Once again, a school, a shooter....and we do the drill yet again.....

[jalapeno_pretzel]

I'm not; that is, I'm not in favor of doing something for the sake of doing something. When that something isn't particularly effective -- like universal background checks -- it costs money and effort, and it "excuses" the powers that be from finding the best options. We need to do the right things.

What are the right things?

I would also be perfectly happy with passing the laws that require safer storage, strengthening red flag laws, or the proposal that requires gun owners to be 21 years or older, or the limiting of ammunition purchases, or the limiting of at least large-capacity magazine ammunition purchases. Are any of those the right things?

All I know is there are shootings where the weapon was obtained through a background check loophole, so it makes sense to me to close that loophole. And, it still makes sense to me to support an incremental improvement that has broad support vs. not being able to do anything at all.

 

[GreatLakes]

The 2nd Amendment, at the time it was written, was to have a weapon that fired 1 MAYBE 2 shots a minute if you could reload fast. Our forefathers could have never predicted what we have to deal with now.

The way they wrote the amendments to be open ended points the other way. They also likely didn't predict the Internet or cell phones or even landline telephones yet I don't see a lot of argument that freedom of speech should only apply to the means of communication available at the time or freedom of religion should only apply to religions that existed at the time of the Constitution.

They weren't idiots that thought society wouldn't progress and there wouldn't be significant scientific advancement over the coming decades and centuries regarding weapons. They may not have envisioned the exact mechanisms but no one can convince me they thought single shot muskets would be the cutting edge of firearms for the rest of time.

That isn't to say I don't think there is room in the interpretation of the second amendment to enact gun legislation, there is and I'm all for it, but that isn't because of the forefather's inability to predict evolution.

Because my knowledge of the US political system is very limited, how does early voting make a difference? Or is the voting in general?

Early voting doesn't really make a difference compared to voting in general. It is more convenient, and I've done it from time to time, but a vote is a vote. If we vote for the politicians that share our views on issues, and that could be guns or anything, the theory is the government would more closely reflect our personal values. Because of a combination of factors from lobbyists to the current state of our party system it doesn't always work like that. We also seem to have an unwillingness to compromise between parties at the moment and a view of every issue as a zero-sum game but that is a digression from the topic at hand. Hopefully I kept that vague enough to keep my points without breaking any rules.

 

[MrsPete]

What are the right things?

I would also be perfectly happy with passing the laws that require safer storage, strengthening red flag laws, or the proposal that requires gun owners to be 21 years or older, or the limiting of ammunition purchases, or the limiting of at least large-capacity magazine ammunition purchases. Are any of those the right things?

All I know is there are shootings where the weapon was obtained through a background check loophole, so it makes sense to me to close that loophole. And, it still makes sense to me to support an incremental improvement that has broad support vs. not being able to do anything at all.

The right things is a big question /subject to opinion. I mentioned some in my previous post -- gun licenses that would need to be renewed every couple years (including mental health checks) and laws about people who haven't been vetted inheriting guns. Dealing with ammunition is another good idea, as is doing away with semi-automatics that can spray bullets out fast. I'd add: Hold parents accountable if their children get their guns. I like that the media hasn't been announcing shooter's names lately -- some sick, twisted people see infamy as a positive.

But I can't support incremental improvements that will cost a lot of money /effort ... and allow politicians to sit back and say, "Look! We tried!" It just lets them off the hook without making substantial change.

 

[Moliphino]

The way they wrote the amendments to be open ended points the other way. They also likely didn't predict the Internet or cell phones or even landline telephones yet I don't see a lot of argument that freedom of speech should only apply to the means of communication available at the time or freedom of religion should only apply to religions that existed at the time of the Constitution.

They weren't idiots that thought society wouldn't progress and there wouldn't be significant scientific advancement over the coming decades and centuries regarding weapons. They may not have envisioned the exact mechanisms but no one can convince me they thought single shot muskets would be the cutting edge of firearms for the rest of time.

That isn't to say I don't think there is room in the interpretation of the second amendment to enact gun legislation, there is and I'm all for it, but that isn't because of the forefather's inability to predict evolution.

They also intended the constitution to be a living document that could change with the times. It's not meant to be set in stone.

