Another school shooting - elementary school

[OzzieandHarriet]

Careful now. There are some elements in the republican party that might try to ban schools if they read this.

Those elements would love to ban schools, especially public ones.

[gooki]

If two (or more) trained police officers couldn't stop the guy, how are we supposed to solve this problem by arming teachers, principals etc.?  I suppose we could flood the whole school with guns and hope that someone can shoot the next gunman properly, but I suspect that having that many guns lying around would lead to more "accidents" than lives saved.

This x1000. They really need to do the reverse and remove arms and security guards from schools. Then divert the funds saved to mental health support.

[elysianfields]

This Memorial Day Weekend, let's take a moment to honor the sacrifice of our brave schoolchildren who lay down their lives to protect our right to keep & bear arms.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Being shitty to be in a situation to use for self defense is not the same as being a shitty self-defense weapon. Your article mentions 47 people in 3 years that were accidentally shot - each one a tragedy but not a huge number to base it being a shitty defense.

What's a huge number to you? Just curious since you have relegated senseless loss of life and countless lives impacted by loss and trauma to some sort of statistic.

FYI I am not basing it on 47 people dying. That's merely part of the equation. I mostly base it on the fact that it's a binary decision. Once the bullet leaves the chamber you can't take it back. You can't redirect it. It's a decision with dire and lasting consequences. Humans aren't robots. We are not very good at making binary life and death choices under immense pressure in a matter of seconds. 

I know you have anecdotes. Most people do. Might as well just flip a coin. On one side is reasonable self defense gun use with tragedy and loss of life. On the other is not reasonable with tragedy and loss of life. You can pick a side. It's your choice. I say throw the fucking coin away because both choices are shitty.

There are different areas of debate on the topic of guns as self defense weapons. GuitarStv's is more philosophical (although your last part about it being binary lines up with that).

You brought up the risk of using guns as a reason for it being a poor self defense method. The article that you linked called out the statistic of 47 people being shot in 3 years. If we're talking about risks, by definition we're talking about statistics. Statistically, that's around 15 people a year that are shot in the type of situation you called out - not killed, just shot. Lightning kills more people a year. Nowhere did I dismiss the awful nature of it, and all I was very clearly saying was that the numbers don't show it's a huge systemic problem. I'm not "relegating anything to statistics" to deny the horrors of it. I'm saying your own article shows the risks of what you brought up are infinitesimal. In other words, your argument that using guns as self defense is shitty because people shoot people they don't mean to is a bad argument. That's the extent of what I'm saying.

You call the article an example of anecdotes but the article itself conveniently brought up the statistics of it so we don't have to rely on anecdotes, and its statistics simply display the rarity of the problem. Essentially, you keep commenting on how we both can all have anecdotes, but when I use statistics that you yourself brought out, you throw it back as a pejorative to attempt to make me seem heartless.

On the last point, I certainly agree. Both choices are horrific. I hope that I never am in a situation where someone breaks into my house or tries to hurt me or my family.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

In a defensive scenario, a gun can be used to:
- kill someone
- threaten to kill someone

In Canada if you execute someone who was trying to steal your stuff, rob your home, or even someone who was trying to pick a fist fight with you that would be viewed as excessive force and you would probably end up in jail.  If the 'threaten to kill someone' part fails, you can't really use the firearm . . . as it's designed for killing so there's no way to use it without excessive force.  That makes it a shitty defensive weapon.  It's also why you're not allowed to own a gun in Canada for 'defense'.  Guns aren't defensive.

I realize that this is very different in the US, where blowing a teenager away for walking in a hoodie while carrying skittles is perfectly legal.

Different laws, different outcomes.

Hand guns are a great choice for killing someone.  They're a shitty option to provide defense.

I may be misunderstanding you, so if what I am typing below is a misrepresentation, please let me know. I know nothing of Canda's laws for guns, so I won't speak to them. I think that it's a huge assumption on your part, though, that using a gun on someone that broke into your house is valuing stuff over life. You have no idea what the person who broke in will do - and of course if they're attacking you, they're attacking you, so you really don't know what's going to happen. I've heard of a situation like what you're calling out where someone came upon someone driving off with their stolen stuff and shot them in their car. That is valuing their things over the person's life and a totally different situation.

Under Canadian law, you're allowed to defend yourself but you have to do so without using excessive force.  You're allowed to use lethal force if it's called for.

There's never any way of knowing what another person will do.

If someone breaks into your home and you unload a gun into the person because you're scared - that's very likely to be considered excessive force.  If the person is carrying a weapon and moves towards you to attack, then it would probably be considered justified.  The situation and application of the force always has to be carefully considered because we value human life.  Even if the human is a dick trying to rob you.

Guns suck for defense because they are binary.  Either they aren't used, or you kill the other person.  That's not useful in the majority of scenarios where use of force must be justified.  That's why guns cannot be legally purchased for defense in Canada.

There's no way I know of to parse your and Nan's perspective on guns as defense other than to say it's simply incorrect. If someone comes at you to attack you and you use a gun, it's used in defense by the definition of the actual word. It's an escalation, certainly, but it's defense - I mean it just is.

If you break up with your girlfriend in an acrimonious manner, she sees you in the street, walks up to you and slaps you . . . you're not allowed to shoot her under Canadian law.  Even though she came at you to attack, even if she's bigger than you, the use of force is excessive for the scenario.  Even though it meets your definition of 'defense'.

When you escalate violence, you're not defending any more - you are the aggressor.  "But he started it" isn't a valid defense under Canadian law for excessive force.  I realize that this differs from US law, where once wronged it's much more OK to kill.

If someone breaks down your door, you don't know what they're going to do. I find no moral justification in not assuming they're going to hurt me or my family; therefore I see no reason why using guns would not be defense. If someone broke into your house and you hit them with a ball bat, you would be defending yourself and also escalating force. It's not as likely to be lethal, but the premise is the same.

Someone breaks down your door.  If you hit that person with a baseball bat to slow them down so you could run off and call the police - that's a pretty easy justification for appropriate use of force.  If you hit them over and over until their head is a pile of goo, you're probably going to jail.

Under Canadian law, fear doesn't give you right to murder.  Actions have to be justified.

All of this to say, I'm not a violent person at all. I've never even gotten in a fight in my life. I don't fantasize about any of these. It makes me sick to think of. I don't know if I would be able to fight with a baseball bat much less a gun in a situation like this. I, however, firmly believe that it's morally justifiable to do so.

I don't think you're a violent or immoral person.  But circumstances dictate actions.

If a guy breaks into your house and you're scared, you're going to react in some way by grabbing what's at hand.  If that's a loaded gun, then someone is going to be dead.  Under US law - no biggie.  Under Canadian law, you may have committed a crime.

It's not a right/wrong thing, but just a very different interpretation of what appropriate action really is.  This is an interpretation that has been ingrained in you and me based upon the assumptions, culture, and law that we grew up with.

