships, etc. If that is so, then now when the majority of American citizens are so incensed with their present government have they not already risen, using their amassed firepower, and brought about a coup? Shooting policemen here and there doesn't do the trick. That proves to me that such a right is nothing but a toothless tiger anyway.
As for the title of this article, yes, people CAN, but the problem is that they haven't, and IMO they WON'T - not for a long time, at least.
I'm sure you do but at what expense.? Like many Americans i prefer liberty over oppression ...... the freedom of speech, expression, assembly, religion and yes bearing arms is preferable to me and many others.
We are at a crossroads for that. Limit liberty and increase security or not. To me this is much like organized Government surveillance of it's people. I'm all for catching terrorist before they do their dirty deeds but not at the expense of the privacy of it's law abiding citizens.
What expense? No expense for me. I'm not the least bit oppressed. As far as freedom of speech and expression is concerned, the government here leaves me alone and I leave it alone. They're not watching me, even though they know where I am and I've been here eleven and a half years and no police or government official has knocked on my door. I don't have and never had any intention to stand up on a soapbox and scream at everyone that they have no freedom - first of all, they're not going to understand me, and secondly they're not going to give a damn. Assembly? I'm quite happy assembling with my wife's family and nobody is interested in politics. I'm hardly religious and what little I am is my own private business. And as I said, bearing arms is not necessary here, but I can understand why it's absolutely necessary where you are.
Great, hope that keeps working out for you Buzz.
One HUGE flaw in your first point. In almost every instance, these mass shootings are happening in gun free zones so how do you know if a good guy with a gun could have stopped any of them or not?
Because we are constantly divided along every line imaginable......race, sex, class, faith, ideology. There is a very good reason the the establishment will not allow a full-on “us vs them” scenario.......they will lose.
the reason for this is expressed in our nations most precious document. the declaration of independence.
there have been no abuses we could not tolerate while the system sorted itself out,
trump beating the entire establishment both left and right? that was a coup in itself.
Cheers
'It is the responsibility of a free people to be aware, to have courage, and to care for one another'
Yeah and give everyone guns?
'One of the greatest challenges for any society is stopping a man who is determined to commit murder, and we’ll never fully succeed.'
So now is not the time to talk about restricting guns, right?
Like Bob said:
'On the other hand, arming "a man who is determined to commit murder" with a high-capacity rapid-fire weapon is easy. For many Americans it is much more important to allow everyone to own weapons whose only logical purpose is to kill lots of people very quickly, than to limit the distribution of such weapons.'
Who's giving everybody guns. Another case of missing logic.
If that comment is an example of conservative thought people should choose Door D every time...
So, "good" people shouldn't be stocking up on guns because of the threat of "bad" people doing so? What happened to "all it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy* with one" bullshit?
* "Runcie, the school superintendent, said at least two police cars were typically on campus 'on a daily basis.' "
And you believe what Bob sez?
Good article, but the "ban all gun" crowd thinks that all that's needed is more common sense gun laws and background checks on private sales.
1) Stop trying to tell other people what groups of people think, especially if you are not part of that group, it just makes you look foolish.
2) I lean to the left politically, but not a liberal, (socially liberal, fiscal conservative), and I know of NO one that wants to see all guns banned. I know I don't.
As I said above. There needs to be a balance between not stomping on the 2nd amendment, and not having to worry if our kids are going to make it through the day at school alive. Or go to church, or a concert or a movie. It's painfully obvious that more guns are not the answer. The more guns our society has? The more mass shootings we have. It's not rocket science. The rights favorite fall back argument explains it perfectly. "Well, what about Chicago!!!???? Or, [insert large city here]!!!!" Higher concentrations of people, means there is more crime. 1+1=2. More guns means there is, and will continue to be, more gun violence.
Where are they? I haven't seen anyone on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or any of the networks advocating for banning all guns. I haven't heard any of the liberals or progressives on NT suggest banning all guns. So where is this "ban all gun" crowd you speak of? If all you have is a straw man of your own making to present you need to try a little harder.
They're out there.
Katy Tur Suggests Repealing 2nd Amendment Should Be Democrats' End Goal
List of 46 Senators who voted to repeal the 2nd Amendment via the UN Small Arms Treaty
Repeal the Second Amendment
By percentage of households, gun ownership has declined . About 50% of American households had a gun in the 1970s. Now it's about 1/3. Also, even though it's been up in the last couple of years, gun homicides have been declining steadily for a generation. The murder rate hasn't been this low since the early 60s. While the existence of guns unquestionably makes them available for murder, the fact that millions of people own guns and never use them to kill proves that these shootings are not inevitable simply because there are guns around.
Firearms were never intended to be fashion accessories. People forget that when the law came to the west that meant gun control. My grandfathers had to check their handguns in at the sheriff's office when they came into town on Saturdays not that very long ago. Nobody went about armed in town when I was a kid and I am talking about a small town way out west. Sure just about all of the nearly always unlocked pickup trucks parked around the courthouse square had a shotgun and a rifle in their gun racks but nobody went to the diner, drugstore, hardware or departments stores packing heat. it was in bad taste then and it is in bad taste still if you ask me. We are going backwards socially if people think they need a gun in town. I have lived in cities these last forty odd years and never once had cause to point a gun at a single person. Why in hell would I want to go about armed? We have professional law enforcement. They are called police departments. Our modern gun culture is krazy as evidence by comments from gun enthusiasts.
From what I gather reading through this is that there could never be an out right gun ban, but, it is completely legal to put restrictions on usage, types of weapons and distribution.
The second amendment is not unlimited like the purist spout and many things could be done.
To start with, since every one loves to bring the car analogy into it, I would say require people to have a licence. One would have to go to class for training and be certified at handling of the weapon they wish to purchase.
