I just want to express my grief.

[Nix]

Sorry if you were upset by the conversation, TG.

It has seemed pretty civil so far, with multiple points of view.

And I think it went exactly where it was intended to go. 

Although nothing has really changed as a result, as far as I can tell.

[Farmer X]

Here are just a couple statistics...

Thanks for listing them. Further proof that the problem is deeply seated.

There are wildly unreliable reports of firearms being used for self-defense 50,000 to 2,000,000 times per year here.

Mass media outlets rarely cover such events. Coincidence? I think not.

[Syncop8r]

Although nothing has really changed as a result, as far as I can tell.

And nothing will change. 

[Nix]

And nothing will change. 

Hard to say. There seems to be a good bit of energy going into getting some new legislation in place.

[GearedForwards]

Comparing these tragedies to other things is not helpful at all, many people die from many things, that doesn't devalue the conversation at hand, and just comes across as bad discussion.

How much freedom is lost by limiting magazine size to ten? Does that actually negatively impact any legitimate firearm use beyond minor inconvenience?

What freedom is lost by having more robust background checks and evaluations?

I would rather any replies to this not be 'slippery slope.'

But since the focus was pointed to other things: The war in Ukraine is a horrible tragedy, and within the first hours my partner and I denoted all the money we could afford directly to the Ukranian military. I even posted those details here, before they were scrubbed from my post at the time.

Why care about the US? You don't have to be limited by geography to care about human life, but if a more specific reason is needed: As a person moving to the states, specifically Texas, in the very near future this is absolutely terrifying. And I don't care about meaningless statistical comparisons to lightning strikes or lotto wins, such comparisons are needless and just serve to distract from the point. It also doesn't factor in those affected by such tragedies through loss of loved ones, or being traumatised by being present.

A chief concern when moving to the states will not be a gun, it will be body armor.

[Nix]

GF, I didn't know you were moving to Texas. Where in Texas?

I've been in Texas numerous times. Guns were never an issue and I never felt unsafe there, except for the heat.... I was once visiting a guy near Austin who stashed guns around his house, "if you find one, it's probably loaded." So that was a but unusual. Of course I see people carrying guns around here frequently. Again, never been an issue.

In re 10-round magazines: I can't say that is a big issue for me. However, some people value 15, 20, or 30 round magazines. Since self-defense is considered a 'legitimate use' here, some people might well consider that a negative restriction. And, here, "slippery slope" is a common concern. What is the trajectory of UK laws with respect to firearms, other defensive weapons, and simple knives? Am I wrong to see a "slippery slope" there?

I favor background checks for long guns as well as handguns. I'm also comfortable with a reasonable waiting period between purchase and possession. I'd be OK with restricting the sale of semiautomatic firearms to those over 21y/o.

In comparing assault rifle violence to other tragic modes of death, I was trying to provide some perspective. Which I do think is relevant. I think the gun issue tends to be exaggerated. That doesn't detract from the horror of Uvalde or other similar events, true. But I think these things need to be placed in some context. Uvalde was brief, limited, and self-contained. The problems that alcohol causes don't receive near the attention, but are far more impacting. I'm interested why this event gains so much attention when my focus tends to be on other crises (just today I wrote to my congressional representatives asking that more action be taken on global warming and associated global food insecurity).

If you are moving to Texas, I can certainly sympathize with your concerns about firearms and gun control. You've picked one of the most gun-happy states in the nation.    This is a different culture and we have different values, so you are in for some "culture shock". Heheheh, I would be too if I moved there. In no way do I mean to come across as being judgmental. Different is just different.

Depending on your location and work hours, I doubt you'll need that body armor.