 

[White Cat]

Because my knowledge of the US political system is very limited, how does early voting make a difference? Or is the voting in general?

He was making a veiled political comment.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

The right things is a big question /subject to opinion. I mentioned some in my previous post -- gun licenses that would need to be renewed every couple years (including mental health checks) and laws about people who haven't been vetted inheriting guns. Dealing with ammunition is another good idea, as is doing away with semi-automatics that can spray bullets out fast. I'd add: Hold parents accountable if their children get their guns. I like that the media hasn't been announcing shooter's names lately -- some sick, twisted people see infamy as a positive.

But I can't support incremental improvements that will cost a lot of money /effort ... and allow politicians to sit back and say, "Look! We tried!" It just lets them off the hook without making substantial change.

I get what you're saying and I agree with all of your suggestions. If we could get any or all your ideas passed, I would be totally in favor.

I just fear that there is too much opposition to some of those, so rather than saying "look, we tried!" we will continue having "look, we did absolutely nothing!"

And, I don't agree that passing incremental improvements now prevents passing future, better legislation.

 

[MrsPete]

They also intended the constitution to be a living document that could change with the times. It's not meant to be set in stone.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are amazing documents /definitely flexible as the world changes. The founding fathers were geniuses.

 

[MrsPete]

I get what you're saying and I agree with all of your suggestions. If we could get any or all your ideas passed, I would be totally in favor.

I just fear that there is too much opposition to some of those, so rather than saying "look, we tried!" we will continue having "look, we did absolutely nothing!"

And, I don't agree that passing incremental improvements now prevents passing future, better legislation.

I hear what you're saying, but I disagree about the small improvements /better legislation thing. Maybe I have less faith in our politicians.

 

[Colleen27]

Contrast this with that Michigan shooting, I believe it was Orion Township, where the parents not only ignored signs but almost encouraged the shooting. This recent case is even more scary. It is like the terrorist that carries out their bombing and then news comes out that they were on law enforcement's radar but some bureaucratic process got in the way.

I know follow up coverage of these things tends to be more local than coverage of the shooting itself, so for those who might not have heard: The Oxford shooter pled guilty to murder and terrorism charges this past week, and gave a statement that most court-watchers believe will be key to the prosecution of his parents because his account of things is that his father bought the gun at the shooter's request, with money the shooter had saved, and that it was stored unlocked and unsecured in the home so it was readily available when he decided to take it to school. The parents' trial is scheduled for January.

Wow. I didn't realize there were so many.

# of incidents by decade (taken from Wiki)
1840s: 1
1850s: 3
1860s: 5
1870s: 7
1880s: 10
1890s: 6
1900s: 13
1910s: 18
1920s: 10
1930s: 7
1940s: 8
1950s: 19
1960s: 20
1970s: 40
1980s: 61
1990s: 97
2000s: 68
2010s: 231
2020s: 89

@MrsPete touched on the problem with these numbers. They count all shootings on school property, and if you read the one-line descriptions attached, they're not generally what we think of as school shootings. They're a student shot in the parking lot by a stray bullet and a kid who was expelled seeking revenge against a specific staff member and drug/gang disputes and even accidental discharges. In the 90s, there are a couple of incidents prior to Columbine that foreshadow the kind of mass shooting events that have become so sadly common, but practically every shooting before that and most (by number of incidents, not victim count) now stem from targeted violence.

Totally agree. People (like @mrodgers ) who claim "any law against guns is an infringement" is ignoring there already ARE limits to the 2A, that they apparently don't(?) have problems with.

Yeah, there was a whacko not far from me who tried to argue that a code preventing him from clearing snow from his sidewalks with a flamethrower was a violation. And I know plenty of men who object to the limitations on gun ownership for domestic abusers because they believe that's a charge any man can end up with if he hooks up with the wrong kind of woman.

Yes, let's not even try, because universal background checks that a majority of Americans are in favor of might not help enough.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/04/upshot/mass-shooting-gun-laws.html
"If the key gun control proposals now being considered in Congress had been law since 1999, four gunmen younger than 21 would have been blocked from legally buying the rifles they used in mass shootings.
At least four other assailants would have been subject to a required background check, instead of slipping through a loophole. Ten might have been unable to steal their weapons because of efforts to require or encourage safer gun storage. And 20 might not have been allowed to legally purchase the large-capacity magazines that they used to upgrade their guns, helping them kill, on average, 16 people each."

