[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future mass shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

It's a couple degrees away, but it still feels like someone in my tribe.

One of my Jiu Jitsu classmates told me that she had to watch someone she grew up with and played soccer with all her life break down on television because her daughter was gunned down in Florida.

Speechless.

farley3k wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm more down for Repeal & Replace.

The Second Amendment no longer has a role in our society. It's a "right" that costs way too much and delivers little, if any, real value.

I agree but I think way to many people are way to brainwashed to accept that without .... more than a fight.... probably civil war honestly.

I am perfectly fine with starting small. Hell baby steps would be such a vast improvement that I would be tickled to death.

Honestly, we've been doing the baby steps for decades now. We had a fake assault rifle ban. I don't even know what happened wit the stupid bump stocks.

I don't think we can repeal in any time soon. But until we repeal, there will not be meaningful regulation on guns in this country. For me, the only way forward is to eliminate the notion that owning a gun is a god given right.

I would prefer a steady and increasing call to repeal the 2nd amendment, hopefully picking up supporters after every additional mass shooting.

I would also call for a boycott of anything NRA related. I think anyone that believes in reasonable gun laws should give up their membership. We should boycott any business that supports the NRA.

I'm sick and tired of trying to convince people that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what they think it does. And the fact is, right now, they are right and I am wrong. The 2nd Amendment is allowing for the proliferation of guns in our country. The fact that it is being used, in my opinion, incorrectly is no longer the point.

The 2nd Amendment is the reason kids dies in school shootings. The 2nd Amendment is the reason we have mass shootings on a regular basis. It is the one major difference between us and all theater countries that do not have mass shootings.

So fine, we focus on eliminating it then. We can replace it, but I don't think it is necessary. Eliminating allows states and the federal government to begin work on laws that no longer have to abide by the 2nd Amendment. All of those other countries that do not have mass shooting have gun laws. Eliminating the 2nd does not mean banning all guns.

farley3k wrote:

I agree but I think way to many people are way to brainwashed to accept that without .... more than a fight.... probably civil war honestly.

I am perfectly fine with starting small. Hell baby steps would be such a vast improvement that I would be tickled to death.

There's already been twice as many gun deaths since 1968 as there were in the Civil War and that number goes up by 20,000 to 30,000 every year.

Gun extremist groups aren't going to allow baby steps because they've invested too much money in promoting the idea that gun ownership is absolute right and that nothing, no matter how small, can be allowed restrict that.

Gun enthusiasts need to be directly confronted about the grim cost of their goddamned hobby.

Quote not edit.

Jayhawker wrote:

The baby steps since Sandy Hook.

NY Times: What Congress Has Accomplished Since the Sandy Hook Massacre

Once again, Americans are facing a tragedy involving guns. This time, at least 17 people were killed during an attack at a Florida high school Wednesday.

More than five years have passed since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and six adults were killed. In that time, dozens of gun control proposals have been introduced in Congress attempting to fix glaring issues with gun safety and regulation. More than 1,600 mass shootings have taken place in America since then.

Here is a guide to what Congress has — or, more accurately, has not — accomplished during this time.

Be prepared to be angry. If you aren't, you are part of the problem.

Edit: It seems that Congress did pass one gun control law last year. My bad.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/nDpyORW.png)

I've never really posted in Discussion & Debate, because in general, I avoid conflict and (heated) debate.

Yesterday's shooting took place 10 minutes away from the house I grew up in. I am fortunate that none of my immediate friends or family were directly affected. But, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was one of 3 high schools in my home town area, and I had a number of friends that attended MSD, and I'd been there on occasion for competitions and track meets. I'm still trying to process what happened yesterday.

So, some of you may know of Radiolab. They have a spinoff show about the Supreme Court, and one recent episode covered the history of the 2nd Amendment. Sorry if this was already posted.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/gu...

EDIT: I was mistaken. I just found out that one of the kids we lost was one of my mom's former students. I had a good cry just now. May he rest in peace.

Yoyoson, take care of yourself. Sorry to hear how heavily this impacts on you and your family.

Paleocon wrote:

Gun culture

Thanks Paleo. I get it. It's difficult to fully appreciate but I get it. Going shooting is an activity that exists in Ireland but it is more around pest control for Farmers. Still, I get the emotional attachment. Boys and girls being given the responsibility to use dangerous tools (tractors, chainsaws, drills, etc.) are significant milestones in many of their lives. Earning that trust from an adult is vital to them. It's just odd that handguns and high capacity rifles have worked their way into that sphere but I get it.

wordsmythe wrote:

Dang, even judging the risk appropriately, it goes in the hopper with all the other priorities of a parent. I get how hard that is.