[kkokkolis]

I follow the civilized discussion with great interest. As Nasreddin Hodja, the wise Seljuk, would say, both sides are right. And the one who says they can't be both right, he's right too.
I don't have an opinion about US politics. We have enough problems ourselves here that we are unable to solve, trying to solve a transatlantic unsolvable problem would be comic.
But I can't help to stop wondering. What the mothers of those deceased toddlers would think on the matter? What if this continues (it seems it will) and, eventually, they become a sizeable and considerable minority and their votes and voice will start counting. US is a democratic country, as much democratic a country this size can be. And, the last decades, they respect minorities much more than they do around most of the globe.
Nothing stays unchanged for ever, that's for sure.


Στάλθηκε από το MAR-LX1A μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[nate j]

I'm guessing that the majority of those firearm homicides would be from handguns?
What impact did this ban have on mass shootings, since that is the topic being discussed here?
Also using an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
What is a "true assault rifle"?
I haven't heard of the term "assault weapon" before, perhaps it is from media taking some liberty with definitions? "Assault rifle" comes from the first successful example, the StG 44, Sturmgewehr literally translating to storm/assault rifle.

Here we have primarily used the term Military-Style Semi-Automatic for the purposes of banning such weapons. I guess the aim was to target weapons that are primarily designed for killing other people in great numbers:

Lots of questions and a good discussion!  If I miss responding to something, rest assured I didn’t overlook it intentionally.

It is true that the majority of firearm homicides in the US are committed with handguns.

With regard to the impact of the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban on mass shootings, some studies have claimed a reduction, while others have not found any measurable effect.

Yes, an assault rifle is a selective fire rifle, also using an intermediate cartridge and having a detachable magazine.  In the US, however, it is the selective fire feature that made them subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934.  When I said “true assault rifle”, I simply meant one that actually met this definition, as opposed to something that is cosmetically similar but functionally different…

Unfortunately, the term “assault weapon” (sometimes “assault style weapon”) is in quite common usage here in the US, especially among certain politicians and some members of the media, in spite of the fact that (as noted earlier) there really isn’t a clear and commonly understood definition of what the term means.




I definitely give your government credit for writing a clear and concise definition:  Basically, any semi-automatic firearm above .22 caliber that can accept a detachable magazine capable of holding more than five cartridges is considered a military style semi-automatic and banned. 

But does this definition make sense?  It’s a matter of opinion, but I would argue that it does not.  As an example, Colt used to make a diminutive semi-automatic in .25 ACP, which they called the Vest Pocket.  This pistol accepted a detachable magazine that held six cartridges.

Is the Vest Pocket a military style semiautomatic?  According to the above definition, it is, but I humbly submit that logic dictates the opposite.

Was the Vest Pocket “primarily designed for killing other people in great numbers”?  I doubt it.  Rather, I’d suggest that it was pretty clearly designed and marketed as a concealable close range self defense tool, accurate to the range of small room or a large poker table while nearly disappearing into a man’s pocket or lady’s purse.

[nate j]

I'm guessing that the majority of those firearm homicides would be from handguns?
What impact did this ban have on mass shootings, since that is the topic being discussed here?
Also using an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
What is a "true assault rifle"?
I haven't heard of the term "assault weapon" before, perhaps it is from media taking some liberty with definitions? "Assault rifle" comes from the first successful example, the StG 44, Sturmgewehr literally translating to storm/assault rifle.

Here we have primarily used the term Military-Style Semi-Automatic for the purposes of banning such weapons. I guess the aim was to target weapons that are primarily designed for killing other people in great numbers:

Lots of questions and a good discussion!  If I miss responding to something, rest assured I didn’t overlook it intentionally.

It is true that the majority of firearm homicides in the US are committed with handguns.

With regard to the impact of the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban on mass shootings, some studies have claimed a reduction, while others have not found any measurable effect.

Yes, an assault rifle is a selective fire rifle, also using an intermediate cartridge and having a detachable magazine.  In the US, however, it is the selective fire feature that made them subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934.  When I said “true assault rifle”, I simply meant one that actually met this definition, as opposed to something that is cosmetically similar but functionally different…

Unfortunately, the term “assault weapon” (sometimes “assault style weapon”) is in quite common usage here in the US, especially among certain politicians and some members of the media, in spite of the fact that (as noted earlier) there really isn’t a clear and commonly understood definition of what the term means.