I wouldn't say that we're that far off in terms of what's reasonable or not in terms of force, and I also don't think the US penal system is quite as bad as you seem to think. I can't imagine that a jury in America would not convict a guy for shooting a woman who just slapped him, no matter how much larger she was. I also know of a situation where someone was convicted of shooting a person who was harassing them and broke a restraining order to come to their house and threaten them because they shot them, reloaded and shot them again. A pretty egregious example, but I do know that in some cases, at least, people can be convicted for excessive force.

I also apparently haven't been articulating myself well on what's appropriate defense. I don't think someone coming up and punching you in the face and knocking you down means that you should ethically be able to shoot them. It's all a judgement call, and there are gray areas. If someone, however, punches you, starts kicking you while you're down, and you manage to roll over and pull a gun out and shoot them - that's pretty clearly self defense even though you're technically escalating force - you have no idea when/if they'll stop. The biggest difference, as you said in assumptions, culture, and law, that I see is someone breaking into your house. I think that if someone breaks into your house with your family in there, I'm going to default to the assumption that they may seriously hurt a member of my family. It's certainly possible, and no doubt that would be fear based. Therefore, I do simply see that as justifiable for using a gun. Would I, given the specific situation? Could I? Again, I have no idea. Whether I would try is very situational. If my entire family was with me in my bedroom, and I knew that there was no way into it other than through the bedroom door, would I go out and try to find the intruder knowing I could just stay where I'm at and protect them? Definitely not. My main concern and the only moral justification for using a gun to defend yourself is that you or your family could be hurt, but given our discussions, it would definitely seem that I feel that it's ethical to jump to the conclusion of potential harm and using guns even though they are lethal quicker.

[MasterStache]

Being shitty to be in a situation to use for self defense is not the same as being a shitty self-defense weapon. Your article mentions 47 people in 3 years that were accidentally shot - each one a tragedy but not a huge number to base it being a shitty defense.

What's a huge number to you? Just curious since you have relegated senseless loss of life and countless lives impacted by loss and trauma to some sort of statistic.

FYI I am not basing it on 47 people dying. That's merely part of the equation. I mostly base it on the fact that it's a binary decision. Once the bullet leaves the chamber you can't take it back. You can't redirect it. It's a decision with dire and lasting consequences. Humans aren't robots. We are not very good at making binary life and death choices under immense pressure in a matter of seconds. 

I know you have anecdotes. Most people do. Might as well just flip a coin. On one side is reasonable self defense gun use with tragedy and loss of life. On the other is not reasonable with tragedy and loss of life. You can pick a side. It's your choice. I say throw the fucking coin away because both choices are shitty.

There are different areas of debate on the topic of guns as self defense weapons. GuitarStv's is more philosophical (although your last part about it being binary lines up with that).

You brought up the risk of using guns as a reason for it being a poor self defense method. The article that you linked called out the statistic of 47 people being shot in 3 years. If we're talking about risks, by definition we're talking about statistics. Statistically, that's around 15 people a year that are shot in the type of situation you called out - not killed, just shot. Lightning kills more people a year. Nowhere did I dismiss the awful nature of it, and all I was very clearly saying was that the numbers don't show it's a huge systemic problem. I'm not "relegating anything to statistics" to deny the horrors of it. I'm saying your own article shows the risks of what you brought up are infinitesimal. In other words, your argument that using guns as self defense is shitty because people shoot people they don't mean to is a bad argument. That's the extent of what I'm saying.

You call the article an example of anecdotes but the article itself conveniently brought up the statistics of it so we don't have to rely on anecdotes, and its statistics simply display the rarity of the problem. Essentially, you keep commenting on how we both can all have anecdotes, but when I use statistics that you yourself brought out, you throw it back as a pejorative to attempt to make me seem heartless.

On the last point, I certainly agree. Both choices are horrific. I hope that I never am in a situation where someone breaks into my house or tries to hurt me or my family.

I apologize. I'll strike a less combative tone. The "self defense" concept isn't black and white. A binary choice between life and death (using a firearm) is black and white. But the way the US treats this is intent doesn't really matter. Here is what my state says:

"In Ohio, there is a legal presumption that a person acts in self-defense when he or she uses force against anyone who unlawfully enters their residence or their vehicle."

Nothing about intent. They even did away with reasonable means of retreating. You can literally shoot someone for simply illegally entering your residence or vehicle and claim self defense. The state has to prove it wasn't in self defense. Star witness is dead, what are the odds of that happening? Intent doesn't matter. The question is do you think that's reasonable?

I once tried to get into the wrong apartment drunk as a skunk one night after a fun night out drinking with my AF buddies. I could be dead for simply being too drunk to realize I was at the wrong apartment. My step-son could be dead because he didn't understand it's not ok to hang out in abandoned homes. Making a binary choice to take a life when intent isn't always black and white just seems terrible.

So yeah my line of thinking is likely with Canada and other countries with far less gun crimes. It just makes sense to me. And the statistics only strengthen my viewpoint.

[OzzieandHarriet]

Kids and teachers were a lot braver than those cops with their guns.

https://wapo.st/39Xk185

[FrugalToque]

It used to be legal, in Canada, to basically kill people for breaking into your house.  If you find old copies of the criminal code, from the 1990s, you'll see "Defence of Domicile" in there and basically said something like "No one has committed offence, who in defending a home from an intruder, kills or grievously harms the intruder, if they are under reasonable belief that this is the force necessary to defend the home"  I don't have it perfect, but that was the basic gist.

Over the years, the courts started pushing back on what "reasonable" means, so the whole thing has been re-written to be clearer instead of just arriving in court to find out you can't just kill somebody for banging on your door real hard or whatever.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/fulltext.html
You can search for Section "35" or "Defence of Property" (note the spelling, it's Canadian) and see how clearly its worded.

Toque.

[scottish]

This Memorial Day Weekend, let's take a moment to honor the sacrifice of our brave schoolchildren who lay down their lives to protect our right to keep & bear arms.

Harsh, but called for.

[Hula Hoop]

I've just been reading about how long it took police officers to enter the school while children were desperately calling 911 from inside. They were just milling around outside while kids were bring murdered. 

[OtherJen]

I've just been reading about how long it took police officers to enter the school while children were desperately calling 911 from inside. They were just milling around outside while kids were bring murdered.

They arrested at least one parent who attempted to get in the building to save their child.

[RetiredAt63]

Betty Bowers makes my points so much better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmWAFz7LjKs

[Hula Hoop]

I've just been reading about how long it took police officers to enter the school while children were desperately calling 911 from inside. They were just milling around outside while kids were bring murdered.

They arrested at least one parent who attempted to get in the building to save their child.

I can't articulate how angry this makes me.

[charis]

I've just been reading about how long it took police officers to enter the school while children were desperately calling 911 from inside. They were just milling around outside while kids were bring murdered.

They arrested at least one parent who attempted to get in the building to save their child.

I can't articulate how angry this makes me.

