Is this just our New Normal?

[TCB]

Two people dead, so that's a "mass shooting" ? If the shooter committed suicide or was killed by police then he is not a "victim", so the death of one victim is defined as a "mass shooting" ?

 

Statistically, schools are safe.  Areas of Chicago are not. You don't hear about the gun-related violence in Chicago everyday on the national news, but if you are interested, here's a site tabulating the homicides in Chicago.  Very disheartening.

 

http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/date/2014/05/

 

 

Did you miss the part about how this happens the most in this country than anywhere else? Why don't you at least acknowledge that.

[Brilliant]

I think it's worth mentioning that the first 3 victims of the recent killing spree at UCSB in California were killed by a knife. 

 

I don't know what the answer is.  I think a huge part of the responsibility is on the press - these are cases of monkey see, monkey do. Which is why I try not to even read the articles about these incidents anymore, and I'm glad we canceled cable. 

[TCB]

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.

 

 

I guess you, too, missed the part that it happens more in this country than anywhere else. I don't understand why this can't at least be acknowledged by some of you.

[swimmermom3]

Seems like a lot of these are associated with psychotropic drugs. Whether that's causative is anyone's guess.

 

Treating young people for depression and other mental health issues is still a relatively primitive proposition. There are ethical concerns in running studies on them, so doctors primarily have to work with the information that they have with regards to the effect of psychotropic drugs on adults. Unfortunately, the little bit we do know, suggests that teens and young adults are often affected in a different way than an adult. Add rapidly fluctuating hormones into the mix and an individual's response to treatment can be difficult to predict.

 

I thought one of the NRA's proposals was to create a national list of those that had been treated for depression and other mental illnesses and to prohibit them from gun ownership. It's an interesting proposition. So the NRA would be in favor of prohibiting all present and former US military members who had ever been treated for PTSD or any other mental impairment from ever owning a fire arm?

[swimmermom3]

Are you implying Jon Stewart is the sexiest man alive?

 

 

:blushing: We all have our quirks - logic and humor  = sexy to Swimmermom.

 

 

[Trish]

Not anymore they aren't.

 

The first American school shooting was in 1764.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

The first American school shooting was in 1764.

 

Does this tibit make them more or less unsual?

 

 

More or less acceptable?

 

 

Oh well someone shot someone at a school in 1764 so screw it, lets just carry on and do nothing?

 

 

One shooting on occasion isn't the same as the increasing quantity we are seeing now.

[Trish]

Does this tibit make them more or less unsual?

 

 

More or less acceptable?

 

 

Oh well someone shot someone at a school in 1764 so screw it, lets just carry on and do nothing?

 

 

One shooting on occasion isn't the same as the increasing quantity we are seeing now.

 

The first female shooter didn't come along until 1886. Of course they're all tragic, but the stats show the number of people killed in school shootings has dropped in the past 20 years. (excluding gang violence)

 

So the "increasing quantity" has to do with what's been brought to your attention, not what's actually happening.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

The first female shooter didn't come along until 1886. Of course they're all tragic, but the stats show the number of people killed in school shootings has dropped in the past 20 years. (excluding gang violence)

 

So the "increasing quantity" has to do with what's been brought to your attention, not what's actually happening.

 

Are these stats linked above? Or do you have a link to the stats?

[goldberry]

:blushing: We all have our quirks - logic and humor  = sexy to Swimmermom.

 

*sigh* I have a total fan-crush on Jon Stewart...

[In2why]

I don't know if it is shrugging off because people don't care.  I think it's more a protective measure.  I can't do anything to change this and so I try not to dwell on it.  I mean what can "I" do?  I don't think we should have so many guns.  As soon as there is a school massacre you know how some people react?  They go out and buy guns.  My guess is because they are afraid there will be a crack down on gun buying.  So what in heck do we do with that?  KWIM?

 

I feel bad for kids.  I have to say when I went to school I generally felt safe.  I'm not sure I'd feel safe now.

 

I am a gun owner.  I believe in the 2nd amendment and I believe in gun regulations.  Most gun owners do in fact support sensible legislation.  