With you there, word. Don't discount the fact that he just got it wrong. I've certainly made a mess of assessing risk.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm more down for Repeal & Replace.

Following our 8th amendment constitutional battles, OG ? Oddly enough, I think the lessons are transferable. Political parties held in the thrall of a powerful lobby group protected by a constitutional amendment? Check.

I'm so sorry Yoyo.

I feel like I have to pull this out of storage every time a shooting happens.

Every time something like this comes up, both sides start talking about confiscation like it is the only possible endpoint. I am sick of it. It gets us nowhere.

How about we start with:
1) universal registration of every firearm.
2) strict licensing requirements which include testing for mental competency, drugs use, criminal background, political extremism, domestic violence, etc.
3) make that licensing subject to annual renewal
4) mandatory liability insurance for each firearm with actuarial science applied to the potential risk of each firearm and user by risk factors.
5) safe storage requirements
6) onerous civil and criminal penalties for loss, theft, or unauthorized access of one's firearm(s)
7) random and periodic law enforcement inspections of firearm safe storage and custody.
8) losing liability insurance and/or one's license results in confiscation/voluntary surrender of all firearms.

That way, folks who really want guns can have their guns, but have to have skin in the game. This will prevent f*ckwits from engaging in celebratory gunfire, straw purchasing, and all manner of nonsense because losing insurance or licensing will result in the loss of the privilege.

Folks talk about how most gun owners are "responsible". Prove it. Prove you can manage the standard of behavior we expect of teenage drivers.

Again, feel free to cut and paste.

Paleocon wrote:

4) mandatory liability insurance for each firearm with actuarial science applied to the potential risk of each firearm and user by risk factors.

This would also have the benefit that shooting victims won't need GoFundMe campaigns to pay their crippling medical expenses.

I'm fine with all that. The problem is that as soon as any compromise is proposed, the pro-gun side frequently starts arguing about how you can't abridge a Constitutional right in any way, and even if you could, those proposals wouldn't work because reason, so why bother?

Hell, the Las Vegas shooter used an a gray area attachment whose only real purpose is either novelty value, entertainment, or firing a lot of rounds quickly and indiscriminately in a general direction (like at a crowd of people). That should've been a gimmie to ban or at least restrict. Instead, it was "well you could do the same thing with a rubber band, so why bother" and then it was quietly ignored by the GOP in power, and nothing happened.

I think a lot of gun control people would be thrilled to talk compromise, increased licensing requirements, or any goddamn thing, but those discussions never even get started, every single time.

Chaz wrote:

I'm fine with all that. The problem is that as soon as any compromise is proposed, the pro-gun side frequently starts arguing about how you can't abridge a Constitutional right in any way, and even if you could, those proposals wouldn't work because reason, so why bother?

Hell, the Las Vegas shooter used an a gray area attachment whose only real purpose is either novelty value, entertainment, or firing a lot of rounds quickly and indiscriminately in a general direction (like at a crowd of people). That should've been a gimmie to ban or at least restrict. Instead, it was "well you could do the same thing with a rubber band, so why bother" and then it was quietly ignored by the GOP in power, and nothing happened.

I think a lot of gun control people would be thrilled to talk compromise, increased licensing requirements, or any goddamn thing, but those discussions never even get started, every single time.

You aren't going to convert the hard cores. Just pick off the reasonable people where you can.

I hope so. But, like every other damn thing lately, the only way we really get anywhere is to throw the GOP out in the fall.

I sort of get the parent-to-child handmedown tradition of gun ownership. That makes sense for farmers to protect their crops, and game hunters. Maybe 6-round pistols even for some BS never-actually-happened version of the Wild West. Fine, tradition, whatever.

But the only "American Traditions" that involve high capacity AR-15s and sniper rifles are unconstitutional foreign wars for oil and mineral interests and the forgotten veterans of those wars suffering from PTSD. Those are the traditions you are celebrating when you keep a military rifle with a giant clip in your house.

I wish we had better stories to tell about our military adventures and the brave people involved with them. But owning a gun is not a sign of respect, donating to the VA is.

DC Malleus wrote:

From the outside, firearm-related violence seems to be normalising to a level you would normally expect in active conflict zones, even down to the air of casual fatigue with which it's discussed in general conversation. It's really scary to watch.

Relevant gallows army humor: "A near miss is a life-changing event. A dozen near misses is just annoying."

JeffreyLSmith wrote:
DC Malleus wrote:

From the outside, firearm-related violence seems to be normalising to a level you would normally expect in active conflict zones, even down to the air of casual fatigue with which it's discussed in general conversation. It's really scary to watch.