Edit: Even in my state they have made it a law that anyone operating a boat or jetski has to have a boating licence yet any yahoo can yield a weapon just by going to walmart.
Good suggestion. Except...driving a car is not a Constitutional Right protected by the Bill of Rights. And if you're going to start requiring training to exercise a right, based on some of the people I've encountered here on this site, we need some training to exercise 1st Amendment rights.
Besides. The Heller decision negated the governments ability to require a license to own.
What I posted above was exerts from the case you cited. They basically stated that rules and regulations could apply. I do not see how requiring training would negate anyone a right to own a weapon. If one wanted one bad enough they would follow protocol.
It also said that it could regulate commerce of weapons and that regulations such as banning concealed carry would be upheld as would banning certain types of weapons that were deemed a menace to society. Ie. We don't have people with bazookas walking down the street and automatic weapons are banned. They could actually ban semi-automatic weapons and still not infringe on the right for people to own a gun. Types of guns can be regulated. The second amendment is not an absolute that would carry over to any weapon that anybody wanted no matter the type.
My brother in law has all of his weapons registered. He had a pistol stolen from him by a friend of my nephew. In an idiot moment my nephew decided to show a gun to his friends which one of them (not much of a friend) went back and stole the weapon.
It was an ordeal. He had to notify the police and give them all pertinent information and if a crime was committed with the weapon, he could have been legally in trouble. Since he reported it and an investigation ensued, luckily he will no longer be liable. They never found the weapon. To this day he is still afraid that one day he will learn his gun was used in a crime.
I don't know anyone that doesn't know how to fire a weapon !
Did this "Piece of Shit Cruz" go to a class to learn how to handle a gun ?
If so....it worked.
If not....My first statement is True.
This idea that schooling will STOP some Nutbag is just ridicules. The 3 day wait period is for cooling off, in case someone is "Legally" buying a gun only to kill someone that day. Seems this "Cruzball" had this planned for MORE THAN 3 days. Sounds like months, or even a year.
You need to read the Heller decision. Out of your entire post, I'd say only about 55% of it is correct.
Yes, a State can ban Concealed Carry.
Yes a State can ban a type of weapon.
No a State cannot require training to OWN a weapon.
Yes a State can require registration.
No a State cannot require a license to buy a weapon, unless that license is nothing more than a simple registration or Brady Check. (Such as Illinois FOID).
So, does that mean that you're OK with a citizenship test or a literacy test before one can exercise his/her right to vote? Before answering, I would suggest checking Google for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Any subjective test required for the exercise of any basic Constitutional Right is extremely vulnerable to abuse and cannot be permitted.
And yet in my state, in order to vote one has to, yes, register. We are also required now to have a voting card, one might as well say a voting licence. Yet they call it a voter id card.
So one viable solution is to ban all guns for civilians which allow firing rates in excess of say, 5 rounds per minute.
Or better yet just tightly regulate the manufacture, distribution and ownership of bullets.
I do not see any where in their ruling that one cannot require training. It also said, must issue him a licence . I see nowhere in the ruling that prohibits licencing.
Good. You read it. Now you're a bit more informed on the subject.
The key is this statement right here:
The first part states "assuming that Heller is not disqualified from exercise of Second Amendment rights". That right there affirmed the Brady checks. In other words there ARE legal and Constitutional factors that can prohibit the right. But past decisions have always held that restricting a right must allow for due process. Requiring training is not one of them.
It then says "the District MUST permit him to register his handgun, and MUST issue him a license to carry it in the home". I added the emphasis. The court is saying in effect that the ONLY restriction to issue a license or allow registration is the disqualification of the Right. There can be NO obstacle to registration or license except for those allowed under the Brady Act checks. In other words, a state cannot require training in order to exercise the Right. Yes, they can register. Yes they can issue license. But they cannot make registering and licensing dependent on anything except what legally can prohibit the right.
I read it the first time. I just skimmed through it again. Most of it is just about arguments made and rehashing past precedent and rulings.
He also stated that they did not open up the whole can of worms and that they may need to do so at a later date.
From my interpretation the ruling was that they could not do an outright ban. They could also not force one to make the gun inoperable as this would, in essence, make the weapon useless.
They basically state that the second amendment can be for defence purposes.
They also left it open for future debate as they made no prohibitions for or against use.
All true. In fact, in Scalia's written Opinion, he leaves open the issue of banning a class of firearm, such as the Assault Weapons ban. New York and Connecticut have already done so, and they have been challenged in court. However, so far the SCOTUS has not agreed to hear any of those cases. Mainly because the challenges were on technicalities of the ban, not the ban itself.
Heller answered a lot of questions though. And the big take away from it is the re-affirmation of gun ownership as a right, and the criteria for restrictions, as I outlined above.
In reality, I think any restrictions should be left to the state and local governments. Not at the federal level. The Ban on ARs in New York may be justified. At least in the metropolitan areas. However, out here in rural Missouri it doesn't make sense. My AR has been used numerous times to protect my livestock from predators. It's the preferred platform when dealing with a pack of coyotes.
As your article correctly points out there were clear warning signs, a criminal record and mental health issues. Most of the kids interviewed immediately after the shooting had a good idea of who did it. It's not about what teachers or the school can do - they expelled him, or the FBI - they took precious time to look at an obscure twitter post, or new gun laws - the school was a gun free zone. The killer broke many laws.
Here is a radical idea that had proven success - let's go back to putting the mentally ill in institutions! I know liberals don't like it and care more about extending "rights" than human life, but it's time that the American people say enough. Take away the rights of the criminally insane, get them off our streets and put them away!
There is only one Country in the world that experiences mass shootings on this level, sadly it is us.
The question everyone should be asking is why.
Please tell us why. Don't you have any common sense ideas?