 

I also believe in personal responsibility and civil penalties.  I am glad the the sick ba$rd that shot up Newtown started by blowing his mother's head off first. She gave her son, someone with known mental issues, access to the guns he used.  Our guns are kept in holsters attached to our bodies or in a locked up gun safe that is bolted to the floor joists.  The idiot today had access to a gun he shouldn't have.  If it was his families gun they should go to jail.  For a felony that carries real jail time and results in their loss of the right to own guns any longer.  If someone breaks into a home and steals a gun and later uses it in a crime, the original owner is liable.  They should be required to secure their weapons at all times.  They should be charged and have to prove to society that they took reasonable precautions to prevent the theft of their deadly weapon.  

Yes gun enthusiasts should be able to have guns for sport, hunting, and defense.  But we should not accept this as normal.  The NRA and their members have blood not only on their hands, but running down their legs and into their shoes.  

[Colleen]

The first American school shooting was in 1764.

 

Your point being….?

[Cammie]

Children are dying.  Being shot.  In School.

 

Can we all agree there is NO LEVEL of school shootings that should be acceptable in the United States in 2014. 

Regardless of how many there might have been in the 1700's, the 1800's or even last year.

 

Can we just agree that at this point in our society, there should be NO CHILDREN SHOT at school?

 

Is that really something that is a controversial proposition?  Is that something that people really have an opposite opinion on?  Are there people who really, truly believe that there is an "acceptable level of children being killed" so that their gun rights might be protected? 

 

If that is the case, I think the conversation is over.

[Moxie]

I am a gun owner. I believe in the 2nd amendment and I believe in gun regulations. Most gun owners do in fact support sensible legislation.

 

I also believe in personal responsibility and civil penalties. I am glad the the sick ba$rd that shot up Newtown started by blowing his mother's head off first. She gave her son, someone with known mental issues, access to the guns he used

Yes, the punishment for poor judgement should be death.

[poppy]

Well of course you wouldn't be, you would be upset about it if it were anywhere your child was but its not a school shooting that should be lumped in with ones in which a person/people bring guns to a school with the intent to harm multiple people. They are 2 different situations entirely and should be handled differently.

A person thought it would be ok to bring a gun to school.

He brandished it during an argument.

In a fit of anger, he shot his gun into the air.

If that isn't a threat , I don't know what is.

But he didn't intend to kill multiple people so let's ignore it ?

[poppy]

I think it's worth mentioning that the first 3 victims of the recent killing spree at UCSB in California were killed by a knife.

 

I don't know what the answer is. I think a huge part of the responsibility is on the press - these are cases of monkey see, monkey do. Which is why I try not to even read the articles about these incidents anymore, and I'm glad we canceled cable.

 

Why is it "important to note†the bit about the knife?

 

One shooting every week. One *today*. But the important thing is, let's mentioned that knife.

[Trish]

Your point being….?

 

It's the "Old Normal," not the New Normal.

 

To Pinky: I can't link. My computer freezes up (and it's only for this site, I have no idea why) I can't even copy and paste, even if I put it into Wordpad first.

 

But, I was looking at a table entitled Non-Gang, Non-Suicide On-Campus Firearm Deaths (K-12 Schools). Dates were from 1992 through beginning of 2014.

[JustEm]

A person thought it would be ok to bring a gun to school.

He brandished it during an argument.

In a fit of anger, he shot his gun into the air.

If that isn't a threat , I don't know what is.

But he didn't intend to kill multiple people so let's ignore it ?

He didn't bring it to school though. He happened to be in a university parking lot when an argument happened. Its not a school shooting incident. Its an irresponsible gun owner incident. The parking lot could have just as easily been a shopping center. I'm not saying let's ignore it, I'm saying it shouldn't be glumped together with other supposed school shottings in order to scare ppl into thinking mass school shootings are getting more common.

[Guest submarines]

Did you miss the part about how this happens the most in this country than anywhere else? Why don't you at least acknowledge that.

 

Maybe because this country has the third largest population in the world? Way to compare with countries with significantly smaller populations.