That's kind of our mindset about problems, though. We want a shining silver bullet solution (no pun intended) that will 100% solve an issue, not partial solutions and marginal improvement. If an energy policy reduces our overall emissions but still uses some fossil fuels, it is derided as feel-good bunk. If we house some of the easier-to-serve homeless, the conversation is only about all those we failed to house. If we change health care policy to insure millions of previously uninsured, or partially address affordability it is widely considered a failed law because millions are left uninsured or because costs continue to rise even if it is at a slower pace. And since in the real world, complex problems just don't have simple, effective solutions, that tends to promote paralysis.

 

[GreatLakes]

I know follow up coverage of these things tends to be more local than coverage of the shooting itself, so for those who might not have heard: The Oxford shooter pled guilty to murder and terrorism charges this past week, and gave a statement that most court-watchers believe will be key to the prosecution of his parents because his account of things is that his father bought the gun at the shooter's request, with money the shooter had saved, and that it was stored unlocked and unsecured in the home so it was readily available when he decided to take it to school. The parents' trial is scheduled for January.

I didn't see that update but thanks. Someone up-thread mentioned holding parent's responsible for their child's actions. I personally think holding any gun owner responsible for crimes committed due to their negligence would be a positive step. I don't mean someone breaks in and steals a lockbox with a gun and then uses it but if you store your guns unsafely or provide access to them for a minor or someone that shouldn't have them you should be held liable. The level of culpability would depend on the circumstances.

I don't think every instance of a school shooting should reflect legally on the parents, you can do everything right or even just not know your child has weapons, but if you contribute in any way you should be an accessory to the crime.

That's kind of our mindset about problems, though. We want a shining silver bullet solution (no pun intended) that will 100% solve an issue, not partial solutions and marginal improvement. If an energy policy reduces our overall emissions but still uses some fossil fuels, it is derided as feel-good bunk. If we house some of the easier-to-serve homeless, the conversation is only about all those we failed to house. If we change health care policy to insure millions of previously uninsured, or partially address affordability it is widely considered a failed law because millions are left uninsured or because costs continue to rise even if it is at a slower pace. And since in the real world, complex problems just don't have simple, effective solutions, that tends to promote paralysis.

The ignorant look for one magic remedy to complex problems because they are incapable, or unwilling, to recognize complexity and break it into individual elements. I think most people are good people but most people are also not all that knowledgeable about the world. They don't really seek to understand nuance or the opposite side of arguments. Instead they dig into a position and rely on echo-chambers to reinforce that position. Some of these people are not what I would call dumb, they could be very knowledgeable in their trade or area of specialization, but they aren't very good with complex thought outside of those narrow specialties.

 

[porschegrl]

That's kind of our mindset about problems, though. We want a shining silver bullet solution (no pun intended) that will 100% solve an issue, not partial solutions and marginal improvement. If an energy policy reduces our overall emissions but still uses some fossil fuels, it is derided as feel-good bunk. If we house some of the easier-to-serve homeless, the conversation is only about all those we failed to house. If we change health care policy to insure millions of previously uninsured, or partially address affordability it is widely considered a failed law because millions are left uninsured or because costs continue to rise even if it is at a slower pace. And since in the real world, complex problems just don't have simple, effective solutions, that tends to promote paralysis.

 

[mrodgers]

But there are already laws limiting "arms" (2nd amendment doesn't say "guns"). Why aren't those an infringement?

I did not say they were not an infringement. Most 2A advocates will agree that the laws that are already in the books are an infringement.

\Federal law requires background checks for firearm purchases from FFLs in all states. If you’re buying a new or used gun from a retail gun store, you’ll fill out an ATF Form 4473.

What’s not uniform across the country are the laws regarding firearm sales between private parties. Be it at a gun show, or elsewhere, most states don’t require a NICS check for sales between private citizens who aren’t federally licensed firearm dealers.

So, if that loophole is closed, does that penalize you?

