Active shooter?

[Sean Hayden]

So what do you propose?

I think you're just going to end up where I am. You have to convince the people they don't need guns. It doesn't have to be all the people. It just has to be close to a majority. Then you'll have to fight that fight forever. Although hopefully it won't be as bad as fighting to keep abortion legal.

[tattuchu]

Legislators are in reality killing children because of their unwillingness to act.

And because gun lobbyists give them lots and lots and lots of money.

[tattuchu]

There's one obvious solution - would have thought it would appeal to Trump.

Close all schools. Problem solved.

Shoes.

Most shooters wear shoes. Take those away, and no more gun violence.

I think you're on to something here. It can't be the guns, of course -- the relationship between guns and gun violence is completely coincidental. Guns are, in fact, the least likely explanation. So, looking at this problem logically and realistically, what is the correlation?
Shoes may very well be the culprit

[Scot Dutchy]

Trump reckons it mental illness and not guns. I was listening on the radio. In the south it is angry white and in the north angry black men apparently.

[Rum]

So what do you propose?

I think you're just going to end up where I am. You have to convince the people they don't need guns. It doesn't have to be all the people. It just has to be close to a majority. Then you'll have to fight that fight forever. Although hopefully it won't be as bad as fighting to keep abortion legal.

To be self centred for a moment I have never, ever on any single occasion been fearful of anyone having a gun on the street or public place that might start shooting. It has never entered my head when out and about that someone around me might be armed and might start shooting, even in 'rough' neighbourhoods when I have had reason to go into them..

So it is OK for me and the rest of us here. It is just so frustrating looking in from outside that the USA, which personally I admire in so many respects is unable to crack this particular nut - in particular school shootings. This is the 18th so far this year for fuck's sake.

Before my retirement I used to go into several schools a week. I had the sort of job that would check if 'mass shooter drills' were being done and how well. The thought horrifies me - and it should horrify Americans too.

[Forty Two]

The thing is does the 'right to bear arms' actually protect people when it comes to being safer? If it did then one might have some reason to support the idea. The reality is that it does not seem to.

An interesting analysis of some stats from 2012 which concludes:

"The notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime. And that the sea of guns in which we live causes exponentially more danger and harm than good. It's long past time to start emphasizing the "well-regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment".

From: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... story.html

The reality is that most people in the US can be trusted with guns. The vast majority. In New Hampshire, for example, most people have guns, and there is almost no gun crime.

What needs to be changed is the "all or nothing" mentality of legislators and the public. We have these teams where they cannot give an inch on the matter, and compromise is impossible.

We need to recognize that the right to bear arms does not mean that the arms can't be regulated - the second amendment contemplates regulation when it says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..." So, let's regulate the militia well. I dont see why we can't start with sensible restrictions including registration of the weapons, permits to the gun owners, and closure of all the loopholes regarding gun show sales and private transactions, and add to that the background checks, and mandatory training.

That last bit, mandatory training, could be a way to eyeball people who have guns. If someone seems off, send them to be evaluated.

This guy yesterday in Florida, he was a nutcase, and everyone knew it. If he had to get a permit and be subjected to a background check, and take mandatory training, someone might have been able to take some action based on the suspicions.

We can start there. Maybe that's not enough. But, I can't see how anyone in the NRA or the staunchest gun owner can say that those measures would be a violation of Second Amendment rights. They always seem to acknowledge that violent felons and mentally ill folks shouldn't be getting guns, and that restrictions on children are o.k. too, but none of that is "in the text of the amendment" either, so why can't we have your basic licensing/permitting and registration? And, hardly anybody is saying that any weapon you can hold in your arms, like a shoulder fired surface to air missile or something, is an "arm" under the Second Amendment (some people do, but not many). I would think that we can come to some sensible starting point on this.

When I see and hear the video clips of 14-17 year olds cowering under their desks as rifle shots pop pop pop in the hallway just a few steps away, as their fellow students get gunned down in cold blood, it really gets to me. I can't imagine how people's only suggested solution could be that teachers should be armed, or that armed cops should be stationed at schools, or that the schools themselves should be turned into prison-like fortresses. Can we at least try some moderate regulation and see how it works?

I think all the Second Amendment absolutists have been driven from the board, which is a shame. Now we can't have a conversation with the "other side" since there isn't anybody here that holds that absolute or near absolute view. But, that's what the "troll them and drive them from the forum" folks here want.

[Forty Two]

Trump reckons it mental illness and not guns. I was listening on the radio. In the south it is angry white and in the north angry black men apparently.

LOL, apparently. Go on with your theories.

[Sean Hayden]

To be self centred for a moment I have never, ever on any single occasion been fearful of anyone having a gun on the street or public place that might start shooting. It has never entered my head when out and about that someone around me might be armed and might start shooting, even in 'rough' neighbourhoods when I have had reason to go into them..

So it is OK for me and the rest of us here. It is just so frustrating looking in from outside that the USA, which personally I admire in so many respects is unable to crack this particular nut - in particular school shootings. This is the 18th so far this year for fuck's sake.