 

Posters like the one below are misleading but attention grabbing. Considering most people love the visuals but don't understand statistics, opinions are often based on flashy numbers which really don't mean much when taken out of context.

 

[Joanne]

I am not sure the desire to kill, terrorize, seek justice or revenge is substantially different. We have more people, but the percentage of people who act out is likely fairly constant.

 

The ability to play that out *is* changed by the easy access to guns.

 

The gun culture in the US is odd, and alaing.

[DawnM]

I don't know about the 1700s, but this chart does show that shootings are increasing in numbers of incidents as well as numbers of deaths.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/12/sandy_hook_a_chart_of_all_196_fatal_school_shootings_since_1980_map.html

 

Please tell me that a person with a knife could have gone in to Columbine or Sandy Hook and done the same damage.

 

I don't normally take a strong stand on things, but this particular issue I feel pretty passionate about.  I am not anti-hunting or anti-shooting range, but too many can get guns way too easily.  

 

Please understand that I worked for 17 years in inner-city Los Angeles at a very gang ridden high school.  Those kids could get guns so easily.  They would tell me about it in History class when we talked about guns and laws.  I went to student funerals.  A dear friend had a student commit suicide in her class in front of the entire class.  The list could go on......but my point is that guns, all guns, are far too easy to get and there are way too many of them.  

 

I would love to have a Norwegian model of gun control, but we have already gone too far in this country to have that ever happen.

 

Dawn

[SadieMarie]

Maybe because this country has the third largest population in the world? Way to compare with countries with significantly smaller populations.

 

Posters like the one below are misleading but attention grabbing. Considering most people love the visuals but don't understand statistics, opinions are often based on flashy numbers which really don't mean much when taken out of context.

 

Gun ownership rates and deaths, by country, per capita:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

[NASDAQ]

There were 30 mass killings (four or more victims) in 2013. That's been about standard, an average of one every other week. The US is a very large country (that would be three equivalent incidents in Canada. It's a _big_ country).

 

Crime overall, and gun crime in general, is down over the last twenty years. You can verify that with the FBI stats pretty easily.

 

Unfortunately these things do tend to flare up immediately after a high-profile incident.

[Trish]

The deadliest school shooting was in 1928. It was a gun plus dynamite that did the damage.

[poppy]

He didn't bring it to school though. He happened to be in a university parking lot when an argument happened. Its not a school shooting incident. Its an irresponsible gun owner incident. The parking lot could have just as easily been a shopping center. I'm not saying let's ignore it, I'm saying it shouldn't be glumped together with other supposed school shottings in order to scare ppl into thinking mass school shootings are getting more common.

The chart wasn't mass school shootings, it was shootings that happened at schools.

[Colleen]

It's the "Old Normal," not the New Normal.

 

I addressed this in an earlier reply, noting that while such incidents are not new, the frequency has increased.  The frequency is not a "new normal".

 

Maybe because this country has the third largest population in the world? Way to compare with countries with significantly smaller populations.

 

But you're capable of referencing per capita statistics, no?

[poppy]

The deadliest school shooting was in 1928. It was a gun plus dynamite that did the damage.

Since we are spouting random gun facts now, let's talk about the 193 children under the age of 12 who died from gunshot wounds last year. About half of those fatalities were accidental. I don't think that is acceptable. I do think we can do better.

[DawnM]

I am reading that 15 died.

 

Sandy Hook was 26, provided you are not a conspiracy theorist who thinks it didn't happen at all.

 

 

The deadliest school shooting was in 1928. It was a gun plus dynamite that did the damage.

 

[In2why]

Yes, the punishment for poor judgement should be death.

 

 

Poor judgement is eating ketchup on your pancakes.  I don't feel one iota of sympathy for a person who thought her known mentally ill son would benefit from having guns.  That allowed a person she was trying to have committed free reign with an assault rifle.  That didn't remove them from her home or secure them from someone who killed first graders and teachers after killing her.  That isn't poor judgement it is accessory to multiple homicides. 

[Colleen]

I don't feel one iota of sympathy for a person who thought her known mentally ill son would benefit from having guns. 

