School shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia

[Murphy101]

5 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I am sorry. I’m feeling emotional.   I personally don’t feel violent people belong in society once proven evil.   Too many are released from prison, too.  Why? They’re overcrowded.    We definitely don’t value each other’s lives here in America. Evident in so many ways . 😔    

Not all violence is evil.

Aside from that, prison society is a real thing, and more often than not, it’s an inhumane thing.

Aside from both of those, yeah. America is not a prolife nation.

[Frances]

15 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I am sorry. I’m feeling emotional.   I personally don’t feel violent people belong in society once proven evil.   Too many are released from prison, too.  Why? They’re overcrowded.    We definitely don’t value each other’s lives here in America. Evident in so many ways . 😔    

How is someone proven evil? That seems like a pretty black and white way to view the world. The boy in question is 14 years old and from all accounts, had a terrible home life and pretty poor parenting, not to mention mental health issues. He would likely score very high on Adverse Childhood Events, like many prisoners. Don’t you think he should have gotten way more help and intervention much sooner? And not had easy access to guns? Our society failing to do this is for me, much more  evident of our country not valuing each other’s lives than the actions of the boy.
 

There are many other countries who seem to be able to imprison far fewer people and provide much more help to those they do imprison, so that recidivism rates are much lower at release.
 

Edited September 6 by Frances

[Ting Tang]

12 minutes ago, Frances said:

How is someone proven evil? That seems like a pretty black and white way to view the world. The boy in question is 14 years old and from all accounts, had a terrible home life and pretty bad parents, not to mention mental health issues. Don’t you think he should have gotten way more help and intervention much sooner? And not had easy access to guns? Our society failing to do this is for me, much more  evident of our country not valuing each other’s lives than the actions of the boy.
 

There are many other countries who seem to be able to imprison far fewer people and provide much more help to those they do imprison, so that recidivism rates are much lower at release.
 

I believe in bad seeds, but I also believe people prove themselves to be evil. We need to protect the innocent. If you are involved in a violent and deadly sexual  assault, I feel 9 years isn’t enough to trust you won’t do that again, true story.   14 is a child, but if they are threatening to shoot up a school, I’m going to believe them.  I also believe not everyone belongs in prison, nor do all crimes necessitate prison time for reasons mentioned. Yes, I’m seeing a little bit in black and white. 

Edited September 6 by Ting Tang

[Frances]

Just now, Ting Tang said:

I believe in bad seeds, but I also believe people prove themselves to be evil. We need to protect her innocent. If you are involved in a violent snd deadly sexual  assault, I feel 9 years isn’t enough to trust you won’t do that again, true story.   14 is a child, but if they are threatening to shoot you a school, I’m going to believe them.  I also believe not everyone belongs in prison, nor do all crimes necessitate prison time for reasons mentioned. Yes, I’m seeing a little bit in black and white. 

I don’t disagree with you that prison sentences don’t always make sense. Some seem much too short and others much too long.

While I do believe a very, very small percentage of our population is truly evil and beyond help, I think we as a society could do far, far more to provide a better start in life for our children, so as to minimize the chances that they will commit violence against others. And it goes without saying that not having easy access to guns, especially assault rifles, is also very important.

Had his threats been taken seriously, I think there are numerous steps that could have been taken to prevent today’s events and none involve locking him away forever or likely imprisoning him at all.

[busymama7]

27 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

So this might need a separate thread, but how many of us have the threat of school shootings as a reason to homeschool?  It’s on my list. Our local school had several warnings last year. 

It's not my primary reason but I would be lying if I said it didn't contribute.   

Along those lines, I wish the rest of the families would just plain refuse to send kids to school until something was done. Like a massive strike.  Everyone stays home until each individual district comes up with a plan that satisfies their local families.  I get that it's complicated and lots of layers need figuring out but I don't think the powers that be are motivated enough.  They need some kind of mass wake up call or something.  

[Faith-manor]

37 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

So this might need a separate thread, but how many of us have the threat of school shootings as a reason to homeschool?  It’s on my list. Our local school had several warnings last year. 

It is high on my daughter's list for our three grandsons.

[Ting Tang]

Yep, nobody took the threats seriously. 😔   Almost always there are warning signs.  Sadly, this won’t be the last thread of this nature. I feel like nothing is going to happen of significance because of politics and rights talk, so maybe that’s my reasoning for simply removing the human threat from society.  

[Heartstrings]

22 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

that’s my reasoning for simply removing the human threat from society.

Jumping in on this, with 2 thoughts. 
 

MOST people age out of violence.  Random violence, mugging, armed robbery, car jacking, even school shootings, are typically a young man’s (it’s almost always men) game.  Around 35 or 40 years old they are no longer really a threat to public safety.  Again most.  I’m sue there’s a 60 year old mugger out there somewhere. The truly heinous serial killers or serial rapists or nut cases that torture for fun are excluded, that’s a brain issue that never goes away.  
 

