Is this just our New Normal?

[Trish]

How do school shootings compare with courthouse shootings? I know they happen at both, but I'm under the impression that courthouse shootings are more rare.

 

Maybe the difference is metal detectors?

 

 

[Cammie]

So you're saying that only the legislation enacted since Newtown counts?

 

That was the information in the article you linked.  I had nothing to do with your choice of article.

[City Mouse]

I do think that if children had less access to guns that there would be less shootings done by children. Perhaps adults who have allowed children to obtain their firearms should be prosecuted much more severely. I was at a school where a 5th grader brought a gun (that belonged to his known gang member older brother) to school in his back pack because some kids had threaten to beat him up.

 

In addition to limiting access to guns, I strongly feel that schools need to work harder to put a lid on bulling at school and provide better support for kids who are being bullied. There also needs to be better mental health services in states and communities in general. Until those people are given the help they need, they will find ways to kill people even if guns are removed from the equation. I do think that increased gun control would reduce the numbers of shooting deaths in schools, but if the underlying issues are not addressed, gun control is just a band-aid.

[elfgivas]

we are parsing horror.  

 

if we, some of the most compassionate and thoughtful people i have found, cannot simply be horrified and not split hairs, then what hope do we have?

 

children died.  they didn't need to.  i am horrified.  

 

we CAN do something.  we can do many somethings.

 

we haven't done much.  i am ashamed that we haven't done much.

 

australia's reaction to the Port Arthur shooting truly does show that if people have the will to change their reality, they can.

 

let's get it done.

ann 

[TCB]

we are parsing horror.  

 

if we, some of the most compassionate and thoughtful people i have found, cannot simply be horrified and not split hairs, then what hope do we have?

 

children died.  they didn't need to.  i am horrified.  

 

we CAN do something.  we can do many somethings.

 

we haven't done much.  i am ashamed that we haven't done much.

 

australia's reaction to the Port Arthur shooting truly does show that if people have the will to change their reality, they can.

 

let's get it done.

ann 

 

 

It is truly horrifying. I often wonder how we can bear to live with this. It seems to be one of the few things that the "can do" , "get er done" culture in this country feels powerless about.

[In2why]

http://rt.com/usa/164948-bulletproof-blankets-shield-school-shootings/

 

I don't know whether to cry or order one for my grandson.   We can teach our kindergartners and up to protect themselves by hiding under a bullet proof blanket so they can protect themselves, because we as a society can't figure out a way to keep them safe.  

[umsami]

Or we could all join the NRA and take over. NRA membership is open to everyone, isn't it? What if a bunch of pacifists joined the NRA, or just people in favor of stricter gun control. What if enough of them joined to change the face of the NRA? What if we changed the NRA's lobby to the other side?

 

Thing is, I seem to remember reading that something like 83% of people favor gun control regulations.  So, I don't necessarily think that the NRA votes their members' views.  They like to hype up that Obama or the gov't is coming to get your guns, but it hasn't happened.

[poppy]

Was there material in the articles that showed that he wasn't influenced by other school shootings?

 

A freshman in high school shot someone then shot himself.  Given that, I think you are asking the wrong question.   Sounds like you are working really hard to find a way to blame reporting  and the media.

[umsami]

Or we could all join the NRA and take over. NRA membership is open to everyone, isn't it? What if a bunch of pacifists joined the NRA, or just people in favor of stricter gun control. What if enough of them joined to change the face of the NRA? What if we changed the NRA's lobby to the other side?

 

dp.  sorry. 

 

I will say that I agree with not publicizing the shooter's name at all.  Publicize the victims, fine…but not the shooter.  Where I work, we try and do that with DV homicides too.  We talk about XYZ's murderer being convicted, but we really try to hide the abuser's name as much as possible.

[Word Nerd]

That was the information in the article you linked.  I had nothing to do with your choice of article.

 

I posted it as an example but didn't intend for that article to be taken as the sole source of gun control legislation that has been enacted by states. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

[ajfries]

http://rt.com/usa/164948-bulletproof-blankets-shield-school-shootings/

 

I don't know whether to cry or order one for my grandson.   We can teach our kindergartners and up to protect themselves by hiding under a bullet proof blanket so they can protect themselves, because we as a society can't figure out a way to keep them safe.  

 

This disgusts me. The NEED for this disgusts me. I was looking at the map linked up thread & my DS said "Oh! A map! What are all those little dots?" I couldn't tell him. Our schools should be safe. Safe from bullies. Safe from drugs, alcohol and violence. Period. Dot. Why is that too complex to accomplish??

[In2why]

One thing the media can do is stop using these murderers names.  Do not make them famous.  I do believe there are people who kill knowing it will get them on TV and attention.  Even if it is just horrible attention and they are dead.   The news analyzes who they are and why they did their crimes.    I believe they can do that by calling them John Doe or murderer#118.   We need to stop giving them any type of podium or voice at all. 

[poppy]

One thing the media can do is stop using these murderers names.  Do not make them famous.  I do believe there are people who kill knowing it will get them on TV and attention.  Even if it is just horrible attention and they are dead.   The news analyzes who they are and why they did their crimes.    I believe they can do that by calling them John Doe or murderer#118.   We need to stop giving them any type of podium or voice at all. 