I definitely give your government credit for writing a clear and concise definition:  Basically, any semi-automatic firearm above .22 caliber that can accept a detachable magazine capable of holding more than five cartridges is considered a military style semi-automatic and banned. 

But does this definition make sense?  It’s a matter of opinion, but I would argue that it does not.  As an example, Colt used to make a diminutive semi-automatic in .25 ACP, which they called the Vest Pocket.  This pistol accepted a detachable magazine that held six cartridges.

Is the Vest Pocket a military style semiautomatic?  According to the above definition, it is, but I humbly submit that logic dictates the opposite.

Was the Vest Pocket “primarily designed for killing other people in great numbers”?  I doubt it.  Rather, I’d suggest that it was pretty clearly designed and marketed as a concealable close range self defense tool, accurate to the range of small room or a large poker table while nearly disappearing into a man’s pocket or lady’s purse.

[Nix]

Nothing stays unchanged for ever, that's for sure.

I believe that it is inevitable that we will see more strict regulation of firearm ownership here.

Fewer people are familiar and comfortable with firearms. That lack of familiarity will, I believe, lead more people to be afraid of firearms. As a result, people will (and are) demanding more restrictions.
This is a common dilemma for many people: choosing between relative freedom and relative security. You may see this in other contexts, such as someone debating leaving a secure job to pursue a risky dream, or not. More often than not, people seem to chose security. (Or what appears to be security.) In this case, many people do not see the freedom as being desirable or even a real freedom, the fear of firearms is too great.

In addition, the American sense of individualism and self-reliance is being replaced by a greater sense of social responsibility and interdependence. Increasingly governments, local, state, and federal are expected to provide solutions for all sorts of issues. Politicians feel compelled to "do something", which is usually something easy. (The hard stuff is avoided.) The combination of these factors will, I believe, result in restricting/repealing second amendment rights over time. Once freedoms have been relinquished, governments are disinclined to reinstate the same. It is just a matter of time before the US has laws more like those of Europe.

Nothing stays unchanged forever.

[GearedForwards]

GF, I didn't know you were moving to Texas. Where in Texas?

I've been in Texas numerous times. Guns were never an issue and I never felt unsafe there, except for the heat.... I was once visiting a guy near Austin who stashed guns around his house, "if you find one, it's probably loaded." So that was a but unusual. Of course I see people carrying guns around here frequently. Again, never been an issue.

In re 10-round magazines: I can't say that is a big issue for me. However, some people value 15, 20, or 30 round magazines. Since self-defense is considered a 'legitimate use' here, some people might well consider that a negative restriction. And, here, "slippery slope" is a common concern. What is the trajectory of UK laws with respect to firearms, other defensive weapons, and simple knives? Am I wrong to see a "slippery slope" there?

I favor background checks for long guns as well as handguns. I'm also comfortable with a reasonable waiting period between purchase and possession. I'd be OK with restricting the sale of semiautomatic firearms to those over 21y/o.

In comparing assault rifle violence to other tragic modes of death, I was trying to provide some perspective. Which I do think is relevant. I think the gun issue tends to be exaggerated. That doesn't detract from the horror of Uvalde or other similar events, true. But I think these things need to be placed in some context. Uvalde was brief, limited, and self-contained. The problems that alcohol causes don't receive near the attention, but are far more impacting. I'm interested why this event gains so much attention when my focus tends to be on other crises (just today I wrote to my congressional representatives asking that more action be taken on global warming and associated global food insecurity).

If you are moving to Texas, I can certainly sympathize with your concerns about firearms and gun control. You've picked one of the most gun-happy states in the nation.  This is a different culture and we have different values, so you are in for some "culture shock". Heheheh, I would be too if I moved there. In no way do I mean to come across as being judgmental. Different is just different.

Depending on your location and work hours, I doubt you'll need that body armor.