We wouldn’t need more money or jail space if we stopped imprisoning people for dumb stuff and started doing more with real criminals. Drug crime, petty theft, etc. etc.  are the legal systems version of busy work.

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

There are many other countries who seem to be able to imprison far fewer people and provide much more help to those they do imprison, so that recidivism rates are much lower at release.

But do those countries have a for profit industry that has a guaranteed number of filled beds written into their billion dollar contracts?  

[KSera]

1 hour ago, busymama7 said:

Along those lines, I wish the rest of the families would just plain refuse to send kids to school until something was done. Like a massive strike.  Everyone stays home until each individual district comes up with a plan that satisfies their local families.  I get that it's complicated and lots of layers need figuring out but I don't think the powers that be are motivated enough.  They need some kind of mass wake up call or something.  

I could get on board with a strike of some sort, but I don’t think the school district would be the right target. They have little they can do to stop this from happening. There are a few measures they can take to try to reduce the risk, but this is primarily a guns problem, which school districts can’t fix. 
 

The government would have to pay attention to people not sending their kids to school though, because it means people would be home from work caring for those kids. Our economy doesn’t function as well if kids aren’t at school. 

[TravelingChris]

On 9/4/2024 at 4:43 PM, Heartstrings said:

Maybe it’s a conspiracy theory, but I think these text and recordings from calls made during shootings are behind 95% of the move to ban cell phones from school.  They are a distraction, blah, blah, blah.   Schools don’t want the texts/audio getting out because it makes them look bad and pro gun governors don’t like the sympathy they garner.  

Absolutely agree with you!  I am very happy this awful father was charged but when I first heard about this on Wed, it was already late and known that unfortunately this was the same story once again.  People did " see something, say something" as did people in so many other of these events.  FBI and local law enforcement were notified as in so many shooting and even bombing cases (thinking about the downtown Nashville bombing w/the loud speakers warning and the ATT building targeted because of 5G).  Even the Las Vegas casino hotel shooter had people warning about him. ( Oh and no final report on that one either).  But in so many of these cases, LE refuses to act with appropriate measures. In this case, a year ago, Dad was warned.  But the school system admin knew too and then when warning comes in that the killings will happen in 5 schools, starting w/ the one it did happen to- no closure of school.  No charges for any school system administrator here that allowed known serious threatener of school shooting to continue to go to that school system and ignoring threats to their own students and staff.  But, it is not only here where they charged the father, but also in the Michigan case where they convicted the shooter and his parents but no charges for any of the admin people who fell down on their jobs and apparently no job repercussions either.

And then there are the lovely parents and clueless or nefarious FBI/SS and Crooks too.  After all, his parents were both psych/social work people.  Newly released whistleblower reports about FBI and the Iranian backed Pakistani terrorist who was caught the day before Trump's assassination report- turns out that  he was just wanting to take advantage of lame SS protocols.  Also, this week, we learned that the SS had 2 command centers for that event, which any LE or criminology stuident can warn tell you is a completely idiotic idea. 

I am just so tired of lazy, or dumb, or ??? people falling down on their responsibilities to uphold safety of concert goers, of students and  teachers, of politicians and people attending political events or even just playing baseball, church goers, synagogue attendees, people having a good time at parades, enjoying Christmas festivities or Bastille Day or 911 or 7/7 or on and on and on and on and on.

And so many CYA's too.

 

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

No charges for any school system administrator here that allowed known serious threatener of school shooting to continue to go to that school system and ignoring threats to their own students and staff.

Don’t forget the 6 year old who was brandishing his gun all day before shooting his first grade teacher.  Other students told about it, more than 1 teacher told the principal.  The principal said his pockets were too little. 😡. No charges for the principal there either, although I think the parents were charged.  

[TechWife]

20 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Oh. Hmm. That’s possible but I think it’s up to the victims to decide if that’s true or not for them. 

Children can’t give informed consent. When adults get to a point where they are no longer in shock, sure. In pursuing and airing these types of stories immediately after the fact, they are engaging in exploitation for the sake of profit, nothing more. The texts add no new facts to the story . None. They are basically deathbed declarations, the most personal of moments.  To say that kids and parents exchanged heartbreaking texts would have been sufficient, though stating the obvious & also not necessary. It costs nothing to be kind, considerate & respectful. No one should be seeking out this information and not everything that is given to a reporter has to get into the story. Reporters can still make compassionate decisions. The fact that they often do not is one of the reasons for diminishing civility in our culture. 