You obviously haven't seen the stats for a few Central American/South American countries have you?
Awwww look! Right on cue. The Gun grabbing liberty hating liberal mouthpieces show up. Welcome! Get some coffee, have a seat and tell me why I need to give up my rights because of the actions of a lunatic.
No one is asking anyone to give up their guns, what they are asking for is a pragmatic solution to gun violence in this Country.
By the by I am not a liberal, just sane.
o one is asking anyone to give up their guns, what they are asking for is a pragmatic solution to gun violence in this Country.
What do you propose? I can't imagine anyone is against a constitutional, pragmatic solution to gun violence
It's been demonstrated time and time again, that news gun laws wouldn't have stopped a single recent mass shooter. There's no evidence laws would have deterred this sicko.
What is the pragmatic solution?
For starters, enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Establish thorough background checks
Make it a capital offense to commit any crime with a gun (they can use knives or clubs instead)
That'll get things started
Enforce existing laws? Like we do with immigration?
We have background checks already.
Most states impose stricter sentences on those convicted of crimes committed with a gun.
One problem is the extraordinarily long gap between conviction and sentence in capital cases. If the sentence was upheld on appeal and sentence carried out in three years capital punishment would mean something but at thirty year gaps it means little. A firearm used in the commission of any crime automatically carries a severe penalty, you want to wave your gun at the car in front for not using a turn signal that should be a minimum of ten years no probation. Kids with guns, bam adult time.
It is easier for me to acquire a gun that to get on an airplane, I'll leave it at that.
Most current background checks are porous at best.
As to dragging immigration into the mix, I happen to agree all laws should be enforced prior to enacting new ones.
So advocate for stricter background check if you want. Congress said they were sufficient. So did most state legislatures.
Well, you seem to have all the simplistic answers, so give us some examples of "pragmatic solutions".
It's not really a legal problem any more, at least for the moment. Eventually a liberal Supreme Court could conceivably re- interpret the second amendment in a restrictive way.
For now we need to mitigate the possibility of these incidents. We have to make guns not cool. To that end, I would categorize certain types of guns as a national health threat and prohibit all advertising of them outside of a single company catalogue. Pro gun sites that exalt these weapons should be shut down by the government. All social media depictions of these weapons should be prohibited.
We have to , as a nation, stop fetishizing guns. Nicholas Cruz clearly was obsessed with guns. He wasn't born that way.
I've seen you post that several times John. And I'm sure you were hoping that would happen if your darling got elected. But the simple fact is the Supreme Court seldom reverses itself. And I seriously doubt they would reverse on the 2nd Amendment, given the majority opinion writting on it.
But you keep dreaming.
Things are different since the court has become perpetually politicized. I could easily see a liberal Supreme Court modifying 2nd amendment decisions.
A lot of gun advocates seem to be under the delusion that they have a "right" to any weapon they wish. That is not the case.
And what's your point exactly? Your link actually supports what you responded to. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. There is such a thing as Private Sales, which DO NOT require a background check under Federal Law. However, some states have passed laws requiring background checks on private sales.
As far as gun shows go, while you could buy guns in what was called tailgate transactions (private sales) in the past, to my knowledge, ALL gun shows require vendors who sell guns to be Federaly Licensed and do background checks. Every gun show I've been to in the past 10 years had signs posted that prohibit private sales on the premisis.
A LOT of Liberals keep thinking the "Constitution" is "Fluid", "Grey".....etc.... WHEN IT SUITES THEIR BELIEF AGAINST SOMETHING !
If it's something a Liberal Believes IN.....it's ONLY FINITE !
I'm fine with all that.
But the laws that are already on the books aren't enforced. Chicago, for instance, has tough penalties for straw purchasers of guns.
But they don't get prosecuted by the DA, because those prosecutions aren't popular in the community.
This is Chicago:
They clearly aren't.
I dunno, John, you're falling into First Amendment rights here. I don't think the government has the authority to stop people from talking about their guns
It's a document written by men and has had 33 proposed amendments, at least 27 of which have been passed by Congress.
Sounds pretty "fluid" to me...
The exact words remain as written. So....not "Fluid" at all. The only "Fluid' is mans NEED to find ways around those finite words.
But we could easily change the age requirements for different automatic weapons.
There are stupid loop holes that allow an 18 yr old to buy an assault rifle when he cannot buy a pistol till s/he's 21.
Absolutely! If a parent wants their child to have a hunting shotgun or a rifle...then they need to go buy it for their kid.
How do you define "obsessed"? What prompts you to make such an odd and silly statement?
If current law is insufficient, then why are gun crimes on the decrease instead of increasing?
Remedial reading lessons for Blue, again.
Handgun Law in Connecticut Helped Decrease Gun Homicidess
DO you understand what's going on? He didn't use a handgun. Even you should see the irrelevance.
Moreover, There is no evidence that he wouldn't have passed Ct's background check. No criminal record. If you want to claim CT's law would have stopped him, you have to show how it would, otherwise you are simply spouting gibberish. It's like you invent new ways to make yourself look ridiculous every time you post.
I know reading isn't your thing, but here's the Washington Post fact checker saying the same thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/?utm_term=.27e9582b087e
So what about homicides in general? Did they go down at a faster rate after the new gun law or did the general homicide rate move at the same level as before the law? That is important data that anti gun people always try to ignore. If gun homicides went down but the general homicide rate stayed the same, that would indicate that the perpetrators simply shifted to another means to achieve their end.
That's what the repukes said when Obama was president (via the NRA who nicely line their pockets) - he's going to take your guns - he's going to take your guns!
When did that happen?
What's wrong with sane gun laws and not allowing people to have automatic weapons that can kill lots of people quickly.