Huntsville, north of Houston, apparently home to the electric chair 

On choosing Texas: It wasn't a 'where in the US do I want to live' more of a 'this is where the partner's family is' we would have both rather the suburbs of Chicago or at least Austin Texas.

I don't really believe that I, or my partner, would ever need that body armor, but with gun culture and crime in the US being what it is that's what I reach towards as a safety measure. I once knew a college age kind in Alabama, when he had to go visit his girlfriend's family in a 'bad neighborhood' he would conceal carry. That's not what he normally did, he didn't put in regular rainge time or training. Yet his reaction was to grab a gun like anything happening would go down like an old western showdown. Even with regular training I would rather trust my internal organs to some armor rather than my own reactions with a firearm.

And let me be clear, I like guns, I enjoyed going to the US and firing them (though tbh I should not have been able to do so so easily and... unsupervised, but maybe that's just Florida), if I were to eventually gain rights to own a fire arm I would definitely do so. But I am under no illusion that any reasonable need calls for military level weapons. Hunting and self defense don't require magazines of 10+. Whether intermediary military cartridges have any place in civilian life is another argument to be made, but not one I am qualified to make.

I am not pointing to the UK as a model for how things should work. The UK over restricts things and uses fear as a weapon. I didn't fear getting beaten up by my bullies growing up, I feared them finding me outside of school and stabbing me, because that's the kind of reputation they had. Knife laws didn't deter that, but they do impact me carrying expensive knives I have no intent of ruining with other people's insides. I see no good reason why self defence spray should be outlawed here. The UK is not a perfect model for such things, and I never presented it as such.

This tragedy is particularly grabbing but it sadly isn't unique, as already mentioned before there are more mass shootings this year in the states than days. That's scarier than individual gun violence, because it isn't a robbery gone wrong or gang violence (most likely). That's what this has really highlighted, this isn't a vanishingly small statistic, it's more than a daily occurrence for the US. Every tragedy is contained until you look at how often they're happening around the country.

One thing I find rather striking is comparing things to Columbine, which happened in the middle of the Assault Weapons Ban:

Columbine was a planned, thought out act of terror, and only through sheer luck it was confined to the tragedy of being a school shooting. Two heavily armed individuals walked a packed highschool shooting for 50 minutes, and yet the results were 'only' 13 deaths and 21 injuries.

Robb Elementary does not appear to have any degree of the same planning, it was a sole shooter and as they were not a student it was not possible to get amongst the school population before things happened. Yet there were 21 deaths and 17 injuries (exc. the shooters grandmother).

I haven't seen any arguments that denying that shooter access to 30 round magazines wouldn't have made a difference, at least granting more openings to flee, hide, or for a teacher to fight given the strength.

I think that just restricting capacity and implementing background checks,waiting periods and a more robust system for intervening before people that clearly should not have had a gun, get that gun is what's needed. I don't thing that you need to ban a certain kind of gun necessarily, but there's no solid argument for civilians possessing access to that much firepower other than 'we already have it and don't want to give it up.'

I think the US has a problem for three reasons:

- The US has uniquely latched onto guns as part of their culture for some reason. I don't see why this happened in the US but not in Canada, other than the extreme patriotism in the states pointing towards the constitution giving them the right to bear arms. The fact that was written before such destructive individual power existed doesn't seem to ever be a factor.

- The US has also built an identity around 'freedom' with such a fractured form of government that allows such 'freedoms' to exist pretty much no matter what. This on a very real level stops being about any given problem and becomes the principle of freedom. Even if a given individual wouldn't be affected by legislation, it becomes the principle of 'freedom' being taken away/

- The previous two things collide with the monumental amount of money to be made from firearms. This not only leads to questionable advertising and availability of said firearms, but it means that the gun industry has the cash and membership to have an unsettling amount of sway over politicians.