[Kassia]

47 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Children can’t give informed consent. When adults get to a point where they are no longer in shock, sure. In pursuing and airing these types of stories immediately after the fact, they are engaging in exploitation for the sake of profit, nothing more. The texts add no new facts to the story . None. They are basically deathbed declarations, the most personal of moments.  To say that kids and parents exchanged heartbreaking texts would have been sufficient, though stating the obvious & also not necessary. It costs nothing to be kind, considerate & respectful. No one should be seeking out this information and not everything that is given to a reporter has to get into the story. Reporters can still make compassionate decisions. The fact that they often do not is one of the reasons for diminishing civility in our culture. 

I absolutely agree with everything you said here and just wanted to add that, because of the internet, these private texts, interviews, etc. are out there forever.  😞  

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

Children can’t give informed consent. When adults get to a point where they are no longer in shock, sure. In pursuing and airing these types of stories immediately after the fact, they are engaging in exploitation for the sake of profit, nothing more. The texts add no new facts to the story . None. They are basically deathbed declarations, the most personal of moments.  To say that kids and parents exchanged heartbreaking texts would have been sufficient, though stating the obvious & also not necessary. It costs nothing to be kind, considerate & respectful. No one should be seeking out this information and not everything that is given to a reporter has to get into the story. Reporters can still make compassionate decisions. The fact that they often do not is one of the reasons for diminishing civility in our culture. 

And I didn’t say I disagree with that either.

It’s not an either or scenario.

[Ting Tang]

Our high school banned cell phones this year. Students cannot keep their phones in their bags—they must be kept in lockers, and that is despite the several threats and warnings last year. They are a rather progressive group, too. No, cell phones won’t stop a shooting, but honestly, I think students should have a way to reach parents. 

[Ting Tang]

I read a comment and don’t know if it’s true. Chicago can have 60 shootings in a weekend, but not in schools because of metal detectors. Schools shouldn’t be prisons, but guns aren’t going away. Why can’t we have those everywhere? 

Edited September 6 by Ting Tang

[TechWife]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

And I didn’t say I disagree with that either.

It’s not an either or scenario.

Quite frankly, it is. Either someone is being exploited or they aren't. The texts that are out now are exploitative.

[Murphy101]

11 hours ago, Frances said:

How is someone proven evil? That seems like a pretty black and white way to view the world. The boy in question is 14 years old and from all accounts, had a terrible home life and pretty poor parenting, not to mention mental health issues. He would likely score very high on Adverse Childhood Events, like many prisoners. Don’t you think he should have gotten way more help and intervention much sooner? And not had easy access to guns? Our society failing to do this is for me, much more  evident of our country not valuing each other’s lives than the actions of the boy.
 

There are many other countries who seem to be able to imprison far fewer people and provide much more help to those they do imprison, so that recidivism rates are much lower at release.
 

Honestly the key to avoiding prison is having wealth.

11 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

I believe in bad seeds, but I also believe people prove themselves to be evil. We need to protect the innocent. If you are involved in a violent and deadly sexual  assault, I feel 9 years isn’t enough to trust you won’t do that again, true story.   14 is a child, but if they are threatening to shoot up a school, I’m going to believe them.  I also believe not everyone belongs in prison, nor do all crimes necessitate prison time for reasons mentioned. Yes, I’m seeing a little bit in black and white. 

The problem is that’s not how people think or behave. Plenty of kids have pulled a fire alarm as a prank and it almost never meant they were going to set the school on fire. So putting them in prison for pulling the alarm seems rather drastic and unhelpful to society overall.  Same for this.  Most kids who draw a horrible or disturbing picture or say something extreme bc they are fed up don’t actually do anything awful.  As the FBI stated. It’s not about who said what. It’s about who is an actual threat. And those more often than not are not the same and it’s not an easy thing to determine. 

 

11 hours ago, busymama7 said:

Along those lines, I wish the rest of the families would just plain refuse to send kids to school until something was done. Like a massive strike.  Everyone stays home until each individual district comes up with a plan that satisfies their local families.  I get that it's complicated and lots of layers need figuring out but I don't think the powers that be are motivated enough.  They need some kind of mass wake up call or something.  

Yep. Until it affects the economy on a large scale it won’t mean a damn thing to TPTB. 

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Quite frankly, it is. Either someone is being exploited or they aren't. The texts that are out now are exploitative.

Well we can agree to disagree on this then. I think not all people handle such situations the same or think the same in those situations. One person may feel exploited and another might feel very very differently.  They could even be glad it’s forever out there or feel frustrated that reporters won’t let that voice be heard kind of thing.

I’d be good with denying nearly all photos and access of minors from public viewing in general. But I’m sure in the minority on that.  