Relevant gallows army humor: "A near miss is a life-changing event. A dozen near-misses is just annoying."

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

farley3k wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm more down for Repeal & Replace.

The Second Amendment no longer has a role in our society. It's a "right" that costs way too much and delivers little, if any, real value.

I agree but I think way to many people are way to brainwashed to accept that without .... more than a fight.... probably civil war honestly.

I am perfectly fine with starting small. Hell baby steps would be such a vast improvement that I would be tickled to death.

Giving up guns is going to be a harder fight than giving up slaves. Not everyone owned slaves at the time even if they agreed with the idea. Literally everyone has a personal stake in guns.

Yoyoson wrote:

EDIT: I was mistaken. I just found out that one of the kids we lost was one of my mom's former students. I had a good cry just now. May he rest in peace.

Very sorry, Yoyo.

thrawn82 wrote:

Giving up guns is going to be a harder fight than giving up slaves. Not everyone owned slaves at the time even if they agreed with the idea. Literally everyone has a personal stake in guns.

Only about 30% of the population own guns, though. Now, roughly half of the non-owners can see themselves getting a gun in the future, and gun owners generally can't picture themselves not having guns. But I really wouldn't say that everyone has a personal stake in guns.

Also, I don't like the analogy because enslaved people are people and guns are inanimate objects that kill people, which is an entirely different moral calculus.

Paleocon wrote:
Folks talk about how most gun owners are "responsible". Prove it. Prove you can manage the standard of behavior we expect of teenage drivers.

Heck, you know what would help right now and wouldn't touch anyone's guns at all?

Repeal the law preventing the CDC from studying gun violence.

Repeal the laws that make it illegal for the ATF to use computers and force the ATF to use manual records when they need to trace guns.

Repeal the law that gives gun manufacturers extended immunity from liability in nearly all cases.

thrawn82 wrote:
farley3k wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm more down for Repeal & Replace.

The Second Amendment no longer has a role in our society. It's a "right" that costs way too much and delivers little, if any, real value.

I agree but I think way to many people are way to brainwashed to accept that without .... more than a fight.... probably civil war honestly.

I am perfectly fine with starting small. Hell baby steps would be such a vast improvement that I would be tickled to death.

Giving up guns is going to be a harder fight than giving up slaves. Not everyone owned slaves at the time even if they agreed with the idea. Literally everyone has a personal stake in guns.

We don't have to throw out the 2nd amendment to make a difference. Just start with the low-hanging fruit: Ban civilian sale of 5.56mm NATO/.223 cal ammo. This is the round used by AR-style rifles. Take away the most common caliber round and any arguments about the definition of "assault weapon" and high-capacity magazines are rendered moot.

I'd perhaps be in favor of listing NATO rounds as restricted under the NFA, which puts them in the same category as machine guns and other heavily restricted weapons. Any purchase would require a difficult-to-obtain license and be closely tracked. This allows serious hobbyists to still fire at the range, but much more difficult for average Joe psychopath to acquire them. I can't remember the last mass shooting with an NFA-restricted weapon.

Yes, determined killers will find a way. But let's take away the easy button.

IMAGE(https://blog.shoplet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/staples-evil-button.jpg)

I would like you to count how many times you hear, "...but the 2nd Amendment.." every time you here reasonable gun laws debated. I don't think the 2nd Amendment should preclude supporting those laws, and shouldn't have to be repealed. But the reality is, the existence of the 2nd Amendment creates a cult-like refusal to accept any limitation in what people view are God-given rights.

For me, any resistance to a gun law that uses the 2nd Amendment as a defense just means the 2nd Amendment is wrong and needs to be taken out of the equation. I would rather spend the next decade hammering away at the attitude of Americans toward the 2nd Amendment than to look at another 20+ years of gun legislation like the last two decades. This is where that has gotten us.

Also, consider that soon, as this generation off school kids begin to reach voting age, that there will be an influx of voters that spent their childhood doing active shooter drills in school because the adults in the nation were too caught up in not offending gun rights activists to even consider passing laws that actually would make a difference. I think those kids will become voters that see the 2nd amendment differently.

But the attitude needs to be changed by hammering away now. We need to start answering, "...but the 2nd Amendment..." with, "then the 2nd amendment needs to be removed." The goal is to save lives, not protect the rights to own a tool that only makes life more dangerous for everyone.