[Sos24]

In comparing assault rifle violence to other tragic modes of death, I was trying to provide some perspective. Which I do think is relevant. I think the gun issue tends to be exaggerated. That doesn't detract from the horror of Uvalde or other similar events, true. But I think these things need to be placed in some context. Uvalde was brief, limited, and self-contained. The problems that alcohol causes don't receive near the attention, but are far more impacting. I'm interested why this event gains so much attention when my focus tends to be on other crises (just today I wrote to my congressional representatives asking that more action be taken on global warming and associated global food insecurity).

I agree, especially comparisons to other things that are classified as “violent deaths”.  As you pointed out cuts/stab or even blunt force deaths all account for more homocides than long guns, but yet they don’t even usually get reported and when they do people aren’t proclaiming a need for more knife laws.  But they are all violence and efforts to prevent violence would help with all. 

To that point your reference to alcohol, is even more pertinent if you look at 2nd and 3rd order effects.  It is not a secret that alcohol use/abuse is frequently present in domestic violence incidents and exposure to trauma or violence in the home at a young age is a commonality amongst school shooters.  So wouldn’t it stand to reason that banning alcohol would probably reduce school shooting.

[Syncop8r]

Lots of questions and a good discussion!

Thank you for your response. 

With regard to pistols, apart from target pistols you just don't see them here, and even then you would have to go to a pistol club (of which there are very few) to see one. That's my experience anyway, perhaps others have more to do with them.

Pistols: Now must meet the definition of a "small semi-automatic pistol" and have an overall length of 400mm or less, have a barrel length of 101mm or more as well as be a caliber approved by the Commissioner of Police that goes no faster than 1600fps otherwise it is now a prohibited weapon. This bans firearms like the AR pistol.

A standard licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category, one must receive an endorsement by meeting additional requirements:

B Endorsement – Target (competition) pistols

 - Applicant must be a current financial member of a pistol club, a financial member of Pistol New Zealand (or in some cases membership of an approved club) and have attended at least 12 club shoots in the last 6 months before they can apply
 - Applicant must be sponsored by their club
 - Applicant must attend at least 12 club activities (either at their home club or to another recognised club) in a financial year
 - Applicant is normally limited to 12 registered pistols
 - Pistols must be of an approved sporting type
 - Pistols can only be carried to and from the range in a locked container with ammunition in a separate container or to a gunsmith
 - Pistols may only be shot on a police-approved pistol club range

[Dutch_Tooler]

Interesting discussion y'all, and I'd agree it is being kept sufficiently civil.
I'd just want to add that looking for root causes (such as the effect of e.g. alcohol on domestic violence and hence on youngsters taking up violent attitudes) is good, but tends to be or result in long term effect solutions. Something needs to be done short term as well, right?
Then I'd also want to refer to banning alcohol as something that has been tried before without too much success...

[dks]

I do not think that the people in the US love freedom more than people in other countries.

I also think that you cannot legally carry anything you want anywhere in the US, as many people seem to think.

As I said, many around the world have fully automatic guns and bullets at home, as part of their country's defense plan. We are apparently the 5th country worldwide in guns per population here, for that reason (too).

I DO however REALLY understand how our US members, and several firearm owning US citizens that I know feel, when people from other countries start commenting/judging/suggesting and so on, on a sensitive subject in their country (US). I strongly believe that each country should be allowed to democratically take care of its own internal policies.

[Top-Gear-24]

Sorry if you were upset by the conversation, TG.

It has seemed pretty civil so far, with multiple points of view.

And I think it went exactly where it was intended to go. 

Although nothing has really changed as a result, as far as I can tell.

I'm not upset by this conversation, but I've been on the receiving end in other topics like this before...

And I'm sure as long as one side keeps tiptoeing around, this topic will remain civil as well .

[Fireman]

Your thesis excludes that, as Greg pointed out, there have been more mass shootings in 2022 than days. The personal chance of it happening to any given individual is not really the point, it's that it's happening period, and with such a massive frequency.

There have been 214 mass shootings in 2022 alone in the US, defined as 4 or more people shot (killed or injured) and not including the shooter themselves.