I don't go to gun shows. I don't have experience with gun shows. Can you purchase a firearm at a gun show from a private citizen? I don't know, I assume you can not as part of the gun show. You can certainly purchase a firearm from a private person, but I don't think it would be part of the show. Think how you are at the gun show and I notice your firearm and offer to buy it. That is a private sale, not part of the gun show, thus no loop hole. No different than offering to buy a firearm from someone walking around the grocery store. It's a private sale and is not tied to the venue you just happen to be in.

I could be wrong, it's a lot of assumption on my part (I share an office with someone far more knowledgeable than I being he has his FFL but can't ask him at the moment. Quick googling says you can private sell at the gun show but the majority are dealers.) However, the private sale just happens to be between 2 people at the location and has no bearing on there being a loop hole at a gun show. Step off the property and do the sale, now it for sure has nothing to do with a gun show.

Totally agree. People (like @mrodgers ) who claim "any law against guns is an infringement" is ignoring there already ARE limits to the 2A, that they apparently don't(?) have problems with.

Because there are limits, does not mean they are not unconstitutional. Apparently we don't have problems with that? We certainly do have a problem with that. The fact that the government does infringe on our rights does not mean we accept that.



Coworker just popped in. Says as far as he is aware, most gun shows require venders to have an FFL (note I said "most" before more words are commented on that I did not state.) He says he can go and set up as a vendor but not a dealer because he has his FFL. Typically, just anyone can not, the shows typically require the FFL. That's not to say you can't buy a firearm from Johnny who also happens to be there. That is a private sale and nothing to do with the gun show, no different than in your kitchen or in the parking lot of Walmart.

 

[mrodgers]

A majority of Americans agree with you, including me. Which is why I don't see why we can't at least get that little bit of legislation done. Will it prevent all mass shootings? No, of course not. There is no one single thing that is going to solve the issue, but we can't even take little steps that most agree on like universal background checks to help.

Assuming majority of Americans agree with your statements. A narrative spouted off by MSM and certain advocacy groups of a certain ideology with no accurate background information, I have my doubts on that statement.

 

[John VN]

......................................... no one can convince me they thought single shot muskets would be the cutting edge of firearms for the rest of time.................................

I doubt they would have envisioned citizens owning ARs or parents buying bulletproof backpacks as a back to school item for their children.

 

[VandVsmama]

Once again, it's a mental health problem.

 

[AppleDumpling]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are amazing documents /definitely flexible as the world changes. The founding fathers were geniuses.

Perhaps, but the reason the 2nd amendment is so controversial is because it is poorly written, thus leaving it open to interpretation. One could say that it pertains only to militias or bearing arms against the state. The legal argument that it extends to individual rights to own guns really only came into prominence in the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

I don't go to gun shows. I don't have experience with gun shows. Can you purchase a firearm at a gun show from a private citizen? I don't know, I assume you can not as part of the gun show. You can certainly purchase a firearm from a private person, but I don't think it would be part of the show. Think how you are at the gun show and I notice your firearm and offer to buy it. That is a private sale, not part of the gun show, thus no loop hole. No different than offering to buy a firearm from someone walking around the grocery store. It's a private sale and is not tied to the venue you just happen to be in.

I could be wrong, it's a lot of assumption on my part (I share an office with someone far more knowledgeable than I being he has his FFL but can't ask him at the moment. Quick googling says you can private sell at the gun show but the majority are dealers.) However, the private sale just happens to be between 2 people at the location and has no bearing on there being a loop hole at a gun show. Step off the property and do the sale, now it for sure has nothing to do with a gun show.

Maybe you are in one of the states I listed that closed the gun show loophole and all sales at gun shows require background checks?

It sounds like your main objection to closing this loophole is that I have used the standard terminology of 'gun show loophole' while you very correctly note that this is a loop hole of all private gun sales - not only those conducted at gun shows (in many states). Maybe if it is called 'private gun sales background check loophole' it would be more correct and comprehensive.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Once again, it's a mental health problem.

So the solution would be expand access to and affordability of mental healthcare and perhaps improving the ratio of guidance counselors to students to better support individual students that might be at risk? Great, lets do that!