 

[Ting Tang]

With all due respect, my opinion is that pulling a fire alarm is not a good analogy. They pull alarms to get out of class. Much different than posting about setting the school on fire so that the students burn. Maybe I’m naive, but I’ve never personally heard a child threaten to take out others in a horrific way. It’s got to be highly unusual, and that’s why I think we should give credibility to threats. How many more times should we all be wrong. 😔  (and I don’t mean to contradict myself on unusual vs. so many shootings) 

Edited September 6 by Ting Tang

[fairfarmhand]

58 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I read a comment and don’t know if it’s true. Chicago can have 60 shootings in a weekend, but not in schools because of metal detectors. Schools shouldn’t be prisons, but guns aren’t going away. Why can’t we have those everywhere? 

So my ds is a virtual school student, and he does his testing and such at the county alternative school. And they have metal detectors at the door. It’s fine. It’s really not a big deal. It doesn’t make the place seem like a prison. Should they have to have it? No. And yet because of the world we live in they do. And when I leave my ds there for testing I don’t worry about him getting knifed. I really think that school should be “hardened” against all kinds of attacks. There are efficient and safe ways of doing this. My dh works at a utility plant and they have ways of controlling entrances and exits and keeping the whole place secure. 
 

again, I’m not saying it should be like this, and yet it is.

 

and I do believe that weapons sales regulations , ammo sales regulations and red flag laws should also be in place,

Edited September 6 by fairfarmhand

[Tenaj]

1 hour ago, Ting Tang said:

Our high school banned cell phones this year. Students cannot keep their phones in their bags—they must be kept in lockers, and that is despite the several threats and warnings last year. They are a rather progressive group, too. No, cell phones won’t stop a shooting, but honestly, I think students should have a way to reach parents. 

I was discussing this with someone this morning and they made the point that (heaven forbid) a kid is involved in a school shooting the last thing they should be doing is texting, calling, posting anything.  They need to be paying attention to the authorities whether that is teachers, school personnel or the police and following the directions they are given to remain safe.  

Just a perspective I hadn't seen here.  I don't have kids in public school so haven't really thought through the issue in a personal way.

Edited September 6 by Tenaj

[Ting Tang]

5 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

So my ds is a virtual school student, and he does his testing and such at the county alternative school. And they have metal detectors at the door. It’s fine. It’s really not a big deal. It doesn’t make the place seem like a prison. Should they have to have it? No. And yet because of the world we live in they do. And when I leave my ds there for testing I don’t worry about him getting knifed. I really think that school should be “hardened” against all kinds of attacks. There are efficient and safe ways of doing this. My dh works at a utility plant and they have ways of controlling entrances and exits and keeping the whole place secure. 
 

again, I’m not saying it should be like this, and yet it is.

 

and I do believe that weapons sales regulations , ammo sales regulations and red flag laws should also be in place,

We need multiple approaches to safety. I agree.  I feel a lot safer at events, knowing patrons have been screened. Sure, bad things can still happen, but they need to try—better than doing nothing! 

[kbutton]

15 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Guns should not be unsecured. If you choose to do that, so be it. There ought to be consequences for ALL owners of firearms who leave them unsecured and find them used in the commission of a crime.

What in the world makes you think I have unsecured guns? I am positing that security can be thwarted. I do normal things to secure my house, and it’s entirely possible to have my house broken into. The same thing can happen with secured weapons.

I honestly feel like you said this just to just to stand on some sort of moral high ground and take a dig at me.

We all feel insecure about school shootings. I feel like in that insecurity, people are quick to blame parents for not securing guns because we think that our kids could never access our weapons. I think that’s a precarious place to stand. There are diabolically clever kids out there, and IIRC, your own are gifted and could easily fall into the “can defeat reasonable precautions” category.

I also think kids can also have struggles parents know nothing about no matter how good of a parent they are.

This blame the parents thing works only when “bad” parents are involved, and it works to make parents feel better via plumping up their perception that this could never be their gun used or their kid that’s a criminal.

[Heartstrings]

T

31 minutes ago, Tenaj said:

was discussing this with someone this morning and they made the point that (heaven forbid) a kid is involved in a school shooting the last thing they should be doing is texting, calling, posting anything.  They need to be paying attention to the authorities whether that is teachers, school personnel or the police and following the directions they are given to remain safe.  

They spend a lot of time hiding in the corner in the dark.  Listening to teacher is important but they are usually locked down for hours.  After the teacher says “quick, in the corner” it’s just a bunch of sitting.  

[Heartstrings]

20 minutes ago, kbutton said:

We all feel insecure about school shootings. I feel like in that insecurity, people are quick to blame parents for not securing guns because we think that our kids could never access our weapons. I think that’s a precarious place to stand. There are diabolically clever kids out there, and IIRC, your own are gifted and could easily fall into the “can defeat reasonable precautions” category.