And the cons even took it a step further by blaming Obama every time there was a mass shooting saying, "Obama won't do anything about guns, the mass shooting is his fault!!!!"
Idiots.
Are you going to start to lobby for the return of full auto without a permit rights?
Bullshit it is commonly called a question, why are you against a Constitutional right?
then flag it as Perrie requested
and don't make a comment about it, again as Perrie requested
People are damn sick and tired of being told, "There is nothing you can do about it", every time children are slaughtered in our public schools and NO, arming school children and their teachers it not a viable option...
There are things we could do about it.
We could require gun safety classes, testing, certification, registration, mandatory liability insurance, mandatory background checks on all transfers of ownership along with annual licencing reviews to enforce the laws we already have on the books disqualifying and disallowing those who should not for good reasons have access guns for either mental or physical reasons from being in possession of firearms.
Please tell us what "common sense" gun laws would have prevented any of the mass shootings.
And just because we HAVE laws doesn't mean crimes don't occur. Common sense gun laws could be JUST as effective as current immigration laws which we don't enforce and scream bloody murder when even attempts at enforcement occur.
'And just because we HAVE laws doesn't mean crimes don't occur.'
No shit Sherlock.
So what common sense gun laws will prevent these shootings? Any idea or just here to complain?
Conservatives are avoid of actual thought if want knee jerk reaction you will get it thoughtful and reason thought you be waiting for awhile.
But neither of you two who keep wanting us "TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!!"
could form a sentence outlining what "common sense" gun laws would have prevented any of the mass murders.
WE MUST be very, very, VERY careful here !
As History has shown....the call for citizen finger pointing can lead to something MUCH WORSE, especially these days !
I'm NOT looking forward to a day like that.
If you buy a gun, the serial number is given to the government. As far as I know. If a gun is recovered at the scene of a crime, check the serial number. If the weapon is NOT registered to the person that committed the crime? The registered owner is held liable and is sentenced the same as the person that committed the crime, no exceptions. That ALONE would stop a lot of these shootings because people would be MUCH more protective of their firearms. It would be a big step in keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them in the first place.
Was it reported as "Stolen" by the actual owner ?
I know for me.....I wouldn't loan one of my guns to ANYONE !
But I like my life !
If so that makes the liability a little less, granted. I have several guns, all locked up. I DO keep one gun not locked up, and it's in a place where no one is going to "accidentally" find it.
You underestimate a simple 2 year old. They can find ANYTHING.
"If so that makes the liability a little less, granted."
That makes the "Liability".......ZERO !
Well, except that it is completely illegal to hold someone else responsible for the actions of another.
In fact, that is downright stupid.
What moron took a picture of a dead girl, and then posted it.
Completely inappropriate Bob. Discuss the issue, or leave the article.
The issue, Bruce is "DEAD kids"... A photo of a girl killed by gunshot is entirely appropriate.
I note that no one signed the deletion, so I assume it was you, once again abusing your authority as a Mod, "Moderating" your own article. But let's not get side-tracked:
The topic is DEAD children.
GUNSHOT children.
No Bob. The issue is measures to stop mass shootings. Write your own article to cry over the dead. In this article we are discussing how to stop it. Discuss that, or leave.
I'm not claiming mass shootings are off topic Bob. The focus of the article is measures to stop them. Your posts add nothing of value. Discuss the issue, or leave. Last warning.
Bob,
I have been doing the moderation, not Bruce. He asked you to stay on topic which you chose to ignore. leave this article or get a 2 day suspension.
Since SCOTUS says that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are OK, it would help a lot if Congress passed a law permitting civilians to only own the kind of guns in common use at the time the constitution was enacted. Muzzle loaders would dramatically cut down the casualty rate during school shootings.
More People are killed with with hammers and clubs each year than rifles. Also, two of the biggest mass killings in America....didn't even involve any type of gun.....
You could strain a muscle trying to club 17 kids to death. Far easier to use an AR-15 with a bump stock and a 100 round magazine with spare magazines in your Mickey Mouse backpack. Heck even a muzzle loader would be less effort than a club, you just have to tell the victims to stand still while you reload.
Tell ya what. I'll get rid of all my guns except my muzzleloader when you agree to only reply with pen and parchment and send your replies by post, since that's the type of Free Press in common use at the time the Constitution was enacted. Deal?
Do mere communications alone result in the mass slaughter of school children?
Maybe they can make bump stocks for pens and muzzle loaders.
Not the point. You want to limit a Constitutional Protected right based on the technology at the time it was written, then all of them get limited to that criteria.
That kind of logic would mean that if we can haz internet then we can haz tanks, nukes and chemical weapons.
Note that SCOTUS recognizes that the states and feds can regulate ownership and prohibit a wide variety of weapons.
You CAN haz a tank. You CAN haz a nuke. You CAN haz chemical weapons. You just need the appropriate permits from the appropriate agencies.
Far more deadly to park a box truck outside the building full of diesel fuel and fertilizer.......or even worse poison the towns water supply and kill them all.......as long as there are people who want to kill in mass.....there will be mass killings in a free society....we have to have the means and tools to protect ourselves from them.....
And to be quite honest, based on interactions with some people here at NT, I'd be all for the government regulating internet access with permits.
I would say anybody that believes anything media matters puts out is a prime candidate for involuntary commitment to a mental heath facility.
Norman and arkpdx
How did media matters get into the discussion?
What was used commonly during colonial days has nothing to do with it.
Using that logic (!), freedom of the press would be lots different!
Yes Shrekk, "mere" communications can indeed result in the mass slaughter of school children and many others.
Here's one "mere" communication that did just that:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." This particular "mere" communication resulted in almost 100,000 deaths, among them many civilians and children.
The "mere" communication found in Mein Kampf resulted in over 50,000,000 deaths of school children and others.