 

[mrodgers]

I’ll opine that the idea that you need a gun to protect yourself in 99.9% of areas in this country is in itself some kind of delusional mental illness.

My mother states, "Don't ever use Uber! People have been shot using Uber!"

I replied with questions. Do you still go to church? Do you still go to Walmart? Do you still go down town? Do you still go to the park? Do you still walk down the road? Do you still drive down the road? Do you still drive down the interstate? Do you still go to restaurants? And on and on and on because she selected Uber as dangerous, meanwhile with every place and activity she does, there has been a shooting at some time or another.

What is the violent crime statistic in the US? What is the home fire statistic in the US? There's a lot of crime every day. I do have statistics for house fires, seems to be around 25%. 361,000 residential home fires in 2021, out of 140 million homes. Twice as many people in the US as that home stat, and 2.55 million violent crimes out of 335 million people in the US. I bet you have a smoke detector in the home and possibly a fire extinguisher, why wouldn't you protect yourself from that kind of statistic of violent crimes as well?

 

[Aladora]

How do you know they don’t help, though? Yes, as platitudes, they are obnoxious to hear, I agree with that. But if there are caring people in the world who are truly praying for world peace and thinking genuinely about people horribly affected by these tragedies, then I think that can only be a good thing. If I say I am sending thoughts and prayers to someone, it’s because I’m really thinking about them and praying for them, otherwise I wouldn’t say so. These are positive, altruistic feelings, if nothing else, and that can only be a good thing, can’t it? The world needs more of this, in my view. Religious feelings are over and above that. I don’t think you have to be religious, perse, to offer good feelings toward people or a situation.

I am a cancer survivor, as well. I trained myself to keep positive thoughts, not because I thought they could heal me, necessarily, but because it helped keep my quality of life better while I was going through treatment. I also did pray, as well, because that is something I personally believe in. I just hate seeing people say “thoughts and prayers” are useless. Obviously, those alone are not going to completely solve this problem we have. (No one thing will.) But I don’t see how they can hurt, and maybe some good thoughts toward eachother in our world is something that really could help, and probably do help, more than we realize. YMMV.

I did not mean that T&P don't help, in fact, I said that if they help *you* then by all means, go for it. But let's not act under the false impression that they are the solution in any way. Thinking good thoughts is not going to stop mass shootings.

Just like cancer, thoughts and prayers can help the person going through it but other actions must be taken such as surgery and/or chemo. When I was going through my cancer treatments, I tried to keep as positive an attitude as possible because like you, it helped me with my quality of life. At the same time, I still did all the surgeries and chemo that was recommended to me because thinking good thoughts was not going to get rid of my cancer.

I see gun control issues in a similar way, it has to be dealt with from multiple angles. Yes, we can all think good thoughts and send out whatever prayers we want to the people affected by a tragedy, but those are not going to stop them from happening.

Is the solution more mental health help? Maybe, it can't hurt and it definitely can help!

Is the solution a total ban on guns? Probably not, if someone is willing to shoot up a school then they are probably willing to get a gun illegally. Bans will not stop this.

Is the solution less access to guns in homes? Again, it can't hurt. If someone going through a mental health crisis has easy access to guns it makes it easier for them to do something terrible.

Is the solution tighter gun control laws? Well, this is a complicated one. All I can say is anecdotal at best. Canada has pretty strict gun control laws and since 1989, there have been 8 school shootings that had at least 1 fatality. Australia has even stricter gun control laws than Canada and in the same time frame (1989-2022) there have been 2 shootings that had fatalities, and none since 2002. In the USA since 1989, there have been at least 240 school shootings that had 1 or more fatality. Even adjusting for the fact that the States has a population 10 times that of Canada, instead of having a rate of 10 times that of Canada, in the time frame 1989-2022, the US has a school shooting rate of 30 times that of Canada. When you count ALL school shootings regardless of fatalities, that number jumps to 489, a rate more than 60 times that of Canada. And btw, I am not taking into this count any mass shootings that were outside of schools such as the one in Vegas or in Orlando to name two. These are just the ones that were in a school and had a fatality.

It is a really complex issue and one that does not have a single (pardon the pun) silver bullet solution. But I think we can all agree that no matter what solution is reached, there is a problem that MUST be solved.