 

One shooting at a school a week.  The vast majority of the shooters are not anyone that any of us could name. That doesn't stop the momentum.

 

But I do think the "just stop talking about it!" suggestion is pretty self serving from the NRA's perspective. Because that silences the victims & their families too.

[Trish]

One shooting at a school a week.  The vast majority of the shooters are not anyone that any of us could name. That doesn't stop the momentum.

 

But I do think the "just stop talking about it!" suggestion is pretty self serving from the NRA's perspective. Because that silences the victims & their families too.

 

Do you know what you want done, besides talking about it?

 

[goldberry]

I keep seeing people say the U.S. has done "nothing" to curb gun violence. Do any of the state measures that have been implemented count as common-sense gun control measures? 

 

 

 

I honestly think individual state measures will make little difference.  When you can drive 3-4 hours (or less) into another state with more relaxed measures, then what difference does it make?

[goldberry]

Do you know what you want done, besides talking about it?

 

 

Here is a description of what Australia passed.  This is an *example* of a program that obviously worked.

from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php

 

1996 National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program

The resolutions agreed to at the APMC meeting on May 10, 1996, provided for the establishment of a uniform approach to firearms regulation that would include

• a federal ban on the importation of “all semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms, included in Licence Category D, and control of the importation of those firearms included in Licence Category C.†The sale, resale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, and use of such firearms would also be banned by the states and territories, other than in exceptional circumstances (relating to military or law enforcement purposes and occupational categories, depending on the category of the firearm);
• standard categories of firearms, including the two largely prohibited categories (C and D), which include certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, and a restricted category for handguns (category H);
• a requirement for a separate permit for the acquisition of every firearm, with a twenty-eight-day waiting period applying to the issuing of such permits, and the establishment of a nationwide firearms registration system;
• a uniform requirement for all firearms sales to be conducted only by or through licensed firearms dealers, and certain minimum principles that would underpin rules relating to the recording of firearms transactions by dealers and right of inspection by police;
• restrictions on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period and a requirement that dealers only sell ammunition for firearms for which the purchaser is licensed;
• ensuring that “personal protection†would not be regarded as a “genuine reason†for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the states and territories;
• standardized classifications to define a “genuine reason†that an applicant must show for owning, possessing, or using a firearm, including reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting/hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements (additional requirements of showing a genuine need for the particular type of firearm and securing related approvals would be added for firearms in categories B, C, D, and H);
• in addition to the demonstration of a “genuine reason,†other basic requirements would apply for the issuing of firearms licenses, specifically that the applicant must be aged eighteen years or over, be a “fit and proper person,†be able to prove his or her identity, and undertake adequate safety training (safety training courses would be subject to accreditation and be “comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence categoriesâ€);
• firearms licenses would be required to bear a photograph of the licensee, be endorsed with a category of firearm, include the holder’s address, be issued after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days, be issued for a period of no more than five years, and contain a reminder of safe storage responsibilities;
• licenses would only be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage requirements and following an inspection by licensing authorities of the licensee’s storage facilities;
• minimum standards for the refusal or cancellation of licenses, including criminal convictions for violent offenses in the past five years, unsafe storage of firearms, failure to notify of a change of address, and “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearmâ€; and
• the establishment of uniform standards for the security and storage of firearms, including a requirement that ammunition be stored in locked containers separate from any firearms. The minimum standards for category C, D, and H firearms would include “storage in a locked, steel safe with a thickness to ensure it is not easily penetrable, bolted to the structure of a building.â€

 

 

 

ensuring that “personal protection†would not be regarded as a “genuine reason†for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the states and territories; 

This would undoubtedly freak out half the United States, so you could chuck this part but keep the others.  It was pointed out that Australia specifically targeted the type of guns that were used in a *majority* of violent crime and mass shooting.  That seems like a pretty common sense measure.

 

They also added strict and significant penalties for violation of these laws.

ETA they also had a buyback program that drastically reduced the overal number of guns.

[Scrub Jay]

Reynolds high school here in Michigan had a school shooting yesterday. It only made the local news. So there is another tragedy to add to the growing pile.

 

It makes my heart heavy.

 

It made the national news - hence why I started this thread.  The link in my OP is about yesterday's shooting.  The president even spoke out about gun control in response to the shooting.

 

ETA: Sorry, just saw you said Reynolds but Michigan.  Did you mean the Reynolds school shooting in OR or was there seriously another Reynolds school shooting??

[poppy]

Do you know what you want done, besides talking about it?

 

 

You asked me before and I answered before. I want commonsense gun control measures. We can start with Obama's proposal from 2013.  This is a link to it (15 page document) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2Fwh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf&ei=e3iYU6naHc6eyATn0YGoDQ&usg=AFQjCNHxaFs5Icyqqz_odMqLCgk3DG0uKw&sig2=EA0S0wiijkYWiOs8swRTaA&bvm=bv.68693194,d.aWw

[SadieMarie]

In my lifetime I have seen guns go from being tools (for hunting, for the military, for the police...) to something else that is just hard to describe. We have had a change in our culture. We have states making it fine for groups of people to carry huge guns openly into restaurants, to little league games, to stores. The NRA is afraid to censure them. They are losers who think a gun makes them not losers anymore. A gun, a big scary one, makes you important, at least to yourself and others like you I guess.