Jayhawker wrote:

But the attitude needs to be changed by hammering away now. We need to start answering, "...but the 2nd Amendment..." with, "then the 2nd amendment needs to be removed." The goal is to save lives, not protect the rights to own a tool that only makes life more dangerous for everyone.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not seeing any "well regulated" these days. Even by the Heller ruling in 2008, where the supreme court held that it meant "the imposition of proper discipline and training" we've enacted laws that specifically prohibit our ability to track and enforce that discipline.

Jayhawker wrote:

I would like you to count how many times you hear, "...but the 2nd Amendment.." every time you here reasonable gun laws debated. I don't think the 2nd Amendment should preclude supporting those laws, and shouldn't have to be repealed. But the reality is, the existence of the 2nd Amendment creates a cult-like refusal to accept any limitation in what people view are God-given rights.

For me, any resistance to a gun law that uses the 2nd Amendment as a defense just means the 2nd Amendment is wrong and needs to be taken out of the equation. I would rather spend the next decade hammering away at the attitude of Americans toward the 2nd Amendment than to look at another 20+ years of gun legislation like the last two decades. This is where that has gotten us.

Also, consider that soon, as this generation off school kids begin to reach voting age, that there will be an influx of voters that spent their childhood doing active shooter drills in school because the adults in the nation were too caught up in not offending gun rights activists to even consider passing laws that actually would make a difference. I think those kids will become voters that see the 2nd amendment differently.

But the attitude needs to be changed by hammering away now. We need to start answering, "...but the 2nd Amendment..." with, "then the 2nd amendment needs to be removed." The goal is to save lives, not protect the rights to own a tool that only makes life more dangerous for everyone.

The "BT2A" crowd ignores the fact that the NFA already restricts what you can own. You can't buy a machine gun at your local sporting goods store. Since that law has been in existence since 1934 average people accept it.

Average people will accept a ban on AR-style weapons, too. We just need to ride our congress-critters hard on this.

Gremlin wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But the attitude needs to be changed by hammering away now. We need to start answering, "...but the 2nd Amendment..." with, "then the 2nd amendment needs to be removed." The goal is to save lives, not protect the rights to own a tool that only makes life more dangerous for everyone.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not seeing any "well regulated" these days. Even by the Heller ruling in 2008, where the supreme court held that it meant "the imposition of proper discipline and training" we've enacted laws that specifically prohibit our ability to track and enforce that discipline.

Agreed. Training requirements for permit-to-carry holders are non-existent or a joke.

My wife, who had never fired a handgun in her life, attended a one-day gun safety training class with me several years ago. We got about 60 minutes on the range and fired two magazines of 9mm. At the end of the class we were presented certificates qualifying us to apply for carry permits. This "training" in Minnesota is more than most states from what I understand.

Dallas Sportscaster On School Shooting: “Since It’s Almost Always A White Kid, There’s Just Nothing We Can Do”

Dale Hansen is a WFAA sportscaster whose “Extra Point” segments sometimes go viral; we’ve featured his work here multiple times. Yesterday, he turned his attention to the school shooting in Florida, one of eight already this year. An excerpt:

Another high school shooting yesterday, this one in Florida. Seventeen dead, the last report I saw. And everybody sends their “thoughts and prayers” again because that works so well. [...]

America has five percent of the world’s population, and yet 31 percent of the world’s mass shootings. We’re worried about people coming to this country. They should be worried about us going to theirs. [...]

Last time I said we need to find a way to stop a nut with a gun—and that’s all I said—I get an email saying, “I’m saving my last bullet to put it right between your eyes.” Just another responsible gun owner in America.

Gremlin wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

Giving up guns is going to be a harder fight than giving up slaves. Not everyone owned slaves at the time even if they agreed with the idea. Literally everyone has a personal stake in guns.

Only about 30% of the population own guns, though. Now, roughly half of the non-owners can see themselves getting a gun in the future, and gun owners generally can't picture themselves not having guns. But I really wouldn't say that everyone has a personal stake in guns.

And NRA members only make up about 6-7% of gun owners. But they spent $5 million in 2017 on lobbying (probably more in a less official capacity, but that's all they reported).

Yoyoson - I'm so very sorry to hear that. Knowing that so many of us seem to know someone near these incidents makes it more appalling that so little is being done by those in government. They must know someone too.

For myself:
- There was a gunman in a local mall a couple years back. Most don't remember that because a far worse school shooting took place the next day. A friend was at the mall that day hiding in a supply room with a few other customers for hours posting to facebook asking for updates if the police had things under control yet.
- One of my customers was in Las Vegas. She's physically ok but was in the crowd.

