Schools, Shootings, Children and Adulthood

Ashyukun (Robert) said:

There's obviously no single solution that is going to both be 100% effective or make everyone happy. But clearly whatever we've been doing so far has not only been working, it's getting worse so simply throwing our hands up and saying (as has been the case for a while- at least since Sandy Hook...) "There's just nothing that could be done..." is not going to cut it anymore.

The first thing I think that should be done is to better understand the problem- and doing that will mean being able to actively research and report on it, which means repealing the so-called Dickey Amendment banning the CDC from studying gun violence. I don't understand how anyone truly interested in finding a solution to this problem could argue that not being able to study it is helpful in the least.

Well said,  why can’t America look around the world at places that do allow guns and see how they deal with gun violence. 

Australia had a similar problem with a similar Wild West background and solved it 20 some odd years ago. No mass shootings since. 

Japan allows gun ownership and they average something like 5 gun deaths a year?  

How about Switzerland?  Or England?  

The answers are there.  Here in America do we have to slaughter so many children before we can tell the greedy gun manufacturers to cool it?  

In reply to frenchyd :

IM with you.   We are the only first world country where this sort of thing happens with regularity and we “can’t” find a solution.   It’s so tragic it’s laughable. 

In reply to frenchyd :

If I remember correctly, all men in Switzerland were required to own a rifle and were part of their dense system.  

In reply to spitfirebill :

Yes.. but every purchase is liscensed and registered..  I'm good with adopting these rules wholesale. Eeerrr body things switzerland is some utopia for gun owners until they read the rules..  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

Isn't military service mandatory in Switzerland too?

In reply to Robbie :

Yes.  Adopt that as well. If you don’t need want to be in the military do some other sort of national service.  

Furious_E said:

I've held back on commenting in this thread the past few days, as my own thoughts on the matter are still kind of developing, but I've enjoyed reading the informed opinions of you all. So first, let me say thank you for keeping this discourse civil and the discussion ongoing, as it's been a lot more informative and nuanced than anything else I've read or heard on the subject. Some of my thoughts:

-This particular incident seems largely to be a complete and utter failure on the part of law enforcement. It's not like this kid up and decided one day, without warning, "Hey, I think I'm gonna shoot up a school today," there were 20-30 separate reports made to law enforcement. And not a single damn thing was done about it. I could see dismissing a single, isolated complaint, but there was a pervasive pattern here. What went wrong at the FBI or local PD that this was never followed up on? Was it lack of resources? Lack of proper protocol? Was protocol even followed? Something went seriously wrong here. If we need to create another legal mechanism to keep a known threat such as this Cruz kid from his guns, than so be it, though I agree there needs to be oversight and due process. Call it Monday morning quarterbacking, but this incident was entirely preventable. 

-Second major failure on the part of law enforcement was the school resource officer, the man whose charge it was to protect these kids, is a coward. A berkeleying Bob Costas. He was the only person with a weapon in a position where he could have done something to at least limit the loss of life and he sat there and did nothing, even as completely unarmed teachers went charging to the scene. Sure, easy for me to say sitting here at my key board, but if you're going to sign up to do that job you need to be prepared to do all that entails, including putting yourself in harms way when the situation calls for. We can talk all we want turning schools into prisons, adding security, adding armed guards, but here we have a 'good guy with a gun' who was in a position to act and chose not to. Not sure what you can do about that.

-I think arming teachers is a silly solution, even on a voluntary basis, that is more likely to do harm than good. Putting more weapons into schools is only allowing another point of access for these disturbed individuals, as well as normal students who might simply have a curiosity in weapons. You can put whatever rules into place you want to try and make sure those weapons are secured at all times, but mistakes will happen, and the potential consequences are severe. 

-I have very mixed thoughts on the whole assault weapons issue. Philosophically, I have a pretty libertarian mindset and have a hard time agreeing to take rights away from any law abiding citizens without just and proper cause, while also recognizing the social contract dictates we need to have some level of reasonable standards to be upheld to prevent us from devolving into complete chaos. It's the fundamental question of a free and democratic society, where you draw that line. I have a very hard time seeing why 99.9% of the population has any legitimate reason to own one (but by that same token why does anyone need a 500hp sports car? They surely kill enough people on an annual basis as well.) For the record, I am a gun owner and have shot AR-15s and other "assault style" weapons.