 

We have state laws that basically say that if you can provoke or frighten someone into confronting you then you get to shoot them. And I think that is a fair description of how stand your ground often works.

 

We have people wanting and believing in some sort of revolution and stockpiling weapons, the Las Vegas shooters for example, two police officers, husbands and fathers, are now dead. And I feel the need to point out that they were armed and trained. But unless the whole good guy with a gun solution to bad guys with guns means we all need to go about our daily lives carrying guns with our fingers on the trigger (which would not actually increase my feelings of safety, or my actual safety). This is not about safety, or protecting yourself with guns.

 

We have politicians and the media defending vigilantes who point guns at law enforcement officers at the Bundy ranch. They are made into heroes, how about tackling the media portrayal there lol.

 

I am all for enforcing the gun laws we have. I am all for having better ones. But until we look at the people who think they need all these guns and why, and deal with that, I am not sure we will be successful, not without even more violence.

[Laurie4b]

A freshman in high school shot someone then shot himself.  Given that, I think you are asking the wrong question.   Sounds like you are working really hard to find a way to blame reporting  and the media.

 

The question I  was addressing was, "How can we prevent mass shootings?"  You answered my general thoughts with a specifc: "Well it didn't happen in this specific incident. " So I asked if you knew for sure that the shooter hadn't been influenced by other shootings because it's possible that there was evidence to the contrary that I didn't know about.

 

I think that the way these incidents have been reported has in fact contributed to more of them, just as media reporting of teen suicide increases those. I don't get how that equates to "trying really hard to blame reporting and the media." 

 

I noted in my first post that I think media reporting is one puzzle piece. If we want to stop shootings, don't we need to look at any piece of the puzzle that might help and put them all together? Lots of people had already mentioned gun control measures.

[elfgivas]

what to do?

 

this is a step: we are talking about it openly.  now we need to talk about it openly with people we know in real life.

 

we need to vote with this issue in mind.  it may mean voting for folks who have another policy we don't like.  but if talking about gun control means a candidate loses, they won't do it, and we need it done.

 

we have to be willing to put money behind it.  the anti-regulation group has huge money behind them.  

 

and i think we need to work on changing viewpoints.  i have promised myself not to stay silent when people insist their second amendment rights are more important than children's lives.  it isn't easy, but its important.  whatever they were thinking when they framed the second amendment, i'm pretty sure it wasn't automatic weapons in Chipotle.  

 

fwiw,

ann 

[Aelwydd]

Sorry, but people kill people and they still would even if guns were illegal.  Look at the bombings that there are in this country and throughout the world.  I remember bomb threats when in school and I also remember pipe bombs occasionally being found.

 

It is really ashamed that people kill people, but it has been going on since the beginning of time.

 

Yes, so the solution is to arm the "good guys" with pipe bombs.  (Following the NRA's logic here.)

[Word Nerd]

 

I think that the way these incidents have been reported has in fact contributed to more of them, just as media reporting of teen suicide increases those. I don't get how that equates to "trying really hard to blame reporting and the media." 

 

 

I agree. Here's a recent essay by a reporter who also questions whether media coverage of these events glorifies mass killers and contributes to the problem.

[Laurie4b]

I agree. Here's a recent essay by a reporter who also questions whether media coverage of these events glorifies mass killers and contributes to the problem.

 

Link didn't work. What's the title of the piece?

[Word Nerd]

Link didn't work. What's the title of the piece?

 

I fixed it above.

[Colleen]

I've used a bevy of "likes" on this thread, and that makes me happy.  I'm truly comforted to read thoughtful comments such as:

 

I disagree. Let's not be cautious. Let's not emphasize how small the scale is of one shooting in a school every week.  Let's decide that that's horrible, and we're not OK with it, and change it.

 

I'm surprised (although maybe I shouldn't be) that the emphasis seems to be on "this is not really that bad," "this is a media problem," and "given our population this is fine."

 

REALLY?  Children being shot in school is a media problem?  Even if there was just one school shooting with one dead child - shouldn't that be front page news??  What kind of a society would we be if we agreed that children being shot in school isn't really "newsworthy" any more?

 

I also don't understand the need to bring out statistics of "crime is going up" or "crime is going down."  Or stats on "there are more shootings" or "there are fewer shootings."

 

Does a child shot in school only matter if it is happening more often than usual?  Or if it is in the context of a rise in violence?  Doesn't it matter as an independent fact?

 

I personally don't care whether there are more dead children this year than last year.  The problem is the dead children.  And the children that will be killed.  Doesn't matter one bit if they fall over or under the "normal rate" of school shootings.  God - do we really have to even have a "normal" level of acceptable school violence?

 

We have the ability to change this and we as a nation choose to not take measures to even attempt to. And the answer I'm seeing in this thread is, well America is really big. Sometimes killers use knives too.   It's the media's fault for reporting this.