Before my retirement I used to go into several schools a week. I had the sort of job that would check if 'mass shooter drills' were being done and how well. The thought horrifies me - and it should horrify Americans too.

It frustrates me too. I can live without guns. But most of my neighbors can't. Most of my neighbors can't manage to live without security cameras on their doors. To many Americans every night is just one more chance for the bogeyman to get them, and every morning is another opportunity for the kidnapper in the bushes to grab their kids on the way to school, just like every ATM is just another opportunity to get robbed, and Walmart's where you go if you don't mind being raped in the parking lot, and don't get me started on traveling overseas. --blah, blah, blah--

They've filled their heads with so much of this shit. It doesn't matter what the statistics say. It's like the fear of flying.

[Rum]

The thing is does the 'right to bear arms' actually protect people when it comes to being safer? If it did then one might have some reason to support the idea. The reality is that it does not seem to.

An interesting analysis of some stats from 2012 which concludes:

"The notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime. And that the sea of guns in which we live causes exponentially more danger and harm than good. It's long past time to start emphasizing the "well-regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment".

From: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... story.html

The reality is that most people in the US can be trusted with guns. The vast majority. In New Hampshire, for example, most people have guns, and there is almost no gun crime.

What needs to be changed is the "all or nothing" mentality of legislators and the public. We have these teams where they cannot give an inch on the matter, and compromise is impossible.

We need to recognize that the right to bear arms does not mean that the arms can't be regulated - the second amendment contemplates regulation when it says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..." So, let's regulate the militia well. I dont see why we can't start with sensible restrictions including registration of the weapons, permits to the gun owners, and closure of all the loopholes regarding gun show sales and private transactions, and add to that the background checks, and mandatory training.

That last bit, mandatory training, could be a way to eyeball people who have guns. If someone seems off, send them to be evaluated.

This guy yesterday in Florida, he was a nutcase, and everyone knew it. If he had to get a permit and be subjected to a background check, and take mandatory training, someone might have been able to take some action based on the suspicions.

We can start there. Maybe that's not enough. But, I can't see how anyone in the NRA or the staunchest gun owner can say that those measures would be a violation of Second Amendment rights. They always seem to acknowledge that violent felons and mentally ill folks shouldn't be getting guns, and that restrictions on children are o.k. too, but none of that is "in the text of the amendment" either, so why can't we have your basic licensing/permitting and registration? And, hardly anybody is saying that any weapon you can hold in your arms, like a shoulder fired surface to air missile or something, is an "arm" under the Second Amendment (some people do, but not many). I would think that we can come to some sensible starting point on this.

When I see and hear the video clips of 14-17 year olds cowering under their desks as rifle shots pop pop pop in the hallway just a few steps away, as their fellow students get gunned down in cold blood, it really gets to me. I can't imagine how people's only suggested solution could be that teachers should be armed, or that armed cops should be stationed at schools, or that the schools themselves should be turned into prison-like fortresses. Can we at least try some moderate regulation and see how it works?

I think all the Second Amendment absolutists have been driven from the board, which is a shame. Now we can't have a conversation with the "other side" since there isn't anybody here that holds that absolute or near absolute view. But, that's what the "troll them and drive them from the forum" folks here want.

You are probably looking at the only way America can approach this issue, but it is still a riff on 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. The majority of people would be safe with a howitzer, but that doesn't mean it is sensible to let people own them. A few 'nutters' would create havoc - and havoc seems to be what you have these days.

[Forty Two]

Sure, I get that, Rum. But, the US is a different place. And many people do have many day-to-day reasons to have guns.

Indeed, we have havoc, and the issue must be addressed. However, it cannot be addressed with jumping to "confiscate 300 million guns" so we don't have any shootings. That won't happen. It also won't be solved by raising our kids in schools patrolled by the police with guns, or arming teachers, or rebuilding the schools to be armed camps.

All I'm saying is that there are, in fact, steps that can be taken to address concrete issues. We need to come to a compromise on these things. There must be some limitation on size and power of weaponry. There must be some attention to who gets guns and how, and how they are sold and how they are tracked. That would go a long way to reducing these kinds of events.

A sensible, rational process. If more needs to be done next year or the year after that, then we'll address it then. The suggestion that we will either deprive everyone of a weapon, or even need to, in order to solve the problem, or that we will do nothing except arm people further in order to solve the problem, is a false choice. Neither of those solutions is feasible or desirable, IMO.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah don't let them get cold before jumping on some political bandwagon. Nothing means votes like a dead fucking high school kid.

It's a political issue lak. How can it not be? If elected politicians can't organise themselves to protect the lives of innocent teenagers then what the are fuck they for? I see Rubio popped up straight away and said that this wasn't the time to talk about gun control. IF the murder of 17 teenagers in their classrooms by someone with ready access to assault weapons like the AR-15 (the same weapon used in the Texas church shooting and in Vegas concert) isn't the time to talk about gun control when the fuck is? Is not like we need some sort of special investigation or commission into this particular spree to know that people with ready access to assault rifles are the only people who will ever use them against others. Christ, this kid even had smoke grenades and a gas mask if reports are to be believed. FFS!! Allowing people possession of these things is entirely a political issue - as much a political issue as allowing them to possess phosphorus missiles, anthrax or nukes.