I also don't believe simply banning assault weapons, or semi-auto rifles altogether, is going to solve the issue at all, it's simply going to displace it elsewhere. Can't buy an AR-15 and 30 round mags? No problem, I'll buy a Glock, which is much easier to carry and conceal and will also dispense bullets as quickly as I can move my trigger finger, and stuff my pockets with 15 round mags (not that you can't get 30 round mags for a Glock either...) So then what, we ban all semi-auto pistols, which is a perfectly reasonable and hugely versatile weapon for self defense? I also have a hard time seeing how one would specifically word the language on an "assault weapons" ban in a way that couldn't be Smokey Yunik-ed without also outlawing a number of other perfectly reasonable weapons.

I've got more I'd like to say, but it's about time I head home from work, so maybe later. 

Well thought out and said.  My question is why can’t we learn from other countries that have already solved this problem?  I’m not talking about banning guns.  

Countries like Switzerland where it’s almost a requirement that every home have a gun. Japan where it is legal to own a gun and yet they average something like 5 gun deaths a year?   Or Australia who hasn’t had a mass shooting in over two decades?  

Please don’t say nothing can be done. There are plenty of examples where things were done  and they worked. 

In reply to frenchyd :

I always love the Switzerland comment because the majority of people who mention it say everyone has a gun there, which isn't remotely true, and that they have a low gun death rate, which is only true by our standards. By european standards, 

they have a high gun death rate. In contrast, the other countries make it a lot more difficult to own guns. But, I also think it's also appropriate that cops in many of these nations don't carry. Some do, but not all, and are certainly not militarized like we are. The police are at war with us. Which is kind of our biggest issue, we use force to "solve" our problems. We incarcerate non violent crimes (unless committed  by big companies), go to war over just about anything. We have a nation that "likes" violence. Hunting in many of these nations, is uncommon. By far the majority of us are non-violent, but it only takes a few. Any my earlier comment about white males was accurate. I was addressing looking to what do these perps have in common. But that should be no reason to take away someone's guns. (although, I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't own a gun) And, FWIW, I was a gun owner for 30 years and used to hunt, OK? My life experiences have allowed me to see friends dying from guns, seeing people killed by guns, hearing from gun violence victims, and worst of all, seeing babies and young children who wee killed by guns, first hand. I have not been shot at, but have been threatened with a gun.

At any rate, my earlier comment stands. We should never place the ownership of any created item ahead of life, any life. Because that is beyond screwed up, morally.

In reply to Robbie :

All of Europe, most of the world, actually. Including Royal families. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

And that would go with the 2A, if you read the 1st and 2nd part, instead of just the 2nd part. 

In reply to markwemple :

I have edited your first post from this morning to remove the references to the current administration and other political references. I am not trying to take away your voice, but repeated violations of this forum's code of conduct will result in a permanent ban. Please check your e-mail. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems with comparing the US gun situation to other countries is the differences in sheer numbers. There are some 300 million guns in this country, give or take a few million. Countries like Australia, Switzerland and Japan have far few people and far fewer guns already in the hands of citizens.  There is also a huge difference in culture overall.  The US is a country born from violence in a way few others have been. Of the three mentioned, the Aussies are probably closest to the US in culture, but even there the govt and the way the general population relates to govt is vastly different. Remember Queen Elizabeth II is still technically the monarch of Australia, if only in a constitutional figurehead position. That alone should note the general differences between our two countries. 

This is a situation that really can't be solved by government. It is simply too big.  I wish it were not the case, but it is. And I am also sad to say the most recent events will not be the last. The US has a cultural problem and that is something that takes time to fix - typically generations. Perhaps we have crossed a line where this change can start to occur. Only history will tell.  People keep looking for some sort of proverbial "switch" that will make gun violence stop when one doesn't exist.  

The NRA developed their influence over decades of methodical planning and hard work. No amount of angry Facebook posts or marches or whatever will be effective against that level of organization. To properly counter the NRA will require an equal level of organization, funding and - this is the hard part - PATIENCE. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to Robbie :

Yes.  Adopt that as well. If you don’t need want to be in the military do some other sort of national service.  

This is interesting to me. If you don't serve in military, that's ok, but serve 3-4 years in peace corps, coast guard, any Americorps program, or work in any federal administration office (social security, national parks, IRS, etc).

Now, the cost of paying everyone even nominal salaries for that time is monumental, but if you call it extra military spending a majority seems to be cool with that so that's how we'll push it through.

I'd even be ok with saying you serve before college, might help the binge drinking and alcohol related issues on many campuses today.

In reply to Robbie :

I've long been a proponent of mandatory service.  Between graduating HS and turning 21 everyone should serve the public good in some way or another.  Build a road, plant a forest, serve in the military.  Bring back community service in a real way so that people understand that without their labor, the society unravels.