 

How about, let's look at our decision to choose to have a culture where people use assault rifles for recreational fun,  and it's really easy for mentally ill people get those weapons too, and sometimes they slaughter kids with it. We can do something about it, or nothing.  Our choice.  "America is really big!" is the choice to be ok with it, from what I can see.  I am not OK with it.

 

we are parsing horror.  

 

if we, some of the most compassionate and thoughtful people i have found, cannot simply be horrified and not split hairs, then what hope do we have?

 

children died.  they didn't need to.  i am horrified.  

 

we CAN do something.  we can do many somethings.

 

we haven't done much.  i am ashamed that we haven't done much.

 

australia's reaction to the Port Arthur shooting truly does show that if people have the will to change their reality, they can.

 

let's get it done.

ann 

 

I honestly think individual state measures will make little difference.  When you can drive 3-4 hours (or less) into another state with more relaxed measures, then what difference does it make?

 

In my lifetime I have seen guns go from being tools (for hunting, for the military, for the police...) to something else that is just hard to describe. We have had a change in our culture. We have states making it fine for groups of people to carry huge guns openly into restaurants, to little league games, to stores. The NRA is afraid to censure them. They are losers who think a gun makes them not losers anymore. A gun, a big scary one, makes you important, at least to yourself and others like you I guess.

We have state laws that basically say that if you can provoke or frighten someone into confronting you then you get to shoot them. And I think that is a fair description of how stand your ground often works.

We have people wanting and believing in some sort of revolution and stockpiling weapons, the Las Vegas shooters for example, two police officers, husbands and fathers, are now dead. And I feel the need to point out that they were armed and trained. But unless the whole good guy with a gun solution to bad guys with guns means we all need to go about our daily lives carrying guns with our fingers on the trigger (which would not actually increase my feelings of safety, or my actual safety). This is not about safety, or protecting yourself with guns.

We have politicians and the media defending vigilantes who point guns at law enforcement officers at the Bundy ranch. They are made into heroes, how about tackling the media portrayal there lol.

I am all for enforcing the gun laws we have. I am all for having better ones. But until we look at the people who think they need all these guns and why, and deal with that, I am not sure we will be successful, not without even more violence.

 

Bravo, bravo, and I couldn't agree more.  Surrounded as I am by good people who think they need to pack their weapon of choice when attending church, watching a soccer game, taking a coffee break at the farmer's cafe, I begin to feel like I'm living in crazy land.  To those of you whose posts I keep "liking", I ask ~ in the words of Mr. Rogers ~ "Will you be my neighbor?" : ) 

what to do?

 

this is a step: we are talking about it openly.  now we need to talk about it openly with people we know in real life.

 

 

Yes and no.  As anyone who knows me on this forum can attest, I'm not one to keep quiet.  I am perfectly willing to talk openly ~ and to listen ~ and willing to put my words into action.  Twenty-some years ago as a young adult, I volunteered with the gun control lobby.  I look back now and realize how innocent times were then.  I feel like all my work, and the work of others, was largely for naught.  

 

I am stunned at the change in our culture that SadieMarie alluded to above.  What I see and hear in my pleasant community is nearly unfathomable to me.  Never in my life did I know people actually believed these things, lived this way.  The guns for hunting and so on ~ well, that's not my cuppa, but I've no issue with it.  For that matter, I don't have an issue with guns ~ and here we can trot out the oft-used example of Swiss society, where gun ownership is the norm (and the law, for that matter).  It's something psychological, increasingly common in the American culture, that's accompanying the gun ownership.  It's a mentality that would be downright laughable were it not so real.

 

In order to function in this community; to not be considered even more a tree-hugging, left-wing troublemaker than I already am; to not thoroughly embarrass my children, who already have to "suffer" the oddity of their mother's "Go organic!" bumper stickers and so on ~ in short, to be relatively peaceable and congenial and engage ~ I long ago gave up talking about gun control with most people here.  Trust me, these folks are NEVER going to come around to my way of thinking, not even the teensiest bit.  With each incident such as yesterday's school shooting, they hold their guns closer to their hearts.  Because, as noted, they're "good people" ~ and the good guys are the ones who are supposed to protect us, right?  Ahem.

[Mama Geek]

Yes, so the solution is to arm the "good guys" with pipe bombs.  (Following the NRA's logic here.)

 

Being allowed to carry gives law abiding citizens a fighting chance against criminals who aren't going to follow the laws anyway.

[Laurie]

One thing the media can do is stop using these murderers names.  Do not make them famous.  I do believe there are people who kill knowing it will get them on TV and attention.  Even if it is just horrible attention and they are dead.   The news analyzes who they are and why they did their crimes.    I believe they can do that by calling them John Doe or murderer#118.   We need to stop giving them any type of podium or voice at all. 

 

I disagree. 