Except in almost every school shooting there was NO attempt to secure the gun.  The child didn’t defeat reasonable precautions. They took loose weapons.  No parent has cried on TV about how the kid broke into the gun safe with a Bobby pin. Or took a hack saw to the trigger lock.  They just walk in, pick up the weapon and walk out. 
 

ETA: for crying out loud , this shooter used the gun he received as a Christmas present.  

Edited September 6 by Heartstrings

[Dmmetler]

40 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

So my ds is a virtual school student, and he does his testing and such at the county alternative school. And they have metal detectors at the door. It’s fine. It’s really not a big deal. It doesn’t make the place seem like a prison. Should they have to have it? No. And yet because of the world we live in they do. And when I leave my ds there for testing I don’t worry about him getting knifed. I really think that school should be “hardened” against all kinds of attacks. There are efficient and safe ways of doing this. My dh works at a utility plant and they have ways of controlling entrances and exits and keeping the whole place secure. 
 

again, I’m not saying it should be like this, and yet it is.

 

and I do believe that weapons sales regulations , ammo sales regulations and red flag laws should also be in place,

That's kind of how I feel. I truthfully feel safer in urban schools, which have metal detectors and do bag checks, or require clear bags, and where visitors are stopped at the door, go through the same screening and are then escorted to the appropriate than at my suburban center where people can just walk in and bring whatever. Because yeah, it probably won't happen here...but at the school with a metal detector and SRO, there's multiple levels of protection.  

[kbutton]

14 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I would love to see:

1. Sales only to those 18+, only through registered dealers where the sale involves Builtin biometric trigger locks installed at point of sale by the dealer keyed to buyer only (ie no benefit to steal a gun, no gifting a gun to a minor)

2. Assault rifle ban

3. Jail time for parents whose minor children shoot a gun—including toddlers

4. can only carry with a permit, and that permit requires a safe handling course, shooting range proficiency test, and fingerprinted background check—redone every 5 years

Not disingenuous questions:

1. Biometric locks get mentioned a lot, and I assume they are fingerprint driven. I can’t get into my iPhone with my fingerprints—I have smoother than normal fingertips. Are there multiple kinds of biometric locks to get around denying second amendment rights to someone that has a problem like this. (BTW, I don’t own a gun or want one.)

3. Shoot a gun at a range? Hunt with one? Or do you mean that some kind of shooting happened that involved an unsecure weapon?

Thanks

I think we need reforms as well. My teen had some novel suggestions about ammo and limitations with it when he had to research a topic and write about it. Maybe we need to start asking teens for additional ideas. 

 

.

 

[TravelingChris]

4 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Don’t forget the 6 year old who was brandishing his gun all day before shooting his first grade teacher.  Other students told about it, more than 1 teacher told the principal.  The principal said his pockets were too little. 😡. No charges for the principal there either, although I think the parents were charged.  

Yes, exactly. I was also thinking about that one too. And both the adoptive mom and dad were dead in that awful South Florida shooting.

More parents who knew about dangerous tendencies-  the Pulse gay nightclub terrorism and the Chattanooga area terrorism where the young adult killed military recruiters at a few places.

And I know there are a lot more cases too.

 

[kbutton]

8 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Except in almost every school shooting there was NO attempt to secure the gun.  The child didn’t defeat reasonable precautions. They took loose weapons.  No parent has cried on TV about how the kid broke into the gun safe with a Bobby pin. Or took a hack saw to the trigger lock.  They just walk in, pick up the weapon and walk out. 
 

ETA: for crying out loud , this shooter used the gun he received as a Christmas present.  

That doesn’t mean they always will. Or that the same people pushing this as the pinnacle solution won’t have a non-school shooting via this very method (suicide, etc.) happen in their orbit involving good parents, reasonable precautions, and good kids.

It’s not even the idea I am responding to so much as the overtone of insistence that this is “the way” in order to quell the fears here. It’s a way of making it all about somebody else. There is probably some psychological term for this.

[TechWife]

14 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I would love to see:

1. Sales only to those 18+, only through registered dealers where the sale involves Builtin biometric trigger locks installed at point of sale by the dealer keyed to buyer only (ie no benefit to steal a gun, no gifting a gun to a minor)

2. Assault rifle ban

3. Jail time for parents whose minor children shoot a gun—including toddlers

4. can only carry with a permit, and that permit requires a safe handling course, shooting range proficiency test, and fingerprinted background check—redone every 5 years

 

 

I'd like to see ammo tracking in the same manner we track medications from manufacture all the way through to their retail sale. Lot numbers work wonders, the computer tech exists and even though it would involve engraving onto the bullet itself, it would be much less complicated than tracking drug sales. Is it foolproof? No, but at this point we can't let the desire for perfect to get in the way of the good.