 We have a military that is something like 1% of our population and yet talk about our country being "at war".  Nope, most of you never had the slightest inconvenience or hard day from the past 17 years of war-fighting.

Something I haven't seen brought up in the discussion of school shootings.  With VERY few exceptions, the firearms used weren't purchased by the shooter.  They belonged to the parents.  I think a lot of progress could be made there if a push to lock up the guns and probably even start locking up the parents who allowed access to their guns.  It'd be hard but serving a year for every child shot by your child would certainly be a lesson to all other parents out there.

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

In reply to Robbie :

I've long been a proponent of mandatory service.  Between graduating HS and turning 21 everyone should serve the public good in some way or another.  Build a road, plant a forest, serve in the military.  Bring back community service in a real way so that people understand that without their labor, the society unravels.

 

 

I completely agree with that idea. I think the benefits of that would create  a very positive result that over the long term would benefit the USA from the national stage to all the little small towns all across the country in a big way.

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

Something I haven't seen brought up in the discussion of school shootings.  With VERY few exceptions, the firearms used weren't purchased by the shooter.  They belonged to the parents.  I think a lot of progress could be made there if a push to lock up the guns and probably even start locking up the parents who allowed access to their guns.  It'd be hard but serving a year for every child shot by your child would certainly be a lesson to all other parents out there.

I was talking to my wife about that. How about if someone steals one of your guns (related to you or not) and kills someone with it, you get tied into the case with manslaughter charges? (Iirc manslaughter means you didn't murder with intent, but your actions or inactions were a direct cause of someone's death).

There is a huge problem then with selling guns hobbyist to hobbyist then however, because guns aren't registered. Proving you sold a gun that was later used as a weapon could get sticky fast.

Nick Comstock said:

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

In reply to Robbie :

I've long been a proponent of mandatory service.  Between graduating HS and turning 21 everyone should serve the public good in some way or another.  Build a road, plant a forest, serve in the military.  Bring back community service in a real way so that people understand that without their labor, the society unravels.

 

 

I completely agree with that idea. I think the benefits of that would create  a very positive result that over the long term would benefit the USA from the national stage to all the little small towns all across the country in a big way.

Plus it would do wonders to our youth many of who go out into the world unprepared for anything. 

So there's like one gun in Ethiopia and it's killed many thousands of people?  I think that chart is more than a bit misleading.  How does per capita gun ownership account for guns owned by paramilitary groups, or drug kingpins?  I doubt they sign into any government databases very willingly, yet they can arm a whole lot of people.

Edit : and in what form of mathemagics is over 100% gun ownership per capita possible?

My interpretation of the chart is that the intentional homicides are not all due to guns. For the per capita gun ownership, some people own a LOT of guns, while others own none. 

In reply to travellering :

When there's more guns than people maybe? It's been "around 300 million" for at least 20-30 years in the US, the actual number is probably closer to 400 if not over.

Yes, guns that are owned per capita can be well over 100 per 100 people, but the term "gun ownership" should apply to the person, not the individual guns.  

However, the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" quote still holds true here.  There is the questionable phrasing of gun ownership, and moreso, what is meant by intentional homicide.  There are countries on that list where people have been found guilty of murder by witchcraft.  Victims of drug wars, unofficially government sanctioned pogroms, and other situations that do not exist in the same scale in the US may be counted by the countries in question as homicides.

In reply to travellering :

Of course it is misleading, that is why people create charts.

My take away from it is twofold.

First, we as a country, do not have the highest homicide rates (although some of the countries higher on the list are places that seem to always be in some sort of state of turmoil and are not exactly first world countries).

Second, a vast majority of gun owners never commit homicide and the number of guns in the country are not the problem.

Charts created by the other side of the debate use gun deaths and not gun homicides and that makes the problem look a lot worse since there are so many suicides. They even include accidental deaths. 

travellering said:

So there's like one gun in Ethiopia and it's killed many thousands of people?  I think that chart is more than a bit misleading.  How does per capita gun ownership account for guns owned by paramilitary groups, or drug kingpins?  I doubt they sign into any government databases very willingly, yet they can arm a whole lot of people.

 

Edit : and in what form of mathemagics is over 100% gun ownership per capita possible?

Regardless of whether the homicides are Caused by firearms or not, the point of the chart is to show that it's a lot easier to kill people that are unarmed. It's no coincidence that terrorists are fond of attacking "soft targets".