If you think that firearms should be heavily controlled by the very entity that they are there to restrain, then perhaps writing should also be heavily controlled. It's just as dangerous.
Interesting.....no matter how hard I've thrown words at people I have yet to draw blood much less seriously injure anyone.
Perhaps we need to restrict the ownership and distribution of bullets like we restrict double negatives in formal US English, ie to make bullets a very rare thing?
yes, and those restrictions are the states prerogative... not the feds.
the feds do not tell the states how to arm their state militia's for the simple reason that the 2nd is the final check and balance in our form of govt. why would the states allow the feds to limit their militias ability to beat back an oppressive federal govt if required? sure some states will be ok with that while most states simply will not.
The feds are free to enact restrictions like they did when they had an assault weapon ban. In fact the feds have all kinds of restrictions on what kinds of guns and other arms civilians can own.
What constitutes a "mass shooting"?
Four victims. Not fatalities, victims, with no cooling off period. That being said...
As shocking as that statistic is, the right is not even willing to TALK about the problem, and Rex Tillerson said just this morning...."Now isn't the time to talk about this". If we cannot talk about "IT" around the time of a mass shooting, then we never will talk about it because they literally happen DAILY. (And almost as shocking is that AOL is still in business, seriously, I thought they folded years ago).
I love my guns, I will not give them up, but honestly, 345 mass shootings in a YEAR? Sorry, that's not normal and it's NOT ok.
Actually, the FBI has changed their definition of a mass shooting to that of an Active Shooter. The problem with the 345 number of the Gun Violence Archive is it includes murder suicides. That muddies the waters for discussions on mass shootings.
Don't get me wrong. Murder Suicides are just as tragic. But when you are discussing incidents with mass casualties with respect to gun control, it's the active shooter scenario that needs to be addressed. Murder Suicides are a different discussion.
Just a clarification.
A murder suicide is still involving a murder.
And Bruce, lets, for the sake of argument, round WAY down to 300 a year, cutting off 15%... That's still an appealingly high number. We can call it what we like, mass shooting, active shooter, lunatic with a screw loose....the standard seems to be, 4 victims without a cool down. From the link I posted:
Okay, let's go into that with 300 a year like you said. I'll agree to that.
Now, here is another area where the statistic gets muddied. Bear with me on this.
We have a mass casualty event. And immediately the media talking heads, and the Gun Control proponents demand action. Now this is the meat: Demand Action. Do something.
The knee jerk reaction, from a gut feeling level is: We need to ban guns. This is the deep down feeling among the teeth gnashers. Ban the gun.
But they know they can't ban guns. The Constitution will not allow that.
So they target their rage. We need to ban "Assault Weapons"
Following me so far? Because this is where it gets muddy again.
Out of those 300 how many were perpetrated with "Assault Weapons"?
Now we know this one was. And we know of some other high profile ones in the recent past. San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, the Night Club in Fla.
I went back to the database that Mother Jones uses. I sorted it by weapon used. And I isolated it by 2004 and later (because that's when the Assault Weapons Ban ended). I counted only 12 instances where the weapon used was a Semi-Automatic Rifle. That's only 12 in over a decade.
But when you throw out the number of 300 per year, everyone looks at that and thinks we need to get rid of the scarry looking guns. That another targeted gun ban is the answer.
This is why WE argue that gun control is not the answer. Gun bans are not the answer. And it's why we can't take the Gun Control proponents seriously. Because they are proposing from the wounded heart, and not from the analytical data that shows their answers do not address the problems.
Nope. My AR only goes PEW.
I don't know, duct taped clips and fire spitting out the barrel as bullets fly as fast as you can pull the trigger, for me, isn't a pew knee weapon in any sense of the word to me.
I enjoy blowing the hell out of shit with it, but, I don't think an obviously mentally compromised 19 year old still in High School, should be able to legally purchase an AK or an AR, maybe a BB or pellet gun.
Who said he legally purchased it. It's obvious he didn't
False . The state of Florida says he legally purchased the AR-15 he used to murder numerous school children. That's what those guns are designed for.
The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16, the soldier's weapon of choice for gunning down the women and children of Mai Lai. It's a great tool when you want to massacre a village.
LOL. The fact that there are differences doesn't change the fact that the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16. Please make an effort to inform yourself before posting. Thank you in advance.
.
And it's pretty simple to illegally modify an AR-15 to make it an automatic simply by adding an auto sear, like the Las Vegas shooter did with at least one of his weapons . You can easily find how to do it on youtube or just buy a simple instruction book on Amazon . Alternatively you can use a perfectly legal bump stock to make it act very similar to an automatic.
The AR-15 is not designed to murder school children. It's designed to kill criminals in defense of innocent lives. The maniac who uses it to kill children is using it for something other than its intended purpose - kind of like if you bash someone in the head with a fire extinguisher.
Isn't that why our military bought it, so that US soldiers could commit mass murder against children and other civilians in Vietnam?
No Shrekk, it wasn't. And that's hugely disrespectful to our Vietnam vets, and vets in general. If you intend to continue with that disrespectful line of comments, then leave the article. Take it somewhere else.
And understand, that line of commenting is not up for debate.
No Shrekk, it wasn't. And that's hugely disrespectful to our Vietnam vets, and vets in general. If you intend to continue with that disrespectful line of comments, then leave the article. Take it somewhere else.
And understand, that line of commenting is not up for debate. Cease, or leave.
Actually, I knew quite a few soldiers and even more Marines over there, and it was not their weapon of choice; it was the government's weapon of choice. Most of those that I knew preferred an M-14 whenever they could get their hands on one because when you hit someone with one of those, they stayed down with only one round.
I like target shooting with my gun so I don't want to give it up. But I think the moment a mass shooting occurs, that's the time to start talking about how to stop these shootings.