 

I do.  I have sympathy, to one extent or another, for every single person remotely affected by that sad scenario.  Preserving sympathy for all parties is, imo, integral to the process of figuring out where to go from here.

[Audrey]

It's only the new normal because you let it be.  It is a democratic republic.  You can vote for the country you want. If you're outvoted by gun nuts, then yes... get used to the new normal.

[swimmermom3]

The first female shooter didn't come along until 1886. Of course they're all tragic, but the stats show the number of people killed in school shootings has dropped in the past 20 years. (excluding gang violence)

 

So the "increasing quantity" has to do with what's been brought to your attention, not what's actually happening.

 

Trish, what would you like the media to do when there is an, er, "event" like Columbine or Sandy Hook?

 

Do they drop words like "assault rifle" and "shooter" from the description of the "incident?"  So there was some "collateral damage" at Sandy Hook? 

 

Do we only report when than 5 people were shot? Ten people? Or is even Sandy Hook just "small change?" If we only report truly mass shootings, then it doesn't seem so bad, right?  That would certainly make school shootings a VERY RARE occurrence. 

 

More than a few gun owners propose that if no one ever mentioned the "assailant," that there would be no more school shootings. So with regards to Columbine, the media should have told the public, "Two never-to-be named assailants mortally hurt a handful of students today at a local area school. The services for their departures will be announced." End of discussion. Do you truly believe that this is the solution?

 

My thoughts are that if traditional media (Fox included) never reported on another shooting, young people would still get plenty of ideas of ways to extract revenge from movies, advertising, books, and websites. It's not the media that is causing the shootings. After all, if guns don't kill, then media doesn't either.

 

You are a much bigger person than I am if you would allow, or actually demand that the shooting death of beloved child or twenty, be hushed up, glossed over, or worst of all, marginalized, in order to keep the general public from thinking too much about gun safety.

[Laura Corin]

Maybe because this country has the third largest population in the world? Way to compare with countries with significantly smaller populations.

 

Posters like the one below are misleading but attention grabbing. Considering most people love the visuals but don't understand statistics, opinions are often based on flashy numbers which really don't mean much when taken out of context.

 

Removed - possible copyright issue

 

You are right that the population sizes are different.  The population of England and Wales is around 60 million.  The population of the USA is around 300 million.  So five times as big.  If England and Wales' gun murders were multiplied up to the population size of the USA, there would be around 200 a year.

 

L

[lewelma]

Swimmermom: just so you know, 'practical' country uses of fire arms are still allowed in the UK. Farmers have shotguns and plain rifles. Sports hunters can also have similar guns, after a background check and a home visit by the police. Hand guns and multi-fire guns are banned.

 

NZ is very similar.  But also requires a locked cabinet for the shotguns/rifles and a separate locked cabinet for the ammunition and both must be affixed to the wall.  To get your permit, a police officer needs to come to your house and sight these housings. 

 

Ruth in NZ

 

[Laura Corin]

NZ is very similar.  But also requires a locked cabinet for the shotguns/rifles and a separate locked cabinet for the ammunition and both must be affixed to the wall.  To get your permit, a police officer needs to come to your house and sight these housings. 

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

It's similar in the UK, although the police seem to have some leeway for different circumstances.  This is in England:

 

WHAT IS ‘SECURE STORAGE’?

The Firearms Rules do not prescribe how firearms

must be kept securely, but the Home Office has

issued guidance. Briefly this recommends that you

store them in a locked gun cabinet or other similarly

secure container. In some cases if you don’t have a

gun cabinet, it may be acceptable to remove the

firing mechanism from a firearm and store it in a secure container, for example, a safe. In these cases

you should then lock away the rest of the firearm. A

securely built gunroom or cellar with a steel door that

locks can also be an acceptable form of storage.