[Heartstrings]

11 minutes ago, kbutton said:

That doesn’t mean they always will. Or that the same people pushing this as the pinnacle solution won’t have a non-school shooting via this very method (suicide, etc.) happen in their orbit involving good parents, reasonable precautions, and good kids.

It’s not even the idea I am responding to so much as the overtone of insistence that this is “the way” in order to quell the fears here. It’s a way of making it all about somebody else. There is probably some psychological term for this.

I don’t think that’s what’s going on at all. I think we are looking at parents who took 0 precautions and being upset about it.  If the parents had done even a modicum of common sense base line precautions we would all be sympathetic.  Just a teeeny bit of effort.  
 

Your argument here sounds a lot like why bother? Why bother with baby car seats, the kid could get run over in a parking lot.  Don’t bother locking up the bleach, kids are clever.    
 

We always come back to this with gun stuff.  If one solution won’t solve domestic violence, suicides, school shoutings, mass shoutings, muggings, bombings and world hunger all at once, quickly and easily, why bother?  

Edited September 6 by Heartstrings

[lauraw4321]

39 minutes ago, kbutton said:

What in the world makes you think I have unsecured guns? I am positing that security can be thwarted. I do normal things to secure my house, and it’s entirely possible to have my house broken into. The same thing can happen with secured weapons.

I honestly feel like you said this just to just to stand on some sort of moral high ground and take a dig at me.

We all feel insecure about school shootings. I feel like in that insecurity, people are quick to blame parents for not securing guns because we think that our kids could never access our weapons. I think that’s a precarious place to stand. There are diabolically clever kids out there, and IIRC, your own are gifted and could easily fall into the “can defeat reasonable precautions” category.

I also think kids can also have struggles parents know nothing about no matter how good of a parent they are.

This blame the parents thing works only when “bad” parents are involved, and it works to make parents feel better via plumping up their perception that this could never be their gun used or their kid that’s a criminal.

There is technology that would only allow the permitted individual to shoot a weapon (fingerprint sensors, like what we have on cell phones). My husband was researching it because he wanted to invent it, only to discover, it's already been invented. It's just been blocked by the gun people. No one would have them unless mandated by the government (expensive and makes the gun less "useful.").

So then your child would have to cut off your hand to use the gun, which... ok. 

[kbutton]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

I don’t think that’s what’s going on at all. I think we are looking at parents who took 0 precautions and bring upset about it.  
 

Your argument here sounds a lot like why bother? Why bother with baby car seats, the kid could get run over in a parking lot.  Don’t bother locking up the bleach, kids are clever.    
 

We always come back to this with gun stuff.  If one solution won’t solve domestic violence, suicides, school shoutings, mass shoutings, muggings, bombings and world hunger all at once, quickly and easily, why bother?  

Every single time I say it, I state that I take reasonable precautions with all kinds of things. Heck, I still mask everywhere. And we still got Covid once. I have extended family that doesn’t mask and has never had COVID that they know of. That doesn’t mean my mitigation does nothing or that they should not take precautions. 

It’s the feel of how people use this idea on here and how intensely they think prosecuting parents will work that makes me think they believe this will never happen to them. It’s the insistence that I must mean x if I say y. 

[lauraw4321]

1 minute ago, kbutton said:

Every single time I say it, I state that I take reasonable precautions with all kinds of things. Heck, I still mask everywhere. And we still got Covid once. I have extended family that doesn’t mask and has never had COVID that they know of. That doesn’t mean my mitigation does nothing or that they should not take precautions. 

It’s the feel of how people use this idea on here and how intensely they think prosecuting parents will work that makes me think they believe this will never happen to them. It’s the insistence that I must mean x if I say y. 

I don't think people are saying that it "won't happen."  But they are saying it will happen a lot less. Because people will buy fewer guns. Guns will be harder to access. Homeowners insurance might dramatically increase for people with guns, making it not worth it to own them for a lot of people.

It's not X = Y.  It's X decreases Y. 

[kbutton]

5 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

There is technology that would only allow the permitted individual to shoot a weapon (fingerprint sensors, like what we have on cell phones). My husband was researching it because he wanted to invent it, only to discover, it's already been invented. It's just been blocked by the gun people. No one would have them unless mandated by the government (expensive and makes the gun less "useful.").

So then your child would have to cut off your hand to use the gun, which... ok. 

I wouldn’t disagree that this could potentially be foolproof.

I don’t think this will pass simply because lots of people can’t get into their iPhones with their own fingerprints. 

[lauraw4321]

Just now, kbutton said:

I wouldn’t disagree that this could potentially be foolproof.