 

I think we need to name these killers right away, and even if they're already dead let's not shield their families.  I'm so sick of reading these stories like the Newtown mother who takes her disturbed son target shooting.   And more recently, the SPU killer who had a history of mental issues, making threats, having police contact, being involuntarily committed for evaluation, and being involved with drugs and alcohol.   And yet he had worked at a shooting range while this was going on!  He lived with his parents, they must have had an inkling about all this, and yet they didn't feel any responsibility to talk to the employer.  Somebody like this has no business working around guns.  Period.  Any responsible person should know this and not sit idly by.

 

I think we need to keep naming the killers.  And like the old saying goes, "Shame, shame!  Everybody knows your name!"  And let's not stop with the killer.  Let's spread the shame to the people close to them who either encouraged or ignored their fascination with guns and killing.   And I don't want to see these people become "famous" because of their loved ones...Elliot Rodger's parents said in a statement that they want to help others...blah, blah, blah.  No thanks.  I don't want to see them sitting in front of some congressional committee, I don't want to see them making the rounds of talk shows, etc.  They had their chance, they blew it, so shut up now and go away.   Many of these people deserve no compassion, just public condemnation.

 

 

[Trish]

You asked me before and I answered before. I want commonsense gun control measures. We can start with Obama's proposal from 2013.  This is a link to it (15 page document) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2Fwh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf&ei=e3iYU6naHc6eyATn0YGoDQ&usg=AFQjCNHxaFs5Icyqqz_odMqLCgk3DG0uKw&sig2=EA0S0wiijkYWiOs8swRTaA&bvm=bv.68693194,d.aWw

 

The president's plan seems reasonable, but I don't know how much overall impact it will have.

 

I think adding metal detectors to schools would have quicker results.

[Laurie4b]

This article, linked from the article that Word Nerd linked above, cites a lot of research as to the effect of media coverage on the types of people who commit mass murders. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052

 

Quotes:

Whereas serial killers are driven by long-standing sadistic and sexual pleasure in inflicting pain, massacre killers usually have no prior history of violence. Instead, writes Eric W. Hickey, dean of the California School of Forensic Studies, in his 2009 book "Serial Murderers and Their Victims," massacre killers commit a single and final act in which violence becomes a "medium" to make a " 'final statement' in or about life." Fantasy, public expression and messaging are central to what motivates and defines massacre killings.

Mass shooters aim to tell a story through their actions. They create a narrative about how the world has forced them to act, and then must persuade themselves to believe it. The final step is crafting the story for others and telling it through spoken warnings beforehand, taunting words to victims or manifestos created for public airing.What these findings suggest is that mass shootings are a kind of theater. 

......

Aside from the wealth of qualitative evidence for imitation in massacre killings, there are also some hard numbers. A 1999 study by Dr. Mullen and others in the Archives of Suicide Research suggested that a 10-year outbreak of mass homicides had occurred in clusters rather than randomly. This effect was also found in a 2002 study by a group of German psychiatrists who examined 132 attempted rampage killings world-wide. There is a growing consensus among researchers that, whether or not the perpetrators are fully aware of it, they are following what has become a ready-made, free-floating template for young men to resolve their rage and express their sense of personal grandiosity.

Whatever the witch's brew of influences that produced this grisly script, treating mass killings as a kind of epidemic or contagion largely frees us from having to understand the particular causes of each act. Instead, we can focus on disrupting the spread.

 

There is a precedent for this approach in dealing with another form of violence: suicides. A 2003 study led by Columbia University psychiatrist Madelyn Gould found "ample evidence" of a suicide contagion effect, fed by reports in the media. A 2011 study in the journal BMC Public Health found, unsurprisingly, that this effect is especially strong for novel forms of suicide that receive outsize attention in the press.

Some researchers have even put the theory to the test. In 1984, a rash of suicides broke out on the subway system in Vienna. As the death toll climbed, a group of researchers at the Austrian Association for Suicide Prevention theorized that sensational reporting was inadvertently glorifying the suicides. Three years into the epidemic, the researchers persuaded local media to change their coverage by minimizing details and photos, avoiding romantic language and simplistic explanations of motives, moving the stories from the front page and keeping the word "suicide" out of the headlines. Subway suicides promptly dropped by 75%.

 

 

[TCB]

Being allowed to carry gives law abiding citizens a fighting chance against criminals who aren't going to follow the laws anyway.

 

 

I really think that this is part of the mentality that drives this whole thing. Why do you accept this?? There are places in the world, quite a few places where people don't feel that they have to carry a gun to feel safe. I know many feel like this is the reality here  but why do they accept this. Any suggestion of what can be done is immediately discounted as impossible and we don't have any real dialogue about solutions. Why do you accept that you must live in a country where kids get shot at in schools more than other countries and where kids get accidentally shot by themselves or their small friends with more frequency than a lot of other places? 

[RanchGirl]

I am not sure if people really want to talk about ideas here or not but I'll throw this out.  All these killers seem to have two things in common:  violent video games and psychotropic drugs.  Could we ban those, or at least restrict them to people over age 18?

 

I totally get the gun control instinct, but I'm not sure it would be helpful in actual practice.  There are already laws controlling the purchase of guns.  It is already illegal to threaten or kill people.  It's already illegal to bring guns to school.  It's already illegal to give guns to unstable children.  Chicago has very strict gun control laws that haven't made that city any safer.  So I think we need to look beyond the emotional cry for gun control and look at what might actually work.  Allowing teachers who attend voluntary training to concealed carry? 