This doesn't happen elsewhere other than the US.

This is a problem. This is not media sensationalism.

And in light of a tragedy, it's okay to not jump into defending it. Just because you believe certain things doesn't mean that you should downplay what has happened with skewed statistics, it's okay to just let things be.

And let's put this into context: Children should never have to go through active shooter drills as part of their schooling.

This school year I was teaching grades 3, 4, 5, the same age as those killed in Uvalde.  I'm appalled by what happened there, and can't imagine how horrible this is for the families, survivors, and first responders. 

Speaking of skewed statistics, please research the mass shootings you have referenced.  A very large percentage are gang/drug related.  This also shows up in "school shootings" with fewer than 4 victims.  In other words, 18 year old drug dealer gets shot outside of school (predictable place/time to find him) over drug debt, and it is labeled as a school shooting.  You could check Chicago's stats to verify this, as there are multiple criminal shootings each week involving multiple shooters/victims.  Another problem here in the US are mass shootings that occur at parties or large gatherings.  These are much more frequent than school shootings, typically taking place at night, at concerts, in bar districts, or other places where there is a large group of people.  Often they begin as arguments.  Some are gang related, some not, but instead of a fight, multiple people exchange gunfire.  I don't understand what has changed since I was younger.

Back to school shootings.  I may have stopped one once.  I was working with teenagers at the time, and two girls reported threats they saw online.  I reported this immediately, and  the police took the young man into custody.  He underwent mental health evaluation and a number of other things happened involving him, his family, and the school.  He's about to enter college today.  Whether he was serious or not, he was unable to do anything and received help.  I believe that in almost all cases, someone was aware that there was a problem before the shooting started, but many have not been reported.  Stopping these attacks starts with reporting ANY threat.

Parental awareness is another issue.  The mother of the young man was incredibly angry that I reported her son, because "he would never do anything like that," even though he said online that he would.

I've been a hunter and shooter all of my life, and I would give up my guns in a heartbeat if I could stop all future school shootings.  It won't, though.  There is no single thing that will stop this.  Like all things in life, it's complicated, and requires a multifaceted solution. 

[Nix]

I think the US has a problem for three reasons:

- The US has uniquely latched onto guns as part of their culture for some reason. I don't see why this happened in the US but not in Canada, other than the extreme patriotism in the states pointing towards the constitution giving them the right to bear arms. The fact that was written before such destructive individual power existed doesn't seem to ever be a factor.

- The US has also built an identity around 'freedom' with such a fractured form of government that allows such 'freedoms' to exist pretty much no matter what. This on a very real level stops being about any given problem and becomes the principle of freedom. Even if a given individual wouldn't be affected by legislation, it becomes the principle of 'freedom' being taken away/

- The previous two things collide with the monumental amount of money to be made from firearms. This not only leads to questionable advertising and availability of said firearms, but it means that the gun industry has the cash and membership to have an unsettling amount of sway over politicians.

Great response, GF. To your points about the US 'problem':

-- Yes, the US does seem to have an unusual relationship with firearms. This may be less true than it appears, and it may be that we are just more vocal about it. Still I believe we have more firearms than citizens which would seem to say something. Firearms are deeply embedded in our culture. I don't know why we are somewhat different from Canada, but will speculate that our very different developmental histories have likely led to different views, values, and laws.

-- I personally value freedom, and I do see the right to bear arms as a personal freedom. But, take heart, this is not true of all Americans. Many Americans are less concerned with personal freedom and want a more interventionist government, the urge to regulate is strong here. I do wonder if we emphasize freedom without sufficiently emphasizing its corollary: responsibility.

And your point is a good one, I defend the right to own an AR (weakly) even though I don't plan on owning one because I value the principle of freedom and the intent of the constitution. At times it seem our entire Bill of Rights is under assault, and the urge to defend an element may reflect a desire to defend the entirety.  I also suspect that when an 'assault weapon ban' doesn't work (reference the former Brady bill) more restrictive measures will be sought and such measures are likely to impact me. So, yes, some of my defense is defensive.