I've had moments where I couldn't breathe when reading the truth that has finally come out about this story.  My children are the ages of those that were murdered during this attack and I would rather die fighting for their lives than not fight at all.

17 others were shot during this attack, including children that will never fully recover. 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Being shitty to be in a situation to use for self defense is not the same as being a shitty self-defense weapon. Your article mentions 47 people in 3 years that were accidentally shot - each one a tragedy but not a huge number to base it being a shitty defense.

What's a huge number to you? Just curious since you have relegated senseless loss of life and countless lives impacted by loss and trauma to some sort of statistic.

FYI I am not basing it on 47 people dying. That's merely part of the equation. I mostly base it on the fact that it's a binary decision. Once the bullet leaves the chamber you can't take it back. You can't redirect it. It's a decision with dire and lasting consequences. Humans aren't robots. We are not very good at making binary life and death choices under immense pressure in a matter of seconds. 

I know you have anecdotes. Most people do. Might as well just flip a coin. On one side is reasonable self defense gun use with tragedy and loss of life. On the other is not reasonable with tragedy and loss of life. You can pick a side. It's your choice. I say throw the fucking coin away because both choices are shitty.

There are different areas of debate on the topic of guns as self defense weapons. GuitarStv's is more philosophical (although your last part about it being binary lines up with that).

You brought up the risk of using guns as a reason for it being a poor self defense method. The article that you linked called out the statistic of 47 people being shot in 3 years. If we're talking about risks, by definition we're talking about statistics. Statistically, that's around 15 people a year that are shot in the type of situation you called out - not killed, just shot. Lightning kills more people a year. Nowhere did I dismiss the awful nature of it, and all I was very clearly saying was that the numbers don't show it's a huge systemic problem. I'm not "relegating anything to statistics" to deny the horrors of it. I'm saying your own article shows the risks of what you brought up are infinitesimal. In other words, your argument that using guns as self defense is shitty because people shoot people they don't mean to is a bad argument. That's the extent of what I'm saying.

You call the article an example of anecdotes but the article itself conveniently brought up the statistics of it so we don't have to rely on anecdotes, and its statistics simply display the rarity of the problem. Essentially, you keep commenting on how we both can all have anecdotes, but when I use statistics that you yourself brought out, you throw it back as a pejorative to attempt to make me seem heartless.

On the last point, I certainly agree. Both choices are horrific. I hope that I never am in a situation where someone breaks into my house or tries to hurt me or my family.

I apologize. I'll strike a less combative tone. The "self defense" concept isn't black and white. A binary choice between life and death (using a firearm) is black and white. But the way the US treats this is intent doesn't really matter. Here is what my state says:

"In Ohio, there is a legal presumption that a person acts in self-defense when he or she uses force against anyone who unlawfully enters their residence or their vehicle."

Nothing about intent. They even did away with reasonable means of retreating. You can literally shoot someone for simply illegally entering your residence or vehicle and claim self defense. The state has to prove it wasn't in self defense. Star witness is dead, what are the odds of that happening? Intent doesn't matter. The question is do you think that's reasonable?

I once tried to get into the wrong apartment drunk as a skunk one night after a fun night out drinking with my AF buddies. I could be dead for simply being too drunk to realize I was at the wrong apartment. My step-son could be dead because he didn't understand it's not ok to hang out in abandoned homes. Making a binary choice to take a life when intent isn't always black and white just seems terrible.

So yeah my line of thinking is likely with Canada and other countries with far less gun crimes. It just makes sense to me. And the statistics only strengthen my viewpoint.

As usual in these conversations, you guys have provided some interesting perspectives that I will need to think on. Thanks for the discussion.

[GreenSheep]

17 others were shot during this attack, including children that will never fully recover.

Not to take too much away from the main discussion... but I wanted to thank you for mentioning this. News reports often list the number of people "injured" in an incident (whether it's a school shooting or a car wreck or whatever), and I don't think people always recognize that this can mean anything from a little cut on the arm to life-changing brain damage. I think people usually blow it off as though the injured will recover quickly and be just fine, which is not always the case. And then there are the kids (and adults) who lived through this physically unharmed but will need years and years of therapy and still might have difficulty all their lives because of this event. It's all just awful.

[getsorted]

My problem with owning guns for self-defense against a home invasion is that no one I have ever known has ever taken even basic measures to prevent a home invasion, apart from owning a gun. I know people who own a case full of guns for self-defense who have windows without locks.

I went through a period of concern about an ex breaking in. I got a security door, secured my windows, and got a dog. Driveway alarms, perimeter alarms, all this stuff exists. I'm not saying people don't genuinely think their guns are for home defense, or that they are never warranted, but it's often a means of last resort for people who haven't even taken a first step.

[RetiredAt63]

My problem with owning guns for self-defense against a home invasion is that no one I have ever known has ever taken even basic measures to prevent a home invasion, apart from owning a gun. I know people who own a case full of guns for self-defense who have windows without locks.

Seriously?  That's like taking a can of Raid to one ant.

I'm Canadian so the home self-defence gun just isn't allowed, but I lock my doors when I am home.  When I had a house I had windows that locked, I had a sliding glass door to the deck that locked.   If I left windows open overnight for ventilation they were windows that were not easy to access from outside - i.e. not opening to the front porch or back deck.  My dog was a great watchdog (terrible guard dog) - she loved people and if someone was at the door she would bark in happy anticipation of a visitor.  Even as an older woman living alone I thought that was perfectly adequate security.

[Hadilly]

Everytown  has a triple match through 5/31.

https://www.everytown.org/

Please consider donating! I just did.

[PeteD01]

My problem with owning guns for self-defense against a home invasion is that no one I have ever known has ever taken even basic measures to prevent a home invasion, apart from owning a gun. I know people who own a case full of guns for self-defense who have windows without locks.

I went through a period of concern about an ex breaking in. I got a security door, secured my windows, and got a dog. Driveway alarms, perimeter alarms, all this stuff exists. I'm not saying people don't genuinely think their guns are for home defense, or that they are never warranted, but it's often a means of last resort for people who haven't even taken a first step.

Guns are marketed as a solution to the perceived need for self defense.
So people buy them and feel safer right away - so it must be working, right?
Well, here is what happened in my neighborhood last year:
A stupid kid got into breaking into cars and stole a loaded handgun one of the neighbors had forgotten in his car. A few days later, the kid comes back to the same street and breaks into another car.
Unfortunately, a woman in her twenties sees him and proceeds to confront him at gunpoint using her self defense handgun.
She orders him to stay where he is and takes out her phone to call the police while apparently still pointing the gun at him. The kid pulls the gun he had stolen and kills the woman instantaneously and runs away.
It was the only firearm homicide in the neighborhood that year that I am aware of.
None of these people had any business possessing a gun, but two of them for sure got their guns sold to them for the illusion of safety but did not realize what they were getting into.
Handguns in the hands of idiots and "stand your ground" laws are a bad combination.