[Colleen]

 

I suppose it is one way to consider addressing the problem, but I could never get on board with it.

 

Yabbut, you may not be on board, and I may not be on board, but we're along for the ride regardless ~ and we sure as heck aren't the ones driving the bus.  

[Trish]

I don't see the  need for automatic weapons, or even semi-automatic ones. So if the government were able to ban those (aside from the fact that the illegal ones would still be around) perhaps that would help.

 

But I don't EVER see this country getting to the point where a person is not allowed to own a firearm for self protection. That being the case, it will ALWAYS be possible that some kid/teen will get their hands on a parent's firearm and bring it to school.

 

Which is why I think adding metal detectors to schools is a better solution than working to change the gun laws. Although I don't oppose additional restrictions.

 

If we're trying to realistically protect kids.

[poppy]

 

 

All these killers seem to have two things in common:  violent video games and psychotropic drugs.

 

I really don't think "all" of the killers had those.

The one thing they all had in common was automatic weapons.

[Caroline]

The president's plan seems reasonable, but I don't know how much overall impact it will have.

 

I think adding metal detectors to schools would have quicker results.

Schools have multiple entry and exit points. Metal detectors at every door? How much are you willing to spend? How many teachers are you going to fire to pay for this? (That is the only way to shift budgets in schools.) Why should students, teachers, parents, etc. all be treated as criminals? How will we pay for the extra personnel to monitor them all day while the buildings are open, often more than 12 hours a day? Again, how many teachers are you willing to fire? Courthouses have metal detectors. There are still shootings in courthouses. How will this stop shootings in parking lots, fields, etc. are these metal detectors only for entering the building, or will everyone coming to a football, soccer, baseball, softball, lacrosse game have to go through them, too? So the kid gets stopped at the metal detector, he just pulls the gun and starts spree shooting then. Or are you planning to have armed guards at each entrance with the metal detectors?

[poppy]

I totally get the gun control instinct, but I'm not sure it would be helpful in actual practice.  There are already laws controlling the purchase of guns.  It is already illegal to threaten or kill people.  It's already illegal to bring guns to school.  It's already illegal to give guns to unstable children.  Chicago has very strict gun control laws that haven't made that city any safer.  So I think we need to look beyond the emotional cry for gun control and look at what might actually work.  Allowing teachers who attend voluntary training to concealed carry?

 

More guns and armed teachers? No.

Close the loopholes that allow straw purchases would be a great starting point.

 

A lot of people have mentioned it was better 25-30 years ago. How have guns changed since then? Did people stock up on military-style assault weapons as much as they do now? Was unlimited ammo the norm?  If we can't get rid of guns, let's dial it back to a time that felt saner.

[goldberry]

With each incident such as yesterday's school shooting, they hold their guns closer to their hearts.  

 

This is the truth.  It's just another example of insisting on believing something although the facts say otherwise. 

 

"If we have gun violence, we need MORE guns in the hands of the right people."  That has been shown NOT to be the case in other countries, where stricter gun control WORKS to reduce gun violence.  

 

Like the saying....The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.... 

[goldberry]

I don't see the  need for automatic weapons, or even semi-automatic ones. So if the government were able to ban those (aside from the fact that the illegal ones would still be around) perhaps that would help.

 

 

 

We have not been able to accomplish even this.  That would at least be a starting point, but have we ever even come close?

[mathnerd]

Questions from a confused non-gun owner:

 

Are there no police or law enforcement people working in America? Why should someone have an AK47 type gun at home for protection? Is making a 911 call when something bad happens out of fashion? Or is the police force so inefficient that people stock pile ammo in their home - sort of DIY law enforcement in case of a burglary? 

 

 

I am genuinely confused by the gun culture. What are these people protecting themselves from when they buy powerful rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo? A large pack of rabid wild animals that might attack them in a rural area? A burglar or a criminal? Multiple terrorists attacking a household at the same time? If such a large scale terrorist attack happens, are they planning on jumping on the streets like in the Terminator movies with guns blazing?

 

I live in the suburbs, have a desk job, I socialize with people in my neighborhood and live a quiet life. I have met one IT guy who works with computers and plays video games on his xbox at home who has an assault rifle. According to him, he owns it because he likes it. He lives in a secure apartment and works in a suburban blue chip company - so no wild animals or criminals here. Beyond that, I don't know any one who owns a gun. I never understand why people need automatic weapons (multiple kinds) in their home.

 

I am trying to understand what constitutional rights of a person are taken away if a ban on guns that fire many rounds (assault rifles?) comes into effect.

 

Will a small hand gun suffice for protection? And if a mentally ill child steals his family's small gun and shoots at school with it, will the damage be lesser than if that child got hold of an assault rifle? Will this question offend the NRA or their lobbyists? 

 

I am happy to write to my local senator about my views if that would help in any way. But, I know that the views expressed by her are the same as mine already. I don't know what else I can do about it.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

 "Automatic weapons" are strictly regulated by the federal government and have been for many years.