Section 1 ammunition can be stored in a separate

secure compartment within a gun cabinet or in its

own secure container. When considering whether

storage arrangements are secure enough, the police

will look at the circumstances of each case and

at the overall security arrangements, including

the security of the premises

 

L

[Anacharsis]

I think that part of the struggle is that most people are not used to the scale involved in talking about national problems in America. 318 million people is fine intellectually, but I imagine most people have never seen even 1/1,000th that number of people gathered in the same place. It's a staggering number of people -- the combined population of just California and Texas alone is greater than the estimated population of the entire Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus! 

 

With a population that large, it becomes important to be cautious about national news -- enough is going on all the time that organizations can cherry-pick the stories that they think will bring in more revenue, rather than simply reporting on what's going on.

[Trish]

Trish, what would you like the media to do when there is an, er, "event" like Columbine or Sandy Hook?

 

Do they drop words like "assault rifle" and "shooter" from the description of the "incident?"  So there was some "collateral damage" at Sandy Hook? 

 

Do we only report when than 5 people were shot? Ten people? Or is even Sandy Hook just "small change?" If we only report truly mass shootings, then it doesn't seem so bad, right?  That would certainly make school shootings a VERY RARE occurrence. 

 

More than a few gun owners propose that if no one ever mentioned the "assailant," that there would be no more school shootings. So with regards to Columbine, the media should have told the public, "Two never-to-be named assailants mortally hurt a handful of students today at a local area school. The services for their departures will be announced." End of discussion. Do you truly believe that this is the solution?

 

My thoughts are that if traditional media (Fox included) never reported on another shooting, young people would still get plenty of ideas of ways to extract revenge from movies, advertising, books, and websites. It's not the media that is causing the shootings. After all, if guns don't kill, then media doesn't either.

 

You are a much bigger person than I am if you would allow, or actually demand that the shooting death of beloved child or twenty, be hushed up, glossed over, or worst of all, marginalized, in order to keep the general public from thinking too much about gun safety.

 

Why are you assuming I want the news media to DO anything differently? Why WOULDN'T they report a school shooting in all its aspects? They're about ratings, and at this point school shootings (in spite of the "new normal" meme) are big for ratings.

 

The news media can do whatever they like. I have no opinion on what they *ought* to do.

 

Demand things be glossed over? Where in the world did I suggest that? My goodness.

 

[Mama Geek]

It would be nice if the media reported when a private citizen with a gun actually stopped a shooter, instead of just saying they were overpowered.  It has happened many many times (including in some of the college shootings) and is not reported on by the national media.

[poppy]

I think that part of the struggle is that most people are not used to the scale involved in talking about national problems in America. 318 million people is fine intellectually, but I imagine most people have never seen even 1/1,000th that number of people gathered in the same place. It's a staggering number of people -- the combined population of just California and Texas alone is greater than the estimated population of the entire Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus! 

 

With a population that large, it becomes important to be cautious about national news -- enough is going on all the time that organizations can cherry-pick the stories that they think will bring in more revenue, rather than simply reporting on what's going on.

 

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.

 

It really seems like you think school killings are acceptable price to pay for gun rights for gun owners. For many of the rest of us, that is insanely irresponsible.

 

Someone upthread talked about the mother of Adam Lanza getting what she deserved for giving her crazy, violent son access to assault weapons.  On a larger scale, isn't that true of America as well?

[FaithManor]

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.

[Trish]

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.

 

It really seems like you think school killings are acceptable price to pay for gun rights for gun owners. For many of the rest of us, that is insanely irresponsible.

 

Someone upthread talked about the mother of Adam Lanza getting what she deserved for giving her crazy, violent son access to assault weapons.  On a larger scale, isn't that true of America as well?

 

Do you have a proposal in mind? I had to scroll all the way back to see if you mentioned anything already, and all I saw was Heaping Scorn, which is a good way to blow off steam but probably won't make school kids any safer. Which is the goal, I would hope.

 

How can we make school kids safer?

 

[Cammie]

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?

[Laurie4b]

Trish, what would you like the media to do when there is an, er, "event" like Columbine or Sandy Hook?

 

 

I have pondered this question a lot. I think that the way it is publicized does trigger more incidents. We know, for instance, that publication of teen suicides does increase the rate of teen suicide in the area in which the publicity occurs.