[getsorted]

My problem with owning guns for self-defense against a home invasion is that no one I have ever known has ever taken even basic measures to prevent a home invasion, apart from owning a gun. I know people who own a case full of guns for self-defense who have windows without locks.

I went through a period of concern about an ex breaking in. I got a security door, secured my windows, and got a dog. Driveway alarms, perimeter alarms, all this stuff exists. I'm not saying people don't genuinely think their guns are for home defense, or that they are never warranted, but it's often a means of last resort for people who haven't even taken a first step.

Handguns in the hands of idiots and "stand your ground" laws are a bad combination.

Exactly. And none of us want to admit that "It's me. I'm idiots."

I have relatives who really think I should have a gun, as a single woman living alone, but like... I can't imagine a situation where running away wouldn't be better for me. If someone breaks in while I'm sleeping, what are the odds I'm going to get to my gun and do something useful with it? I'm not Laura Croft.

Also I have a curious kid who knows how to pick locks and is already way too curious about explosives. I'm not going to risk it. We are already just one Mythbusters episode away from disaster around here.

[Gremlin]

I’m not American. I’m very glad that I live in a society that views a lack of guns in the community as a very significant measure of freedom, rather than a society that equates that to a restriction on freedoms.

[Poundwise]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

[RetiredAt63]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

Sounds like guns are the water these parental fish swim in.

[MasterStache]

My problem with owning guns for self-defense against a home invasion is that no one I have ever known has ever taken even basic measures to prevent a home invasion, apart from owning a gun. I know people who own a case full of guns for self-defense who have windows without locks.

Seriously?  That's like taking a can of Raid to one ant.

I'm Canadian so the home self-defence gun just isn't allowed, but I lock my doors when I am home.  When I had a house I had windows that locked, I had a sliding glass door to the deck that locked.   If I left windows open overnight for ventilation they were windows that were not easy to access from outside - i.e. not opening to the front porch or back deck.  My dog was a great watchdog (terrible guard dog) - she loved people and if someone was at the door she would bark in happy anticipation of a visitor.  Even as an older woman living alone I thought that was perfectly adequate security.

Funny that you bring this up. The best way to keep intruders out of your residence is with simple preventative measures. Yes locked doors. Ample lighting at night. A dog is very good at deterring would be intruders. My neighbor once said he pities the person that would ever try and break into our house. We have a 65 lb Bully mix who barks at anyone who steps foot on our property. He is a fantastic early warning system. We even have a simple alarm system that was purchased for a different reason some time ago (long story). Proactive just seems far less dangerous and destructive than reactive.     

[shureShote]

I have guns, have had guns. Carried guns in the military. Had guns pulled on me in the military and in civilian life. Played with toy guns starting at about four, hunted since 10.

While I think the NRA is just a political thing, and I don’t support them (nor any other political group,) I might still be part of the group who needs to convinced to do something or support something. I’ll write later more about what it would take. It’s a tough one.

[RetiredAt63]

I have guns, have had guns. Carried guns in the military. Had guns pulled on me in the military and in civilian life. Played with toy guns starting at about four, hunted since 10.

While I think the NRA is just a political thing, and I don’t support them (nor any other political group,) I might still be part of the group who needs to convinced to do something or support something. I’ll write later more about what it would take. It’s a tough one.

You presumably know about gun safety from your time in the military.  Do you follow gun safety protocols meticulously?

You are a hunter so that is a legitimate reason to own a gun.  Well, assuming you eat the meat and make sure you get a kill, not wound an animal that will die in pain, or shoot solely for a trophy.  If you hunt waterfowl, are you using steel shot or lead shot?  Because if you are using lead shot you are doing major environmental damage and causing birds to die of lead poisoning.  There are ethical guidelines with hunting, responsible hunters know and follow them.

But hunting doesn't mean you need to own a semi-automatic.  Do you keep your (not-semi-automatic) guns unloaded rifles/shotguns in a gun safe?  Is your ammunition safely stored apart from the guns?  If yes, in that case you are a responsible gun owner and this discussion about gun control doesn't apply to you.  You could be in Canada or lots of other places that have responsible gun ownership.

Do you have a handgun*?  Do you have an unsecured gun?  Do you have a loaded gun in the house?  Then welcome to the discussion.


*Long guns may be used more in mass shootings, but hand guns are worse for overall deaths, especially suicides and domestic violence.  Canada has much stricter controls on hand guns than long guns because their main use is to kill people, not to kill game or pests.

[DadJokes]

I went to church this week. While I know the pastor has to give the Bible response of "If someone had witnessed to this person, maybe this doesn't happen," it's just infuriating to me. There's less religion in Europe's culture, and they don't have this problem, so maybe that's not the issue.

Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't want the pastor to get up there and discuss politics, but the cliché response just makes me more upset than saying nothing at all.

[Morning Glory]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

Ugh. I bet the same companies that sell the guns and body armor used in mass shootings also profit from all the extra security crap they have made necessary, including the arms for those guards.  Gotta make those shareholders even richer.  Just gross.

[fuzzy math]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

From a pragmatic standpoint, why is this a problem?

What's easier, to change enough minds to actually change federal / state laws... or to approach the situation with the reality being what it is, and still do actual work towards SOMETHING in the meantime?
The other option is to continue to advocate for something that has no actual chance of changing, thus wasting your efforts that could be spent towards achieving a goal... in this case making kids safer by using the lower achievable standard of increasing your local school's security.

Politics are won at a local level. I've spent time at my state's capitol, advocating for state bills and let me tell you... money talks. You leave a legislator's office and the lobbyists show up. Suddenly your voice as a constituent means a whole lot less. Now imagine this at the federal level.

OBVIOUSLY creating safer federal policy is the best option... but your option of trying to win over hearts and minds on FB is not real advocacy. These people are your neighbors, and like it or not you have to work with them. If you can't even agree with them without expressing exasperation, how effective do you think you're going to be in convincing them of your views. Do you disagree that increasing your local school's security would be beneficial?

[GuitarStv]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

From a pragmatic standpoint, why is this a problem?

What's easier, to change enough minds to actually change federal / state laws... or to approach the situation with the reality being what it is, and still do actual work towards SOMETHING in the meantime?
The other option is to continue to advocate for something that has no actual chance of changing, thus wasting your efforts that could be spent towards achieving a goal... in this case making kids safer by using the lower achievable standard of increasing your local school's security.

Politics are won at a local level. I've spent time at my state's capitol, advocating for state bills and let me tell you... money talks. You leave a legislator's office and the lobbyists show up. Suddenly your voice as a constituent means a whole lot less. Now imagine this at the federal level.

OBVIOUSLY creating safer federal policy is the best option... but your option of trying to win over hearts and minds on FB is not real advocacy. These people are your neighbors, and like it or not you have to work with them. If you can't even agree with them without expressing exasperation, how effective do you think you're going to be in convincing them of your views. Do you disagree that increasing your local school's security would be beneficial?
[/quote]

I guess it depends on your world view.  For a Libertarian 'I got mine so fuck you' approach . . . the few schools that can afford the costs associated with full military bunkerization are probably going to be much safer from these common mass murders that easy access to guns has caused in the US.