 

President Roosevelt claimed in 1934 that "Federal men are constantly facing machine-gun fire in the pursuit of gangsters."5 The result of FDR's campaign was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which to this day requires that before a private citizen may take possession of a fully-automatic firearm he must pay a $200 tax to the Internal Revenue Service and be approved by the Treasury Department to own the firearm, which is registered to the owner with the federal government.6

 

"Semi-automatics" are common and require one pull per shot.  Nothing magical or extra-dangerous about them.  You do not have to register them unless their is some local or state law that requires that.  Personally, I find them more difficult to use than pistols because you have to have some strength to pull back the slide.

 

"Assault Rifles" and "Military-style Rifles" are functionally the same are other rifles.  Military rifles are popular because they can be accessorized with a variety of scopes, grips, etc.  They shoot the same cartridges as hunting rifles and many people use them to hunt.

 

Many police departments and most government law enforcement agencies prefer them and they are being purchased in large quantities (along with the ammunition) by both of these entities.   

 

If you look at the FBI crime statistics, you will find that handguns are used  far more often than rifles in homicides and nobody seems to be in a big hurry to ban them.  

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

 

 

 

 

 

 

[goldberry]

 "Automatic weapons" are strictly regulated by the federal government and have been for many years.

 

President Roosevelt claimed in 1934 that "Federal men are constantly facing machine-gun fire in the pursuit of gangsters."5 The result of FDR's campaign was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which to this day requires that before a private citizen may take possession of a fully-automatic firearm he must pay a $200 tax to the Internal Revenue Service and be approved by the Treasury Department to own the firearm, which is registered to the owner with the federal government.6

 

"Semi-automatics" are common and require one pull per shot.  Nothing magical or extra-dangerous about them.  You do not have to register them unless their is some local or state law that requires that.  Personally, I find them more difficult to use than pistols because you have to have some strength to pull back the slide.

 

"Assault Rifles" and "Military-style Rifles" are functionally the same are other rifles.  Military rifles are popular because they can be accessorized with a variety of scopes, grips, etc.  They shoot the same cartridges as hunting rifles and many people use them to hunt.

 

Many police departments and most government law enforcement agencies prefer them and they are being purchased in large quantities (along with the ammunition) by both of these entities.   

 

If you look at the FBI crime statistics, you will find that handguns are used  far more often than rifles in homicides and nobody seems to be in a big hurry to ban them.  

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

 

 

So is there a reason why automatic weapons should not be banned altogether, rather than just having to pay a tax?  Asking honestly, not snarkily.  I really am wondering about the other side here.

 

The Australia regulations mention "semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms" and "semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns" as banned items. It seems to me if you still have those items in the population, you are still taking a greater risk of those being used in violence.    How would the general population be harmed by not having those items?

[goldberry]

Just thinking aloud here...isn't the idea of guns for "self-defense" a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy?  If we are not allowed to ban certain guns for the purposes of self-defense, then of course there will be more guns in the general population, which leads to more guns falling into the hands of criminals, which leads to more gun violence, leading to more people thinking they need guns for self-defense.

 

If guns have to be made availble to the general population, then of course they are more easily available to criminals as well.

 

The situation in Australia showed that disallowing guns for the purpose of self-defense, did not result in more people dying because they didn't have a gun to defend themselves.  It resulted in less people dying because of less guns in the general population.

[shawthorne44]

Questions from a confused non-gun owner:

 

Are there no police or law enforcement people working in America? Why should someone have an AK47 type gun at home for protection? Is making a 911 call when something bad happens out of fashion? Or is the police force so inefficient that people stock pile ammo in their home - sort of DIY law enforcement in case of a burglary? 

 

 

I am genuinely confused by the gun culture. What are these people protecting themselves from when they buy powerful rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo? A large pack of rabid wild animals that might attack them in a rural area? A burglar or a criminal? Multiple terrorists attacking a household at the same time? If such a large scale terrorist attack happens, are they planning on jumping on the streets like in the Terminator movies with guns blazing?

 

I live in the suburbs, have a desk job, I socialize with people in my neighborhood and live a quiet life. I have met one IT guy who works with computers and plays video games on his xbox at home who has an assault rifle. According to him, he owns it because he likes it. He lives in a secure apartment and works in a suburban blue chip company - so no wild animals or criminals here. Beyond that, I don't know any one who owns a gun. I never understand why people need automatic weapons (multiple kinds) in their home.

 

I am trying to understand what constitutional rights of a person are taken away if a ban on guns that fire many rounds (assault rifles?) comes into effect.

 

Will a small hand gun suffice for protection? And if a mentally ill child steals his family's small gun and shoots at school with it, will the damage be lesser than if that child got hold of an assault rifle? Will this question offend the NRA or their lobbyists? 

 

I am happy to write to my local senator about my views if that would help in any way. But, I know that the views expressed by her are the same as mine already. I don't know what else I can do about it.