What I didn't know until yesterday was that Florida school lockdown drills are now more common than the 60s cold war duck-and-cover drills their elders and betters used to practice in case of nuclear war. Kids are now having workshops on what's the best thing to throw at a school gunman to save their lives. If teaching kids how to throw chairs at someone discharging a personal firearm in their classrooms doesn't speak to a massive, collective political failure I don't know what does.

How many more children, grandchildren, sisters and brothers have to be randomly strafed in their schools before politicians realise that doing something about it is supposed to be exactly what they're elected for? If this had been the 8th terror attack of the year rather than just the 8th US school shooting the outrage of politicians would be palpable and impossible to miss. So why are they not only not outraged by yet another avoidable loss of innocent life but they're actively telling everyone else that there's absolutely no need to be outraged by this either?

Sorry lak. That wasn't directed at you mate - but really, isn't it time the US started electing politicians who aren't all too eager to be sucked off by the NRA every time something like this happens?

[Brian Peacock]

Sure, I get that, Rum. But, the US is a different place. And many people do have many day-to-day reasons to have guns.

Indeed, we have havoc, and the issue must be addressed. However, it cannot be addressed with jumping to "confiscate 300 million guns" so we don't have any shootings. That won't happen. It also won't be solved by raising our kids in schools patrolled by the police with guns, or arming teachers, or rebuilding the schools to be armed camps.

All I'm saying is that there are, in fact, steps that can be taken to address concrete issues. We need to come to a compromise on these things. There must be some limitation on size and power of weaponry. There must be some attention to who gets guns and how, and how they are sold and how they are tracked. That would go a long way to reducing these kinds of events.

A sensible, rational process. If more needs to be done next year or the year after that, then we'll address it then. The suggestion that we will either deprive everyone of a weapon, or even need to, in order to solve the problem, or that we will do nothing except arm people further in order to solve the problem, is a false choice. Neither of those solutions is feasible or desirable, IMO.

It has to be addressed, and yet your lawmakers not only fail to address it, but they exacerbate the problem by instituting overly lax control regimes that, to be blunt about it, primarily serve the financial interests of the gun and ammo manufacturers. The US needs a long term plan to progressively restrict the possession of personal firearms with a view to removing them entirely from the hands of the general public. That's not impossible, but is the will even there? A blanket ban on purchases of assault weapons would be a start surely? Reducing people's access to firearms over time is going to hurt the US's domestic gun sector economically - perhaps even fatally - but so fucking what? Does their right to make a profit override a child's right not to be shot dead in their classrooms? If the financial support of the NRA is more important to a politician than the safety and security of schoolchildren then how can they not carry a good portion of the responsibility for every avoidable death?

[laklak]

Yeah it is political, Brian, but it would have been a nice thing to give people 12 or 24 hours before jumping on the anti-gun or pro-gun wagon. I simply cannot imagine the pain the parents are feeling, but it didn't take 20 minutes for the fucking talking heads to start blabbering, turning a tragedy into political fodder. I'm sick of them, all of them, on both sides. They have no decency. I can't even watch the news any longer because they make me fill physically ill. I own guns, but I don't shoot people. I shoot targets. I used to shoot animals but I don't even do that any more. As the apocryphal "responsible gun owner" I have no problem with more gun control, as long as the vast majority of law abiding, responsible gun owners aren't targeted. How we can manage that is beyond my limited intellect, and is apparently beyond pretty much everyone else's. But as the meme says, if the 120,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. were really the problem you'd know it, big time.

We got a call from the blood bank because we're both O Neg and they're running short, so we went down and gave them a couple of pints. That's about all we can personally do.

[JimC]

Yeah it is political, Brian, but it would have been a nice thing to give people 12 or 24 hours before jumping on the anti-gun or pro-gun wagon. I simply cannot imagine the pain the parents are feeling, but it didn't take 20 minutes for the fucking talking heads to start blabbering, turning a tragedy into political fodder. I'm sick of them, all of them, on both sides. They have no decency. I can't even watch the news any longer because they make me fill physically ill. I own guns, but I don't shoot people. I shoot targets. I used to shoot animals but I don't even do that any more. As the apocryphal "responsible gun owner" I have no problem with more gun control, as long as the vast majority of law abiding, responsible gun owners aren't targeted. How we can manage that is beyond my limited intellect, and is apparently beyond pretty much everyone else's.

We got a call from the blood bank because we're both O Neg and they're running short, so we went down and gave them a couple of pints. That's about all we can personally do.

I can see where you're coming from, Lak - do you agree with the (to me) sensible, pragmatic suggestions from 42? If so, what chance do such moderate proposals actually have of getting off the ground?

[laklak]

I absolutely agree with most. I've no problem with expanding background checks, limiting magazine capacity, and requiring training. I've never had an issue with banning automatic weapons, grenades, surface to air missiles, etc. I'm not so sure about registration or permitting, there is, IMO, a slippery slope there and the "confiscate them all" mentality is alive and well. I don't know how something like mandatory training is going to work without some sort of registration, though, so I'm open to a discussion.