From a whole country perspective, I think that it's negative in several ways:
- distraction from real problem
- waste of money and energy that should go towards solving the real problem
- there won't be enough money for poor schools to do this, so it creates a two tiered safety system

[fuzzy math]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

From a pragmatic standpoint, why is this a problem?

What's easier, to change enough minds to actually change federal / state laws... or to approach the situation with the reality being what it is, and still do actual work towards SOMETHING in the meantime?
The other option is to continue to advocate for something that has no actual chance of changing, thus wasting your efforts that could be spent towards achieving a goal... in this case making kids safer by using the lower achievable standard of increasing your local school's security.

Politics are won at a local level. I've spent time at my state's capitol, advocating for state bills and let me tell you... money talks. You leave a legislator's office and the lobbyists show up. Suddenly your voice as a constituent means a whole lot less. Now imagine this at the federal level.

OBVIOUSLY creating safer federal policy is the best option... but your option of trying to win over hearts and minds on FB is not real advocacy. These people are your neighbors, and like it or not you have to work with them. If you can't even agree with them without expressing exasperation, how effective do you think you're going to be in convincing them of your views. Do you disagree that increasing your local school's security would be beneficial?

I guess it depends on your world view.  For a Libertarian 'I got mine so fuck you' approach . . . the few schools that can afford the costs associated with full military bunkerization are probably going to be much safer from these common mass murders that easy access to guns has caused in the US.

From a whole country perspective, I think that it's negative in several ways:
- distraction from real problem
- waste of money and energy that should go towards solving the real problem
- there won't be enough money for poor schools to do this, so it creates a two tiered safety system

You're displaying the same fatalistic (I recognize the irony of using that word btw) viewpoint that I called out the other poster on.

"If I can't get 100% of what I want, I'm just going to sit back and prosthelytize about what should be done"

If you know how to buy a US politician, reform the entire house, senate and presidential signing / vetoing system AND convince 50% of the population to come over to your side of thinking... please enlighten us all here. I'm simply stating what others have stated here already. If this event hasn't changed minds, if Sandy Hook didn't do it, if Parkland, Las Vegas or the Colorado theatre shooting didn't change minds... why do you expect this time to be different? Its not about whether any of those lives were worth changing for. That's not up for debate. The question is HOW are YOU (in this case, a different you, an American citizen who can vote) going to change it?

Its also shitty to assume that I'm a Libertarian "fuck you" type... again, displaying non helpful attitudes towards problem solving.

Even if assault weapons were banned tomorrow, and mental health access were increased nationally, do you acknowledge that there would still be gaps that would allow mass murders to occur? Wouldn't you want all schools (and thus by proxy YOUR kid's school, if you were American) to be at the bare minimum locked? I'm not advocating for armed guards or police presence.

My "poor" small district has locked, camera access. Someone with an AR 15 would have to be buzzed in at the front door (after being visually verified) to be allowed access to classrooms. They'd probably have to verbally state why they were there too.

[GuitarStv]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

From a pragmatic standpoint, why is this a problem?

What's easier, to change enough minds to actually change federal / state laws... or to approach the situation with the reality being what it is, and still do actual work towards SOMETHING in the meantime?
The other option is to continue to advocate for something that has no actual chance of changing, thus wasting your efforts that could be spent towards achieving a goal... in this case making kids safer by using the lower achievable standard of increasing your local school's security.

Politics are won at a local level. I've spent time at my state's capitol, advocating for state bills and let me tell you... money talks. You leave a legislator's office and the lobbyists show up. Suddenly your voice as a constituent means a whole lot less. Now imagine this at the federal level.

OBVIOUSLY creating safer federal policy is the best option... but your option of trying to win over hearts and minds on FB is not real advocacy. These people are your neighbors, and like it or not you have to work with them. If you can't even agree with them without expressing exasperation, how effective do you think you're going to be in convincing them of your views. Do you disagree that increasing your local school's security would be beneficial?

I guess it depends on your world view.  For a Libertarian 'I got mine so fuck you' approach . . . the few schools that can afford the costs associated with full military bunkerization are probably going to be much safer from these common mass murders that easy access to guns has caused in the US.

From a whole country perspective, I think that it's negative in several ways:
- distraction from real problem
- waste of money and energy that should go towards solving the real problem
- there won't be enough money for poor schools to do this, so it creates a two tiered safety system

You're displaying the same fatalistic (I recognize the irony of using that word btw) viewpoint that I called out the other poster on.

"If I can't get 100% of what I want, I'm just going to sit back and prosthelytize about what should be done"

Over my whole life, this problem has been steadily getting worse.  At the same time gun laws in the US have been continuously relaxed.  Anyone who has been paying attention should be at least a little fatalistic on the matter of school shootings in America right now - as the American populace continues to make choices that prioritize ease of gun sales over safety of citizens.

If you know how to buy a US politician, reform the entire house, senate and presidential signing / vetoing system AND convince 50% of the population to come over to your side of thinking... please enlighten us all here. I'm simply stating what others have stated here already. If this event hasn't changed minds, if Sandy Hook didn't do it, if Parkland, Las Vegas or the Colorado theatre shooting didn't change minds... why do you expect this time to be different? Its not about whether any of those lives were worth changing for. That's not up for debate. The question is HOW are YOU (in this case, a different you, an American citizen who can vote) going to change it?

Its also shitty to assume that I'm a Libertarian "fuck you" type... again, displaying non helpful attitudes towards problem solving.

If you'll read my post, I don't think that it assumed anything at all about you or your philosophy.
 Libertarianism is effectively the concept that individual gain always trumps societal benefit.  (It's fundamentally unworkable and dangerous - same outcome but opposite ideas of communism).  The idea of militarizing schools to handle the shooting problem seemed like a net societal negative (but potential individual benefit) - so rather Libertarian in nature.

Even if assault weapons were banned tomorrow, and mental health access were increased nationally, do you acknowledge that there would still be gaps that would allow mass murders to occur? Wouldn't you want all schools (and thus by proxy YOUR kid's school, if you were American) to be at the bare minimum locked? I'm not advocating for armed guards or police presence.

My "poor" small district has locked, camera access. Someone with an AR 15 would have to be buzzed in at the front door (after being visually verified) to be allowed access to classrooms. They'd probably have to verbally state why they were there too.

For sure, locking doors and buzzing people in seems to be a very reasonable (and cheap) approach.  It's surprising to me that this is not already universal practice.  I'd have thought that would go without saying.

"Beefed up security systems" doesn't sound like locking doors to me though.  Bulletproof windows and armed guards/police presence at the doors seems a lot less reasonable (and more costly), with potential knock on societal problems.