I believe your concerns that the government is 'fractured' are commonly overstated. In response to a nationally perceived crisis, e.g. covid or the war in Ukraine, the government acts in relative unison. On other matters, the nation is more divided and the government's inaction reflects that. Isn't that just the nature of a non-homogenous democracy? I see it as more of a dynamic tension that holds to the status quo more than enacts dramatic change. Keep in mind that many cities and states have enacted more restrictive firearms laws at the local level. E.g. California has a magazine limit. I think Washington just enacted a similar limit. So, while the Federal government may be deadlocked, localities can tailor their own laws to a degree.

-- Agreed. The firearms industry is a big business, with ripple out industries being supported. Many a rice bowl is built on the firearms business. That industry has a strong lobby. As such, it is another manifestation of democracy. That doesn't make it wise, self-interest rarely is, but it does represent a group of people. Again, look at alcohol: big problem, misleading ads abound, but a big industry with a strong lobby, culturally ingrained use of grain, all sides are silent.

Houston!  Now that you mention that, I recall your talking about it before. I don't have any experience in Houston, but understand that it is a really fun city. I'm a cold weather guy and find the heat and humidity there to be daunting. Again, climate change would seem to be a bigger problem there than gun violence, but everyone's personal experience is different. 

[Nix]

To that point your reference to alcohol, is even more pertinent if you look at 2nd and 3rd order effects.  It is not a secret that alcohol use/abuse is frequently present in domestic violence incidents and exposure to trauma or violence in the home at a young age is a commonality amongst school shooters.  So wouldn’t it stand to reason that banning alcohol would probably reduce school shooting.

  I share those thoughts and concerns. Although, again, as a fan of freedom, I'm loathe to repeal the 21st amendment. I don't use cannabis, but I supported the recent legalization vote here.

I'm also sensitive to the criticism in this thread from others that we've drifted off the topic to a degree and risk being disrespectful to the tragedy and on-going suffering of the families of the victims. Violence is as old as the story of Cain and Able. There won't be quick solutions. And I do think we should be looking at meaningful ways to reduce and minimize the most harmful aspects of human behavior. If we can learn from Uvalde, we should do our utmost to do so.

[Aloha]

Thank you all for conversing and not attacking  .  This is a discussion and should be conducted as such.  This shooting picks at the wound from the last school shooting and then what follows for me is it reminds me of the last one and so on.  My heart is broken over this and I'm saddened all over again from the ones that have occurred.   

Here in California we have some pretty restrictive laws regarding guns.  Many of our laws are ones discussed here.  Its not done anything to slow/stop gun violence overall.     

Lets talk school security.  This topic was specifically started I believe regarding the specific incident in Texas, the school shooting.  What baffles me is how easy it is to get on school campus'.  There are some parents who don't want their schools "hardened".  There are many who do.  I can only speak to California, even if schools want to add layers of protection, the schools budgets are often cut for needed programs so theres no money anyways. 

I'm not sure just a locked door is enough.  I'm not sure how we would go about securing our schools.  I believe a few who would think to come to a school knowing they'd be met by trained individuals ready to defend the school would be deterred.  Its not a fix all. 

Fireman said,  "Like all things in life, it's complicated, and requires a multifaceted solution."   I think we all agree. 


As to  "Children should never have to go through active shooter drills as part of their schooling." posted by GF. 
I respectfully disagree.  They most certainly should as should the entire school staff.  Sadly this is the time we live in. 

When I was going to school we had bomb drills, they called them duck and cover.  We heard the schools siren and we rush to get under our desks. 

As part of a multifaceted approach I believe we need to do many things. 

This topic from my understand was in response to Texas school shooting.  We are not solving all/most/mass ( not school ) shootings and when we or anyone thinks we are, we just aren't.  Its a really sad reality and not one I say lightly. 

If we are staying on topic as to school shootings then I believe we have to do more.             