 

 

Will a small handgun suffice for protection?  Maybe, maybe not.  It could very easily take more than one bullet to stop a criminal before they could harm you.  In my gun safety class they said that someone with a knife 10 feet away can kill you even if you have a gun pointed at them.  They might die, but who cares?  Also, someone protecting themselves is unlikely to be very accurate.  I would much much rather have plenty of bullets loaded than to shoot and miss at a bad guy and then run out of bullets.  

 

As far as quantity of firearms, some people just think they are cool and they like to have a variety.  If someone wants to have a lightweight 22 rifle, and an early Smith and Wesson revolver, and a rifle that uses black powder, and a Glock with a 14-magazine, and a tiny titanium automatic, i won't knock anyone else because of it anymore than I would have a problem with someone having multiple China sets.  

[Caroline]

Will a small handgun suffice for protection? Maybe, maybe not. It could very easily take more than one bullet to stop a criminal before they could harm you. In my gun safety class they said that someone with a knife 10 feet away can kill you even if you have a gun pointed at them. They might die, but who cares? Also, someone protecting themselves is unlikely to be very accurate. I would much much rather have plenty of bullets loaded than to shoot and miss at a bad guy and then run out of bullets.

 

As far as quantity of firearms, some people just think they are cool and they like to have a variety. If someone wants to have a lightweight 22 rifle, and an early Smith and Wesson revolver, and a rifle that uses black powder, and a Glock with a 14-magazine, and a tiny titanium automatic, i won't knock anyone else because of it anymore than I would have a problem with someone having multiple China sets.

Why do people think guns are cool?

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Why do people think guns are cool?

 

I guess the best way to find out is by visiting your local gun range.  I'd imagine the answers vary.

[poppy]

I guess the best way to find out is by visiting your local gun range.  I'd imagine the answers vary.

 

I don't imagine it would be polite to go to a gun range to ask people why they think having fun recreational weapons is worth the price of school shootings and 200 child fatalities a year.  That's kind of like going to to a Texas BBQ on an anti-meat campaign.

[Caroline]

I guess the best way to find out is by visiting your local gun range. I'd imagine the answers vary.

It's a legitimate question. The poster equated owning lots of guns to owning lots of china. I know why people own different sets of china. I don't know why people think guns are cool. I think the analogy is stupid. So the question is, why do people think owning guns is cool? Why do people think owning multiple ways of terrorizing and killing people is cool?

[shawthorne44]

Why do people think guns are cool?

 

it is not my thing, but I think I understand.  The shiny metal and the mechanics involved.  The feel of it.  The history of a particular gun.  I really do not like firing them.  The first time I shot one was in the gun safety class and it literally took me almost an hour to shoot the next bullet because I was crying so hard.  I'd recover and then go to shoot again and my eyes would swim with tears again.  I was so thankful that the class had accidentally been an all-female class.  

 

But, I can appreciate a gun as an object.  One time the history put me off.  Boyfriend and I were shopping for my first gun.  I saw this really beautiful Beretta.  It fit my hand extremely well.  The metal was a pretty shade.  The slide was incredibly smooth.  I fell in love.  Then I turned it over and saw the nazi symbols.  I set it down and walked away.  But, if the symbols had been something at least not evil?  I would have had to have that gun.  

 

One time in a graduate engineering the professor was talking about Titanium.  He listed the properties and asked what objects would work well with Titanium.  I said "my next gun."   He looked at me like I had two heads.  But it is true.  I think it would be nice to have a small extremely light-weight handgun.  Something I could carry with me.  I don't know anyone who regrets having a gun.  But I do know one person who regrets not having one, and two that regret not having one on them when it was needed.  Actually, make that three.  

 

Some people like target practice.  I know some people that go to a black powder range.  They do like you see in the historical movies where they pour the black powder in, and a ball.   I know many people who like to go to indoor ranges.  I will sometimes go just that I have a chance of hitting a bad guy if I need to.  But they enjoy it and are confused that I don't.  Sometimes people will have a special handgun for target practice with a small kickback.  

 

I own two, and like I said I'm not really into them.  My first was a revolver because it was reliable.  But it doesn't fit my hand well.  Then I got an auto because you can fire it from inside your purse.  A revolver will jam in that situation.  

[Aura]

Making more rules against guns, etc. seems like a band-aid reaction to me. I think it's easy to blame guns, when they're the instrument being used, but I don't think the problem is the instrument. I think the problem lies in the people, and I think these people would just find another way to cause harm.

 

Would greater regulation really address the cause of violence against kids and in schools? I don't think so. The people that are most dangerous around guns are not going to follow the laws anyway, and there are always going to be ways to get your hands on illegal whatever.

 

I think what is a more likely "cause" is that those who would actually commit these atrocities find encouragement and validation in at least some form via our current technologies. I don't think we should restrict internet access, etc. It's just a reflection of today's world. And that doesn't mean we should be accepting of violence, either. It means we need a different approach.

 

We have so many laws now that it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to NOT do something illegal. And this is in part because of slapping band-aids on problems instead of dealing with the core issues. Our entire legal system is screwed up. Even if you are innocent, don't believe for one minute that you'll be treated as innocent until proven guilty. The US legal system has become an instrument of extortion and bullying. Personally, I think that needs to be dealt with before starting in on increasing firearm regulations.