[MasterStache]

For sure, locking doors and buzzing people in seems to be a very reasonable (and cheap) approach.  It's surprising to me that this is not already universal practice.  I'd have thought that would go without saying.

"Beefed up security systems" doesn't sound like locking doors to me though.  Bulletproof windows and armed guards/police presence at the doors seems a lot less reasonable (and more costly), with potential knock on societal problems.

It's easy to bypass. Our district has 4 elementary schools all with security measures. As does our Jr High and both High Schools. My daughter's elementary school has 700+ students. The office administrator cannot possibly memorize thousands of faces (parents, sibling, grandparents). Next school year she'll be there with over 1,100 students. A shooter isn't going to show up looking like Rambo and claiming to be there to pickup their kid. It gives some folks a warm fuzzy, but considering the number of times I have gone into that school, that's all it is. Probably better at keeping pervs out.

Armed guards aren't practical. The cost is in the billions (last figure I saw was roughly $500/student cost). And it's been proven ineffective. See Marshall County High School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Great Mills High School, and Santa Fe High School (not ironically in Texas).   

You can read what happened after the Santa Fe shooting and we now know how effective that was.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/26/texas-uvalde-shooting-harden-schools/

This is all a red herring. Certainly not pragmatic. You can just look at Texas alone and see that armed security personnel doesn't work and funds to beef up security doesn't work either. Maybe we should stick with thoughts and prayers? Same outcome and cost less.

[RetiredAt63]

You are all young'uns to me.  I second GuitarStv's comment about watching it all get worse, but I've been watching it get worse longer.  I was 13 when JFK was shot, and that was inconceivable.  Then Martin Luther King and another Kennedy and and and.

MADD did it for drunk driving.  If people want it badly enough it could happen.  It will take concerted national effort to change priorities.  Grassroots effort every place.  Take the energy that would go into making local schools safer and put it into making everyone safer every place.

Seriously, I remember when every bar I went to was a choking haze of cigarette smoke.  I remember people driving home from bars way over 0.8.  I remember every game of curling where the winners bought the losers a drink, then the losers bought the winners a drink and then everyone else had a third drink before driving home, over the course of an hour or 2.  That was acceptable behaviour.

Go watch old movies and see how much smoking and drinking happened as part of everyday life.

Those changed but it took a lot of effort by a lot of people, because did the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry want to see change?  No.  But people wanted change.

And don't think gun manufacturers don't know what they are doing.  They keep evading Canadian gun controls too, and our Conservative parties are all too happy to go along with them.  Read this piece.  It is from 2019 but here we are today.  I remember December 6, 1989.  I don't need to look up the date.  I know who Heidi Rathjen is, I always will.  I will never forget December 6, 1989.  I was home on mat leave with my darling baby daughter, and this guy was killing women engineering students because they were women and "took his place".  Lethal misogyny.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-ecole-polytechnique-gun-control-heidi-rathjen-1.5382157

Yes, I do get a little heated.  Ecole Polytechnique.  My office mate was good friends with one of the people killed at Concordia (that was a hand gun).  One of my students was close friends with the girl killed at Dawson, I found out because she missed my class to go to the funeral.  In my darker moments I really hope there is a Hell, because that is where everyone associated with the manufacture and sale of guns should go.  There is a lot of blood on their hands.  Oh, I'm Canadian, is this where I'm supposed to say "sorry" and backpedal for saying all this?  No, sorry, not sorry. Too bad, so sad, not sorry for saying it. 

[sixwings]

having a bunch armed, untrained, uncoordinated, non-communicating, panicking civilians spraying bullets all over the place seems like a very, very bad idea...

You'd go from having one active shooter to 30 pretty quickly.

[shureShote]

Retiredat63 and gtrstv, why do you think it has gotten worse? It would be difficult to convince me that the ease of buying a gun and ammo have gotten all that easier in the last 30 years. I remember buying long guns, including a sweet Ruger mini thirty (a semi auto that I'd guess a lot of folks would group in the assault rifle bucket, it shoots the same round as the AK47), back in the mid 90s and walking from the back of Fay's Drugs with them in my arms on the same day. And ammo is not exactly in full supply everywhere like it used to be. I used to buy all sorts of things at gun shows back then also.

But what you could easily convince me of is that something has happened to people. Who are doing all the school shootings? What’s the common denominator there? Are they bullies? Are they 2nd Amendment champions? Trump supporters? Local militia wannabes?  Doesn’t seem like it to me. I have some thoughts on who they may be, but I can’t share those thoughts here without incurring…

While there has been a bunch of shootings, these school ones make me scratch my head about what are the events in these kids' lives that led up to them going on a rampage. I’d toss in the Aurora one also. Somewhere some things happened that started them down the road to these shootings.

My small point that I am trying to make is that what’s the entire chain of these events? Sure, the guns are the chosen tool, and sometimes the specific gun chosen obviously increases the likelihood of higher damage, both the number of victims and the injuries. But that is just the method, what about the other thousand pieces? I seem to only read either 'down with guns' or 'need better mental health systems', but those are way too general for me, and it just starts threads like these which are super predictable.

We can’t just point at the guns in my opinion, until it is shown that guns were part of the process way earlier. Which came first, the availability of the weapon or the intent and commitment to commit the crime?

[GuitarStv]

Retiredat63 and gtrstv, why do you think it has gotten worse? It would be difficult to convince me that the ease of buying a gun and ammo have gotten all that easier in the last 30 years.

2003 - The Tiahrt Amendment prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.  This had the effect of shielding retailers from public scrutiny, research, and lawsuits.

2004 - Assault Weapons Ban expired and was not renewed

2005 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevented gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

2008 - District of Columbia v. Heller redefined 70 years of precedent by radically re-interpreting the meaning of the 2nd amendment.  Prior to the decision, the Miller ruling had focused on "well regulated militia" in the amendment.  Afterwards, the SC decided that the individual right to possess a firearm was unconnected with service in a militia.

Over this period open carry laws in states have increased, concealed carry laws have become more permissive and less restrictive, gun purchases have exploded.  Advocacy for stricter gun laws has reduced in popularity.

All of that seems to point to a worsening problem.

I remember buying long guns, including a sweet Ruger mini thirty (a semi auto that I'd guess a lot of folks would group in the assault rifle bucket, it shoots the same round as the AK47), back in the mid 90s and walking from the back of Fay's Drugs with them in my arms on the same day. And ammo is not exactly in full supply everywhere like it used to be. I used to buy all sorts of things at gun shows back then also.

But what you could easily convince me of is that something has happened to people. Who are doing all the school shootings? What’s the common denominator there? Are they bullies? Are they 2nd Amendment champions? Trump supporters? Local militia wannabes?  Doesn’t seem like it to me. I have some thoughts on who they may be, but I can’t share those thoughts here without incurring…

While there has been a bunch of shootings, these school ones make me scratch my head about what are the events in these kids' lives that led up to them going on a rampage. I’d toss in the Aurora one also. Somewhere some things happened that started them down the road to these shootings.