Gremlin wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But the attitude needs to be changed by hammering away now. We need to start answering, "...but the 2nd Amendment..." with, "then the 2nd amendment needs to be removed." The goal is to save lives, not protect the rights to own a tool that only makes life more dangerous for everyone.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not seeing any "well regulated" these days. Even by the Heller ruling in 2008, where the supreme court held that it meant "the imposition of proper discipline and training" we've enacted laws that specifically prohibit our ability to track and enforce that discipline.

There is a difference between logic and emotion. The only reason the 2nd needs to be repealed is that it continues to sway a significant number of voters, even those that don't own guns, that we have to protect rights of gun owners. No one looks at it and says, "Hey, maybe we should be regulating more." In a local forum, even the mention of taking guns from those with mental illness was rejected on the grounds that the government would table anyone they don't like as unstable.

But hey, if you can get enough people to interpret the 2nd the way we interpret it, more power to you. I'm just done trying because it's always the same circular arguments. Seriously. Take that argument to Texas and see how far you get.

At some point we have to change the rules of the debate. The goal is to enact laws to make us safer. As long as the NRA can keep the debate that we need laws that make us safer, but do not violate their view of the 2nd Amendment, we will continue to solve the problem with laws like the fake assault rifle ban. Then we can spend a decade defining all the different types of guns and what they do.

There are no easy answers. Repealing the 2nd is not an easy answer. It very may well not be possible, as many progressives that fully support strict gun control will not even consider it. How many decades will it take before we realize that the 2nd is the problem. It is the one argument that seems to trump public safety over and over.

thrawn82 wrote:

Giving up guns is going to be a harder fight than giving up slaves. Not everyone owned slaves at the time even if they agreed with the idea. Literally everyone has a personal stake in guns.

Literally everyone? Not really.

The percentage of American households with a firearm has steadily decreased over the past 40+ years, largely driven by the decline of hunting. Gallup's polls show that around 50%+ of households in during the 70s, 80s, and early 90s had firearms. In 2016 only 36% of households had firearms.

The General Social Survey, a sociological survey created and regularly collected by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago since 1972, puts that number at just 31%.

Individual ownership of firearms has steadily decreased, as well. In the 80s about a third of Americans said they owned a firearm. Now that number is down to a little over 20%, around 55 million Americans.

While the percentage of Americans owning firearms has decreased there's been a tiny minority that has greatly expanded their gun ownership. About half of those 55 million Americans own only one or two firearms.

But there are around eight million Americans who own half of the 250 to 300 million firearms circulating around the country. They own between eight and 140 firearms. They're definitely invested in the 2nd Amendment either to protect their hobby or because they honestly think that amassing firearms is going to keep the black UN helicopters away.

It's reasonable to say that, at a minimum, the two thirds of Americans who don't own a firearm don't feel like they have a personal stake in the future of 2nd Amendment. They might vaguely support it, but obviously not enough to put money where their mouth is and actually buy a firearm.

We can't even assume that every gun owner is a blanket supporter of the 2nd Amendment. The half of gun owners that only have one or two firearms aren't going to be people who have a lifetime membership to the NRA. They're going to mostly be someone who impulse bought a handgun or shotgun for personal safety and then forgot about it.

Even among the truly passionate supporters who own multiple firearms there are some who have soured on 2nd Amendment, including folks here.

If there was ever any time to start to talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment it's now. Doubly so because the chickens have come home to roost and the most visible 2nd Amendment supporters right now are mass murderers, alt-right groups, and racist militias.

Gremlin wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But the attitude needs to be changed by hammering away now. We need to start answering, "...but the 2nd Amendment..." with, "then the 2nd amendment needs to be removed." The goal is to save lives, not protect the rights to own a tool that only makes life more dangerous for everyone.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not seeing any "well regulated" these days. Even by the Heller ruling in 2008, where the supreme court held that it meant "the imposition of proper discipline and training" we've enacted laws that specifically prohibit our ability to track and enforce that discipline.

I think the ruling in Heller was about the right to self-defense, and that the second amendment reflects that right. It's weirdly like the constitutional protection of abortion, from what I can tell.

but:

Jayhawker wrote:

There is a difference between logic and emotion. The only reason the 2nd needs to be repealed is that it continues to sway a significant number of voters, even those that don't own guns, that we have to protect rights of gun owners. No one looks at it and says, "Hey, maybe we should be regulating more." In a local forum, even the mention of taking guns from those with mental illness was rejected on the grounds that the government would table anyone they don't like as unstable.

yeah.

Sadly, this is probably what it comes down to. And it's not even all the work of the pro-gun nuts. The sensible regulation side has helped dumb down the debate, too. This is where we are. All or nothing is the only thing people will understand at this point.