 

The media's voluntary agreement to withhold the name of sexual assault victims began a change in rape culture. The media protected the victim from the inevitable victim-blaming that was knee-jerk reaction. Our culture does not think of that as censorship.

 

I would like to see a discussion about what the media could do to bring about a change in the copycat incidents. What if the incidents were reported in such a way that the "fame" quotient of the killers was minimized? Is there a way to give the public what we need to know without giving enticing tidbits to people who may be tempted to copy-cat it?

 

I think Columbine was something of a sea change in that the shooters got not only fame but sympathy (lots of talk about being bullied).  What if the photos of killers were not publicized? If they are dead or in custody, is there a reason we the public need to know what they look like? Don't we only need to know if they are at large? (I am strongly in favor of the no-photo option.)  Go a step further: what if their names were not even publicized? (A friend suggested this the other day and I've been pondering it. Is there any downside to not publicizing the name? It would deprive the killer of anticipated fame and protect innocent members of the family from stigma. )  Some profiling of the killers is beneficial to the public to be on the alert for particular warning signs, but that could be done in a cut-and-dried way. What if the media came to a consensus to try some of these things, as they did when they agreed to not publicize the identify of victims of rape.

 

Not the whole puzzle, but I am convinced the way these incidents are reported is a piece of the puzzle. I don't see what we'd have to lose by trying to change this piece.

[Trish]

I don't really view this as a "media problem," although maybe some of your suggestions would help. I'm reluctant to tell the media how to do their job, but at the same time I hate to see killers morphed into folk heroes for a certain subset of troubled teens. 

 

I don't know if the goal of NO school shootings is realistic, but how about metal detectors in all schools? The gun used in the most recent shooting had to be toted in somehow. Maybe a metal detector would have stopped him at the door. Or even better, would've kept him from thinking it would be easy to access the school with a gun.

 

 

[poppy]

 

 

I would like to see a discussion about what the media could do to bring about a change in the copycat incidents.

 

What happened yesterday in Oregon wasn't a copycat, from what I can tell. It was an angry kid with the intention of murder and access to a firearm.

[poppy]

Do you have a proposal in mind? I had to scroll all the way back to see if you mentioned anything already, and all I saw was Heaping Scorn, which is a good way to blow off steam but probably won't make school kids any safer. Which is the goal, I would hope.

 

How can we make school kids safer?

 

 

This is not hard to answer at all. Commonsense gun control measures.

 

I'll quote President Obama here, he said this yesterday:

"The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It's not the only country that has psychosis. And yet we kill each other in these mass shootings at rates that are exponentially higher than anyone else. Well, what's the difference? The difference is that these guys can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses, and that's sort of par for the course."

 

Another Obama quote, same speech:

"I will tell you, I have been in Washington for a while now. Most things don't surprise me. The fact that 20 six year olds were gunned down in the most violent fashion possible and this town couldn't do anything about it was stunning to me."

 

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.

[Laurie4b]

What happened yesterday in Oregon wasn't a copycat, from what I can tell. It was an angry kid with the intention of murder and access to a firearm.

 

I didn't read about that incident. Was there material in the articles that showed that he wasn't influenced by other school shootings?

 

And if he wasn't, would you agree that there have been copycat incidents? That guy all the way in Norway, for instance, referenced the shooters at Columbine. His motives were different, but they had influenced him.

[Word Nerd]

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? 

 

ETA: What is the definition of "common-sense gun control," and how can it be measured? Have any of the existing state measures been shown to be effective? Could they be used as a model for federal gun control measures? What about other non-gun control-related legislation that has been implemented at the state level to prevent gun violence? 

[Cammie]

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? 

 

That report states that 8 states enacted legislation after Newtown.  8 out of 50.  Sound like pretty close to "nothing" on a national level.  If my kids got 8 out of 50 on a test I would not be too thrilled with their progress.

[Word Nerd]

That report states that 8 states enacted legislation after Newtown.  8 out of 50.  Sound like pretty close to "nothing" on a national level.  If my kids got 8 out of 50 on a test I would not be too thrilled with their progress.

 

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