My small point that I am trying to make is that what’s the entire chain of these events? Sure, the guns are the chosen tool, and sometimes the specific gun chosen obviously increases the likelihood of higher damage, both the number of victims and the injuries. But that is just the method, what about the other thousand pieces? I seem to only read either 'down with guns' or 'need better mental health systems', but those are way too general for me, and it just starts threads like these which are super predictable.

We can’t just point at the guns in my opinion, until it is shown that guns were part of the process way earlier. Which came first, the availability of the weapon or the intent and commitment to commit the crime?

The US has the most lax gun laws in the world, and has a problem with guns.  Every single issue you list above exists in other countries that don't have the same gun problem.  You don't think they're related?

[shureShote]

The US has the most lax gun laws in the world, and has a problem with guns.  Every single issue you list above exists in other countries that don't have the same gun problem.  You don't think they're related?

Don’t know if they are. But I do know it is not just gun laws that makes the US different. I lived for a number of years in Germany. Not many guns, not many shootings. Should the US copy Germany? If so, then minorities, especially women, better be ready for the 1950s. That’s just the first “ugh” example that jumped in my head.

I think there is something happening at a lower level here that no one wants to talk about, and that guns are just an obvious thing easy to point at, and fundamentally easy to fix.

Oh, thanks for some of the gun law things. Never noticed them before or after and I bought guns from the 80s to about 2010.

[Kris]

The US has the most lax gun laws in the world, and has a problem with guns.  Every single issue you list above exists in other countries that don't have the same gun problem.  You don't think they're related?

Don’t know if they are. But I do know it is not just gun laws that makes the US different. I lived for a number of years in Germany. Not many guns, not many shootings. Should the US copy Germany? If so, then minorities, especially women, better be ready for the 1950s. That’s just the first “ugh” example that jumped in my head.

I think there is something happening at a lower level here that no one wants to talk about, and that guns are just an obvious thing easy to point at, and fundamentally easy to fix.

Oh, thanks for some of the gun law things. Never noticed them before or after and I bought guns from the 80s to about 2010.

Can you provide some data on how the lives of minorities and women in Germany are akin to the lives of women and minorities in the US in the 1950s?

[shureShote]

The US has the most lax gun laws in the world, and has a problem with guns.  Every single issue you list above exists in other countries that don't have the same gun problem.  You don't think they're related?

Don’t know if they are. But I do know it is not just gun laws that makes the US different. I lived for a number of years in Germany. Not many guns, not many shootings. Should the US copy Germany? If so, then minorities, especially women, better be ready for the 1950s. That’s just the first “ugh” example that jumped in my head.

I think there is something happening at a lower level here that no one wants to talk about, and that guns are just an obvious thing easy to point at, and fundamentally easy to fix.

Oh, thanks for some of the gun law things. Never noticed them before or after and I bought guns from the 80s to about 2010.

Can you provide some data on how the lives of minorities and women in Germany are akin to the lives of women and minorities in the US in the 1950s?

Data from my personal experience in the greater Stuttgart area. 100% of leadership in my engineering firm, white men. Direct quote from a director “you will never make more than your husband (who had the exact same job)”. Secretaries were called secretaries and all were women.

Not as much direct about other minorities, my non-professional German was somewhat lacking, but definitely had the feeling that open prejudice was quite OK. Did have two instances where being an American seemed to be upsetting to a local. But I can be pretty annoying in any language. Unlike what I often see, I don’t confuse words with the heart behind them, so who knows. There was a large Turkish population near the office, and though the relationship seemed positive with them, there felt to me like a clear air of superiority from the Germans towards the Turkish.

Between that and the smoke filled offices, it sure felt like what I imagine the engineering firms of Detroit in 1950 were like.

Point is, I do not think one can slice off things that work in other countries and automatically expect it to do the same in the US. Very few things operate enough in a vacuum.

I just can’t reason out any possible steps that makes an older kid take up arms and go shoot up some much younger kids. I just don’t think it’s because they had the ability to buy a gun. And until I can understand the full chain, I doubt I’ll support wide sweeping gun control reforms. This does not include background checks and a few days waiting period for it to happen (that seems logical to me).

[Kris]

The US has the most lax gun laws in the world, and has a problem with guns.  Every single issue you list above exists in other countries that don't have the same gun problem.  You don't think they're related?

Don’t know if they are. But I do know it is not just gun laws that makes the US different. I lived for a number of years in Germany. Not many guns, not many shootings. Should the US copy Germany? If so, then minorities, especially women, better be ready for the 1950s. That’s just the first “ugh” example that jumped in my head.

I think there is something happening at a lower level here that no one wants to talk about, and that guns are just an obvious thing easy to point at, and fundamentally easy to fix.

Oh, thanks for some of the gun law things. Never noticed them before or after and I bought guns from the 80s to about 2010.

Can you provide some data on how the lives of minorities and women in Germany are akin to the lives of women and minorities in the US in the 1950s?

Data from my personal experience in the greater Stuttgart area. 100% of leadership in my engineering firm, white men. Direct quote from a director “you will never make more than your husband (who had the exact same job)”. Secretaries were called secretaries and all were women.

Not as much direct about other minorities, my non-professional German was somewhat lacking, but definitely had the feeling that open prejudice was quite OK. Did have two instances where being an American seemed to be upsetting to a local. But I can be pretty annoying in any language. Unlike what I often see, I don’t confuse words with the heart behind them, so who knows. There was a large Turkish population near the office, and though the relationship seemed positive with them, there felt to me like a clear air of superiority from the Germans towards the Turkish.

Between that and the smoke filled offices, it sure felt like what I imagine the engineering firms of Detroit in 1950 were like.

Point is, I do not think one can slice off things that work in other countries and automatically expect it to do the same in the US. Very few things operate enough in a vacuum.

I just can’t reason out any possible steps that makes an older kid take up arms and go shoot up some much younger kids. I just don’t think it’s because they had the ability to buy a gun. And until I can understand the full chain, I doubt I’ll support wide sweeping gun control reforms. This does not include background checks and a few days waiting period for it to happen (that seems logical to me).

Shureshote, I don’t mean to be unkind, but…

You do realize how poorly reasoned and argued your “data” are here, do you not?