I don’t think this will pass simply because lots of people can’t get into their iPhones with their own fingerprints. 

No, it won't pass because the gun lobby and 2A and $$$. 

Not because of anything else. 

[kbutton]

Just now, lauraw4321 said:

I don't think people are saying that it "won't happen."  But they are saying it will happen a lot less. Because people will buy fewer guns. Guns will be harder to access. Homeowners insurance might dramatically increase for people with guns, making it not worth it to own them for a lot of people.

It's not X = Y.  It's X decreases Y. 

I agree. But I don’t see people respond in what seems to be a visceral way to all precautions.

[Dmmetler]

I can see real benefits in kids learning to handle guns and learning gun safety. One of the things TWRA does is to take urban kids out deer hunting as part of the hunting for the hungry program. They learn gun safety-and also see what guns do to a pretty large animal first hand.  It's a lot more "real" than playing video games or guns in media, and it also has a real benefit, since they need to reduce the deer numbers for the health of the animals, and they're providing meat for those who need them. It reframes guns as a useful tool that can be dangerous. 

 

[kbutton]

6 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

No, it won't pass because the gun lobby and 2A and $$$. 

Not because of anything else. 

Well, if you think the 2nd amendment is trivial, that’s another conversation. I’m open to a variety of interpretations of it, but painting it as the same thing as gun lobbies and money thrown at preventing common sense is…something. We have a right to free speech, but there are consequences to yelling “fire” in a crowded space.

Under our constitution, it’s quite likely that not being able access a firearm because your fingerprint is not robust would be a non-trivial barrier.

We have the constitution we have. Modifying it is one thing, mocking it is unhelpful, IMO. 

Edited September 6 by kbutton

[Heartstrings]

13 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Every single time I say it, I state that I take reasonable precautions with all kinds of things. Heck, I still mask everywhere. And we still got Covid once. I have extended family that doesn’t mask and has never had COVID that they know of. That doesn’t mean my mitigation does nothing or that they should not take precautions. 

It’s the feel of how people use this idea on here and how intensely they think prosecuting parents will work that makes me think they believe this will never happen to them. It’s the insistence that I must mean x if I say y. 

I think you are personalizing a discussion that isn’t directed at you.  We are saying everyone should do at least what you do, not that YOU personally aren’t doing enough or are negligent. 

Edited September 6 by Heartstrings

[Dmmetler]

I also do feel that if a kid has expressed distress, whether it's potentially pointed outward or inward, the first thing to do is remove ALL firearms from the house. Because they're just plain a very, very effective way of killing people. And a teen who is experiencing psychological distress is more likely to take on a permanent solution to said distress. And your personal gun rights should take a step back compared to your child's welfare. In so many of these cases, if the parent had done that, people would still be alive. 

 

Please don't quote--

This isn't just a hypothetical for me-I have a kid in my life who is struggling quite a lot right now, and every time they're at their dad's, I'm terrified for them. Because dad has guns, isn't great at securing them, and all it would take is ONE impulsive thought for us to lose said kid forever. Medication and therapy aren't an immediate fix. 

 

[KSera]

35 minutes ago, kbutton said:

It’s not even the idea I am responding to so much as the overtone of insistence that this is “the way” in order to quell the fears here. It’s a way of making it all about somebody else. There is probably some psychological term for this.

I don’t get any sense that anyone is saying this is the one way and it will fix things, but that it’s one thing that should be a no brained to require. Along with other things. I also think that while there are some gun owners saying this, there are even more non gun owners saying it, so it’s not about them wanting to make themself feel better that their own kid  couldn’t get to their weapon, they want other people who do have guns to make it so their kids can’t get to them. Which is beyond reasonable. 

30 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I'd like to see ammo tracking in the same manner we track medications from manufacture all the way through to their retail sale. Lot numbers work wonders, the computer tech exists and even though it would involve engraving onto the bullet itself, it would be much less complicated than tracking drug sales. Is it foolproof? No, but at this point we can't let the desire for perfect to get in the way of the good.

I think that would help for some kinds of gun crimes—drive by shootings, other murders where the shooter plans to not be caught. Which would be helpful. I don’t think it would matter for most mass shootings or any suicides, because the person buying the ammunition doesn’t expect to be alive afterwards so it doesn’t matter. 

13 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I can see real benefits in kids learning to handle guns and learning gun safety. One of the things TWRA does is to take urban kids out deer hunting as part of the hunting for the hungry program. They learn gun safety-and also see what guns do to a pretty large animal first hand.  It's a lot more "real" than playing video games or guns in media, and it also has a real benefit, since they need to reduce the deer numbers for the health of the animals, and they're providing meat for those who need them. It reframes guns as a useful tool that can be dangerous. 