Armed guard, metal detectors and teachers with concealed carry permits who have enhanced training
Bet you didn't expect that coming out of me, did you?
Gotta admit I'm a little surprised, lol
Truthfully I'd take it even further starting with lots of armed guards, metal detectors, photo ID cards, restricted access lists, full searches of everyone and everything, concealed carry, automatically securable doors. Basically everything Bruce said federal buildings have in another article.
I say muzzle loaders only. The reload time alone will give the kids more time to escape.
And I guess these shooters will follow the law......If that would work...then all we need to do is put up a sign on the front of the school that says.....It's against the law to kill these children.....
I always thought I was in prison when I was forced to attend school.
Prison has better security.....
I bet you felt safe then.
Kids don't feel safe anymore, and parents don't feel safe for them.
I felt her, till I reached her safe space, and she yelled her safe words,
Don't Stop !
it isn't humorous
I've posted throughout the day some very serious thoughts on this subject.
If I want to take a break, and toss in a little non funny humor, I will.
Flag it, have it removed, throw it at me as another worthless moment spent...responding to you.
I might somehow get over it.
don't respond then....you are correct...your comment was worthless
The new schools that have been built in the last few years in my area were designed that way. Everyone funnels through the main office area lobby before entering the rest of the school. They do have doors and heavy gates in other parts of the buildings, but they are emergency doors only. They only open up after the fire alarm goes off. Mag and code locks with camera's everywhere. All parking is at the front of the building only. No scattered around the property parking like they used to have in the way back days.
I'm gonna lose my liberal street cred if you agree with me
To me added security at all schools is a no brainer. Our schools are a VERY soft target right now. Lets fix that. And not only for situations like this but for terrorism threats as well. To me that is a much greater potential threat.
Regardless, you get a two for one with added security.
I certainly didn't, but both of us on the same page even though I don't like the idea and bet you don't either. But If you want to save lives that will probably be the most effective way of accomplishing it.
"New Gun Policies Won’t Stop Mass Shootings"
Of course not, nothing will stop peoples ability to do massive amounts of harm to society if they so choose. However, some of the proposed gun legislation like universal background checks may help lessen the ease of the mentally unstable or those with felonies to purchase weapons they might try and use against society.
This debate is much like deciding whether or not to lock your home. The odds are for most people, no one will ever even try to break in, so leaving it unlocked wouldn't make any difference. In those cases where someone does try and break in, locks merely present a minor temporary deterrent, a burglar who really wants to get in can get past virtually any lock or security system on the market. So does that mean we should just leave our houses unlocked? Of course not, even though it may be a minor temporary deterrent, it's better than nothing and might prevent the crimes of opportunity that can come from random people in the neighborhood and not just the career burglars.
Universal background checks won't eliminate any chance of felons, criminals or the mentally unstable buying weapons, but it does present a significant deterrent to them in how easy it has become to buy weapons. It's literally the least we can do other than doing nothing at all. Why even have background checks at gun stores if you're not going to have them when a gun is sold at a gun show or over the internet on the secondary market? It would be like having two thirds of the passengers who get on a plane go through metal detectors and bag checks while the other third get to just drive up to the plane and board without ever being checked. It's a huge loophole that needs to be fixed, but sadly politicians lack any sort of backbone for fear they'll be attacked by the rabid right gun lobby.
correcting a couple untruths , first one is the internet sales , by federal law if the sale is across state lines and not face to face , the sale MUST go through FLL holders the seller must ship it from one FFL holder to an FLL holders in the buyers area , where all the nessicary background checks are completed, face to face sales are considered and categorized as Private sales which there is no requirement other than the age laws be conformed to , there are a couple other federal laws that apply and of course the individual states have added their requirements .
the supposed gunshow loop hole , it is actually the private sale loop hole , which is pretty much explained above there are federal laws , some states added some requirements ,but unless they are going to make the NICS check absolutely free for anyone to use for BG checks , the check requirement most likely wont fly. as it stands , if a check is required by the state , the cost is to the seller through aFFL holder that can charge what THEY deem is appropriate, I have seen transfer checks range from as low as $20 up to $50 per sale.
Yes, of course it is, and it's a giant loophole. It's why 60% of the guns used in crimes in Chicago aren't purchased at gun stores in Illinois but come from out of State. You have straw gun buyers who can go in and buy dozens of weapons at a gun store in Mississippi and then sell them on the private market at huge mark ups to anybody with a pulse be they felons, mentally disabled or career criminals. With little to no downside for the straw gun buyer, they will continue using this loophole until we stand up and do something about it. Gun shows and private gun sales should be as regulated as gun store sales. If you want to sell your gun you should either need to take it to a licensed gun dealer for re-sale or have some ability for the buyer to pass a background check at a dealer that permits them to buy private guns for sale.
Also, why is a national database a non-starter? Are you really so deluded as to believe such a thing would lead to the federal government trying to take all our guns away? Really? That's such utter nonsense it's as big a straw man argument as the one about "liberals trying to take all your guns away" which no liberals are actually suggesting. It ranks right up there with President Obama sending Blackhawk helicopters to take all conservatives to FEMA camps and institute sharia law. It would truly be laughable if so many poorly educated and misinformed people didn't actually believe it.
Which was unnecessary as I read your comment and find it just as ridiculous to claim "Who knows what the next administration might do" argument. It's just another excuse for the same argument. You say you're not suggesting the government will swoop in, but then say that's exactly what you're afraid of, just not from the current administration but who knows about future administrations. I'm saying it will NEVER happen regardless of the administration in office, our limits on government would never allow some fantasy government sweep of Americans guns. To use that fantasy as a reason to vote against a gun registry is simply laughable.