[Shane]

Beefing up school security might work to prevent shootings in some parts of the country, but I can't think of a single school I've ever visited in Hawaii that could be fortified in the ways people are suggesting. Every school I'm familiar with in Hawaii has an open campus. The last public elementary school our daughter attended on Oahu consisted of a half dozen buildings on an ~20 acre campus. DD's 2nd grade classroom was grouped with two other 2nd grade classrooms, on the first floor of one of the buildings. On the second floor of the same building were three third grade classrooms. Anyone could walk onto the school campus from a million different directions. I literally used to hike about a mile up a trail through the woods from the public library up the hill to my daughter's school. Visitors were supposed to check in at the office, but I never did. My daughter's second grade classroom always had the door propped open and all of the windows open. Anyone could just walk inside, which I did almost every day. Sure, that school could install air conditioning in all of its classrooms and order teachers to keep doors locked and windows closed, at all times, but what would that accomplish? A shooter could just as easily take out most students and teachers, just by shooting in through the windows. Also, little kids have to go to the bathroom sometimes. The only way for children to get to a restroom in schools like that is to unlock a classroom door, step outside, and walk 100'+ to the nearest restroom. Thankfully, there aren't many school shootings in Hawaii, maybe because the state has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

[OzzieandHarriet]

Thankfully, there aren't many school shootings in Hawaii, maybe because the state has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

The Supreme Court will put a stop to that because they place a higher value on a poorly written sentence from the 18th century than on US citizens’ rights to live peaceful, free lives.

There were 11 (eleven) mass shootings in the US this past weekend, Saturday - Monday, resulting in multiple deaths and serious injuries.

And the NRA re-elected Wayne LaPierre.

[shureShote]

Shureshote, I don’t mean to be unkind, but…

You do realize how poorly reasoned and argued your “data” are here, do you not?

You asked if I had data and I said the only data I had was personal experience, and I laid out a couple things that I personally experienced. I don't have to argue or reason my personal experience. Of course, I was not around in the 50s, thus I said it was my assumption that that was how it was back in those days.

And I don't mean to be unkind, but I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Move there and work in engineering and bring counterpoints, or just read my post and move on.

Again, another angle of my point is that I think we should be careful over modeling gun control of other countries without also being prepared to bring a whole host of other changes to the US. Some of those could cut deeper into our Bill of Rights or other chunks of the constitution.

[former player]

Germany does have legal rights for equality of women (even if in some workplaces it appears otherwise). Which is more than the USA does.

[MasterStache]

Shureshote, I don’t mean to be unkind, but…

You do realize how poorly reasoned and argued your “data” are here, do you not?

You asked if I had data and I said the only data I had was personal experience, and I laid out a couple things that I personally experienced. I don't have to argue or reason my personal experience. Of course, I was not around in the 50s, thus I said it was my assumption that that was how it was back in those days.

And I don't mean to be unkind, but I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Move there and work in engineering and bring counterpoints, or just read my post and move on.

Again, another angle of my point is that I think we should be careful over modeling gun control of other countries without also being prepared to bring a whole host of other changes to the US. Some of those could cut deeper into our Bill of Rights or other chunks of the constitution.

Should the US copy Germany? If so, then minorities, especially women, better be ready for the 1950s.

I don't see a condescending tone. Personal experience isn't really data. It's anecdotal evidence at best. You admit to not being around in the 1950's either. I don't think the US is worried about going back to the 1950's because of an anecdotal experience you had at an engineering office in Germany. Again that isn't data. Kris was simply pointing out the glaring flaw in your comment.

Quite frankly I'm not even sure what it has to do with mimicking Germany's gun laws. 

[Kris]

Shureshote, I don’t mean to be unkind, but…

You do realize how poorly reasoned and argued your “data” are here, do you not?

You asked if I had data and I said the only data I had was personal experience, and I laid out a couple things that I personally experienced. I don't have to argue or reason my personal experience. Of course, I was not around in the 50s, thus I said it was my assumption that that was how it was back in those days.

And I don't mean to be unkind, but I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Move there and work in engineering and bring counterpoints, or just read my post and move on.

Again, another angle of my point is that I think we should be careful over modeling gun control of other countries without also being prepared to bring a whole host of other changes to the US. Some of those could cut deeper into our Bill of Rights or other chunks of the constitution.

You said they “better be ready for the 1950s.” Without really anything to back it up.

US News and World Report ranked Germany #9 in Best Countries For Women. The US ranked #18.

Sorry you think I am condescending.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-women?slide=2

[Poundwise]

The parents in my community saw an NBC special on "America's Safest School" in Indiana and are agitating for beefed up security systems. Nobody's discussing asking for gun responsibility laws because politics not allowed in the group. *smdh*

But even when talking to them privately, if I bring up the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban (the one that was correlated with a modest fall in mass shooting deaths, then allowed to sunset in 2014, then was followed by a tripling of mass shooting deaths)... or the fact that we haven't had a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms or Explosives for 14 out of the past 16 years... or suggest we call our senators demanding a vote on the background checks bill... they nod their heads and then get back to talking about demanding armed guards and fences.

Grrrrrrrrrrr!!

From a pragmatic standpoint, why is this a problem?

What's easier, to change enough minds to actually change federal / state laws... or to approach the situation with the reality being what it is, and still do actual work towards SOMETHING in the meantime?

It's not a question of what's easier, it's a question of what's effective.  We could thrash around and spend millions per school adding physical security measures that don't work, instead of using that money to improve education and provide services.

And frankly, federal/state laws could change.  For instance, at one point smoking (and for that matter, chewing tobacco! read what Dickens has to say about his travels in the US) was a major feature of American life and the tobacco lobby was very rich and powerful, but over time, we moved to a world where smoking has fallen from over 40% of US adults in 1965 to around 15%, and it's been banned from most public areas. Enough people just have to get behind gun safety and responsibility, and we will.

The other option is to continue to advocate for something that has no actual chance of changing, thus wasting your efforts that could be spent towards achieving a goal... in this case making kids safer by using the lower achievable standard of increasing your local school's security.

That's just what you said was your first option, just reworded.  And frankly, our school's security is very good. As in many better-heeled suburban schools, there were full audits after Sandy Hook and Parkland.  We don't have armed guards, metal detectors, or a smoke cannon in the elementary school, but we do have lockdown drills, check-in staff by the door, video security, a buzz-in system, bulletproof doors, and more.

[Poundwise]

Politics are won at a local level. I've spent time at my state's capitol, advocating for state bills and let me tell you... money talks. You leave a legislator's office and the lobbyists show up. Suddenly your voice as a constituent means a whole lot less. Now imagine this at the federal level.

Thank you for the reminder, I have just have made a donation to Everytown for Gun Safety, who have a triple match for donations today, May 31. To my shame and embarrassment, it's probably the first donation I've made since Parkland.  What is new is I have just signed up for a monthly charge, even though I hate hate hate repeated costs.

OBVIOUSLY creating safer federal policy is the best option... but your option of trying to win over hearts and minds on FB is not real advocacy. These people are your neighbors, and like it or not you have to work with them. If you can't even agree with them without expressing exasperation, how effective do you think you're going to be in convincing them of your views. Do you disagree that increasing your local school's security would be beneficial?

Obviously I don't roll my eyes or express exasperation when I am trying to persuade them.

Yes, I do disagree. Increasing our local schools' security beyond what they are, is probably less effective than if the same amount of money were donated to lobbying for gun safety measures. Congressmen are surprisingly cheap! Or even if we just allocated that money to social services and mental health services to communities.

By the time a gunman is driving towards the school, we have already failed.