 

If a kid is going to handle a gun, then I think safety programs of course are better than not having one. Plenty of these shooters have been hunting kids though; I don’t think being introduced to guns as a useful tool for hunting reduces the risk that a kid will commit a crime with the gun. Or suicide. I don’t see a benefit in desensitizing other kids to handling a gun though.  Teach what to do if they encounter one, but I don’t think learning gun skills appears to be a thing that would reduce shootings in any way. 

[Pawz4me]

25 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I wouldn’t disagree that this could potentially be foolproof.

I don’t think this will pass simply because lots of people can’t get into their iPhones with their own fingerprints. 

 

24 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

No, it won't pass because the gun lobby and 2A and $$$. 

Not because of anything else. 

I hate guns and gun culture probably more than most, but I'm thinking the fingerprint thing is a real problem. My prints aren't readable by an iPhone and various other sensors (we were at Disney quite a few years ago and that was the first inkling I had of a problem). Apparently it's often an age related thing--fingerprints get worn away with time. So while I'd love for it to work for guns, I do think there could be 2A issues unless the technology can really be improved.

[lauraw4321]

21 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Well, if you think the 2nd amendment is trivial, that’s another conversation. I’m open to a variety of interpretations of it, but painting it as the same thing as gun lobbies and money thrown at preventing common sense is…something. We have a right to free speech, but there are consequences to yelling “fire” in a crowded space.

Under our constitution, it’s quite likely that not being able access a firearm because your fingerprint is not robust would be a non-trivial barrier.

We have the constitution we have. Modifying it is one thing, mocking it is unhelpful, IMO. 

I don’t know how you get that I’m mocking the 2A. I’m stating that it’s a barrier. Maybe my quick typing is the issue? 
 

Of course a constitutional right means it’s tougher to pass laws around something. I’m an attorney - I’m aware. 

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

…

I think that would help for some kinds of gun crimes—drive by shootings, other murders where the shooter plans to not be caught. Which would be helpful. I don’t think it would matter for most mass shootings or any suicides, because the person buying the ammunition doesn’t expect to be alive afterwards so it doesn’t matter. 

…

It would also provide additional evidence in other crimes. For mass shootings, it would help establish culpability. I agree that such a measure wouldn’t impact suicide rates. 

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

 

I hate guns and gun culture probably more than most, but I'm thinking the fingerprint thing is a real problem. My prints aren't readable by an iPhone and various other sensors (we were at Disney quite a few years ago and that was the first inkling I had of a problem). Apparently it's often an age related thing--fingerprints get worn away with time. So while I'd love for it to work for guns, I do think there could be 2A issues unless the technology can really be improved.

Finger print locking on the gun itself isn’t as important if a gun safe or trigger lock is used religiously.I think it’s interesting tech but not likely to over be used.  

[kbutton]

12 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think you are personalizing a discussion that isn’t directed at you.  We are saying everyone should do at least what you do, not that YOU personally aren’t doing enough or are negligent. 

I think they are deflecting an observation about their own fears. They say things like, “Well, if you don’t want to lock up your guns…”

I feel like there has been a trend over time in these threads (and within the threads), and that trend is toward wanting to feel secure by prosecuting after the fact to stop the next one.

But no one actually interacts with that idea.

It’s just interesting. I feel like if this were a conversation about teens and sexual activity, and someone said birth control protects 💯 against pregnancy, and I pushed back on that, the analogous response would be to say, “If you want to keep having sex with no birth control, go for it.” And any reply to that is argued about in some way that is irrelevant to discussion about perfect use and skipped doses, etc.

 

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, kbutton said:

feel like there has been a trend over time in these threads (and within the threads), and that trend is toward wanting to feel secure by prosecuting after the fact to stop the next one.

 

As someone who think the parents should be prosecuted, I’ll speak to that.  I don’t think *every* parent whose child shoots up a school should be prosecuted.  It’s case by case.I think a parent who takes some effort to secure weapons, even if imperfectly, should not be prosecuted.  Parents who demonstrate a reckless disregard should be prosecuted.  Why?  Well why prosecute anything ever?  But also, to help build a culture where security is the norm.  

[kbutton]

4 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

I don’t know how you get that I’m mocking the 2A. I’m stating that it’s a barrier. Maybe my quick typing is the issue? 
 

Of course a constitutional right means it’s tougher to pass laws around something. I’m an attorney - I’m aware. 

Oh, no. It’s putting in parallel construction with the other two as if a constitutional amendment that has existed for 200 years is the same as big $$$ and gun lobbies. If we have limits on free speech, we can have limits on gun rights, IMO.

That casual (probably from fast typing) made me think that you think a constitutional amendment is something to be dismissed as rigged if that makes sense.

There are people who talk like that about bits and pieces of the bill of rights that they don’t like.