Our Constitutional limits on government did nothing to stop FDR from usurping the Constitution to implement Marxist fascism which has controlled us for over 80 years.
Too many leftists would love to disarm Americans and complete the totalitarian takeover of this country.
wtf? We leftists just want to take the guns from white supremacists and bible thumpers. The sane can keep their guns.
Are you claiming that isn't true?
By the way it was nice of Trump to remove white supremacists (like the shooter) from being monitored under the "Countering Violent Extremism" program.
.
Trump also defunded the "Life After Hate" group which works to deprogram neo-Nazis and other white supremacists:
Should we all buy Ape cages just in case in the future Apes rise up and try to enslave us? Of course I don't have a crystal ball, I have the last 250 years of our countries history. The only real reason a third of our nation complains about the idea of a national gun registry is because they're hoping the South will rise again someday and think they're going to have to fight in the next civil war. It's not about home safety, it's not protecting yourself from burglars or other mass shooters, it's the fantasy that you can protect yourself from the federal government and our military forces, which is frankly as ridiculous as buying Ape cages. A single drone flown by some 20 year old in a classroom out of San Jose could wipe out the entirety of any Southern militia army holed up in their hollars. So to continue to pretend you're some sort of Rambo figure which is why you must have your AR-15's and other assault style weapons is just a sad fantasy that puts our children at risk.
Funny how so many believe that the federal govt. would never do that because of our system, but the same folks willingly believe Trump is a dictator.
SMDH
With the minor exception that it is already against federal law. ATF form 4473, that everyone has to fill out when buying from a licensed gun dealer.
Question "11a" in case you were interested in increasing your knowledge base.
Of course, and as always, the premise of this "article" (a.k.a. piece o' shit) is a lie. Every state that has toughened its gun laws over the past 20 years has shown a decrease in cases of mass shootings like this and the opposite is true for states that have made getting these WMDs much easier.
Isla Vista, California. San Bernardino, California. San Francisco, California. Do I need to list Washington? Michigan? Oregon?
This is from 1982 to 2017. Most mass shootings happen in the South.
I'm sorry. I don't see it that way. I see a lot in California, and the North Atlantic states. Looks pretty well evened out across the country.
Nope, you don't get to move the goal post Athiest. You said:
a decrease in cases of mass shootings
Cases Atheist. You said cases, nothing about rates per ca-pita. And If you want to talk rates per ca-pita, you're gonna lose even more.
Finally, don't make this personal. The snarky references in your comment are unnecessary. Stay civil, or leave the article.
Pray tell what "common sense" gun laws institutes in California have prevented mass shootings.
I think it's called the ....." Because we say so " LAW !
As best as I could, I counted the dots in your map. Depending on where you define "the South," there are about 16 or 17 dots - definitely less than 20. Then I counted the rest of the country and found over 60 - three times as much.
So, based on the map you provided, most mass shootings happen outside the South.
By the way, by far the most shootings were in California, which has arguably the most restrictive gun laws in the country. According to this article in the Washington Post , California alone has had 23 mass shootings .
So, that's working well, eh?
Nicely said Uncle Bruce.
When this shooting started I was sitting in my grandson's school gym listening to a Valentine's Day program given mainly for the Grandparents. He is nine. Ever year on Valentines Day his school puts on a singing program called Grandparents Valentine Day Tea. During the morning they have the Kindergarteners and Preschoolers perform, which I went too also, because my sweet little granddaughter is a Kindergartner. And in the afternoon the 1st through 4th graders perform. It is very special because it is to tell their Grandparents how much they love them. To see all the beaming Grandparents attending is heartwarming and a little different type of special. So, I spent most of my day listening to sweet little children sing songs about love and peace. The sound of their young innocent voices filled the gym with the gentleness and pureness of children. My entire day was filled with a lot of laughter and love. Having treats after the program and enjoying the festivities of the day. We also had a session where the older children made recordings asking their Grandparents about their lives and loves. One question asked...how many wives or husbands have you had? I thought that was funny. It was a great day. I have been attending the program for a few years, and they have been the best Valentines Days I have ever had. The entire school does a lot of work to put on the program, and having the children sing the songs of love for their family and about peace is beyond moving. It is emotional, and a few Grandparents tear up a little.
When I learned of the news, I cried for them.
It is again hard to believe that such evil can and always will exist. It is so distant to most of our daily lives that the reality of it is beyond our own comprehension. We will never understand evil. I agree with you that our schools need to be better secured. We need to use our resources to protect those who can not protect themselves. Whatever it takes to do it.
Every School is required to have a Fire Extinguisher........they should also be required to have something to Extinguish Nut Jobs.
The solution to this problem isn't cut and dried....but if we can't protect our own children, then what kind of Superpower are we?
We're a country which lacks a "can do" attitude. Most problems are too complex for us to solve, particularly the ones we create for ourselves like this one.
Totally agree. If we can't protect our own children and citizens, what makes Americans think they can judge other countries.
About two months ago, the same school I talked about above that my grandchildren attend had a lockdown due to a threat to a teacher. An elementary teacher!
This school has zero security. All the doors are unlocked throughout the entire day. No security officer at all. Anyone can walk in anytime with any weapon. By the time police arrive, many children could be killed.
This school district is in a wealthy area and have no lack of funds.
They haven't changed a damn thing about securing the building since that threat...absolutely nothing has changed. This is nothing but being reckless with the lives of children on the part of the school board.
Parents are fuming and scared ....but the school district still does nothing. They stick their frickin bureaucratic heads in the sand, tell everyone it's just fine...nothing to worry about.
What will it take?
blah blah blah...
You can say that this person or that person can not own a gun, but as long as there are any persons that can own a gun, then there is a way for the people who can't own a gun, to get a gun. Go figure that one out, then get back to me.
The modern trend is to reject a society where responsible people prioritize right over wrong and good over evil. The modern trend is to let people be who they want to be (the truth be damned), owing nothing to the society in which they live.
The founders of this country (a mysterious, unknown group to many) understood that they were putting a lot of power in the hands of ordinary people. So, even though our government was designed to be secular, blind, and dispassionate, the founders expected the American society to be a moral one. That would be the ultimate check on the freedoms we have instead of a heavy-handed government that denies freedom.
But we have gone from "out of many, one" to "different strokes for different folks." The very idea of a distinctly American culture is anathema in popular media.
Too many people don't want the responsibility of citizenship. They don't vote, and even if they do, they aren't educated on the issues. I don't even mean the presidential elections, which already have dismal turnout. I'm talking about local elections that really impact a person's life.
In the U.S., Almost No One Votes in Local Elections
They reject the idea that strong families and communities make for a stronger republic. In fact, the very idea of citizenship is now meaningless in that we are willing to bestow it on anyone who sneaks into the country so long as they then vote for the political party we like. What should be precious is no longer cherished.
This shooter appears to be exactly the kind of person you could reasonably expect our society to generate. We look to government to solve all our problems and we blame other people for the things that go wrong in our lives. This shooter had problems, no question. His father has been dead for some time and his mother died recently. He had so much trouble getting along in school that he was finally expelled. We know he was angry. In a society that routinely blames others for our misfortunes, it is small wonder that this maniac - like so many others - felt it reasonable to pick up a gun and punish society by killing as many people as possible.
And in typical fashion, people look to the final symptom (the gun) instead of the root causes.
Such people think if you get rid of AR-15s that you'll never see an attack like this again. But the AR-15 has been on the market since the early 1960s. These mass shootings - especially in schools - are of a more recent vintage. Furthermore, up until just the last few years, most were carried out with some other kind of gun. This attack could have been carried out just as effectively with a hundred other types of weapon. And if you got rid of all guns, this lunatic could have pulled the fire alarm like he did and just driven over students with his car. Same result. Maybe even worse.
We don't need to get rid of the guns unless you want to completely reject what America was envisioned to be, i.e. a population of sovereign citizens who take responsibility for their country. We need to be a people more worthy of that original vision. Otherwise, we might as well go back to being subjects of the crown.
Actually it was a conservative Congress which changed our motto from "out of many, one" to "In god we trust".
And as we've seen in the past few days your fellow theocrats who oppose diversity are blaming these school shootings not on the ready availability of guns which our society refuses to fix, but on your god's refusal to do anything about it because we don't pray enough to him, don't have enough guns, have too many abortions, or allow same-sex couples to wed. Apparently this god is a psycho, a bigot and rather lazy. Plus satan!
If you say so. My research reveals that Congress first approved putting the motto on currency in 1864 when Republicans (probably not considered very conservative in 1864) controlled both the House and the Senate. It became the national motto in 1956 when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
I don't know what the vote was on either of those actions, but I do know the motto was reaffirmed by the House in 2011 on a vote of 396-9. That seems to be a pretty bipartisan vote in a very liberal era marked by strong political tribalism. So, if it's your suggestion that the official use of the motto is some kind of warped aberration supported only by the fringe, I don't think the historical facts support that conclusion.
And they probably have a good point. One thing we know for sure about this shooter is that he didn't value human life as much as the rest of us think he should have. So, what do we do when have a growing number of people who think it's ok to punish society for their life by shooting innocent people? Where does that mindset originate? I think it's reasonable to propose that a stronger moral upbringing might possibly prevent some of these people from going off the deep end. (that doesn't mean I want prayer in schools)
I don't think that's the whole solution, but it should be part of it. (I also think we have swung too far in worrying about the civil liberties of crazy people who should probably be in psychiatric hospitals)
Leftists who put all their faith in the power of big government think they can pass some quick gun legislation and solve the problem, but I believe it's more complicated than that. The Founders knew they were giving us a terrible responsibility with the 2nd Amendment and that to handle that responsibility we needed to be a moral people. Thus, each house of Congress acted the first week to select a chaplain to lead them all in prayer before getting to business. Those offices still exist. The Founders created a secular government, but they expected us to be a religious and moral society.
Unfortunately, changing society in that way takes a long time and doesn't allow a politician to say "I fixed the problem" by passing empty legislation. So, they don't pursue that strategy.
Correct, although those were anti-commie conservatives and racist Dixiecrats who controlled Congress. Today all those folks would be Republicans like Trump's heroes Joe McCarthy and Roy Moore, and only such unethical folks would seek to lead the US government away from the secular republic it was founded to be.
Apparently those conservatives wanted the US to be more like Saudi Arabia, just like conservatives do today.
Both Cruz brothers were orphaned early and adopted by the Cruz couple as infants.
So yeah, this kid is effed up, but not in the normal sense.
How many people can claim to have been orphaned twice by the age of 19?
The modern trend is to reject a society where responsible people prioritize right over wrong and good over evil. The modern trend is to let people be who they want to be (the truth be damned), owing nothing to the society in which they live.
Your'e getting warm - the truth of the matter is that the country has moved away from religion and regardless of what anyone thinks of religion - it did set up moral parameters for people. We live in an entirely different world. In the Florida case the people still managed to do the right thing: the school expelled an obvious problem student, people informed the FBI months ago, yet the FBI failed us.
I have AR-15s that have never been fired, good investment
Here's a fun statistic.......90% of the world's female deaths from guns are in the US, and 82% of all gun deaths. We're # 1, especially when it comes to gunning down children.
.
I have little doubt that's what the founding fathers intended.
Why don't you post anything that matters?
Get the fucking per capita stats, then come back and show off.
So you could come up with another dodge? Why bother when you've already been clobbered? It wouldn't be fair play.