[Nix]

When I was going to school we had bomb drills, they called them duck and cover.  We heard the schools siren and we rush to get under our desks. 
     

I forgot about those drills! 

I agree with GF that in an ideal world, children would be oblivious of such terrors and 'active shooter' drills would be a footnote in the history books. Sadly, not the case currently.

I believe in Israel there is a 60 second standard (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) to get your children awake and into a bomb shelter once the warning sirens go off. I've heard there is a good deal of practice. Similarly sad and deeply regrettable.

I wonder what the long-term impact of such drills might be. (How did such drills affect me and my attitudes toward self-defense?  )

Yeah, we're in a mess. Pandora's box was opened and we're struggling with our own limitations as a species and as cultures.

[Nix]

Here in California we have some pretty restrictive laws regarding guns.  Many of our laws are ones discussed here.  Its not done anything to slow/stop gun violence overall.     
     

Montana has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation, although not as relaxed as those in Texas, I think. It's my impression that we also have some of the lowest violent crime rates. (I may be wrong, but where I Iive violence is rare, murder even rarer.) There is an irony that despite all the firearms here (I'd surprised if there were fewer than 300 AR's within 5 circular miles of where I lay my head at night.), this place feels wonderfully safe.

However, let me take the anti-gun position for a moment:

People often point to California or Illinois, another restrictive state, and argue that they have tried strict gun laws and those laws don't work. Gun violence in some of the cities in those states is higher than the rest of the country. However, this argument ignores the fact that California and Illinois border states with very relaxed gun laws. Their borders are open and guns are freely transported into those states. Criminals don't abide by the law (by definition) and guns are still readily available. So, were those laws really given a fair trail? Or were they hamstrung from the start?      

I think the nation of Mexico argues that it has a gun problem because firearms are smuggled from the USA to Mexico. Can't California make the same argument against the rest of the states? 

If California-style laws were implemented across the nation, would the impact of those laws be different? 

[Aloha]

We also have nearly 40 million people here which in many ways are part of the "problem". 

The issue at hand with respect to schools is not going to be solved by a law aimed at one aspect.  Will it help?  I honestly don't know. 

I believe we all agree that the Uvalde school shooting specifically as this thread was inspired by is horrific.  The missed opportunities, the neglect, the failures to say something, the mental status of this person, the ability to get weapons,  all individually and collectively contributed to what happened.  Its also in my opinion all individually and collectively were opportunities to have interceded and potentially stopped this.  Who knows. 

Its why I feel the schools need to safeguard themselves tho I don't know what that looks like.   

I live in a state where gun violence is a daily occurrence.  Its many factors that play a part in why IMO.  To single out one or a few reasons why, or solutions, is what many have done in an effort to slow or stop the gun violence.  Its not been effective.  There are a lot of factors for this.   

This topic can go in a direction of politics and policies/law as well as being very polarizing.  By nature the talk of guns just leads down this direction.   We've done well so far and I am happy we have.  Its a topic we wont soon all agree on.  Solutions eventually raises discussions of politics/laws.  We have to tread cautiously.  We've done good so far.

I believe we have tip toed in and out of the grey areas of MTOs very few rules.  Lets try to steer clear so we can continue to have a lively discussion. 

I am not pointing to anyone specifically just to be clear.  Its very hard not to discuss politics/laws etc.   

     

[SirVicaLot]

I did not read all comments here, because it would probably get my blood boiling. Which is probably the reason these kind of topics are generally not welcome on MTo.

So here are my 2 cents, that i know won't change a damn thing but I still had to post because I have had enough of this BS. In a civilised society there is ABSOLUTELY NO logical reason why a civilian should be allowed to own an assault rifle. None whatsover. It is a weapon of war. Nothing else. It is not a tool and you cannot use it to hunt. And the fact that every idiot can walk into Walmart and buy one, is quite frankly insane.

While we are discussing this, there were multiple more shootings were people died and got severly injured.

[Fireman]

I'm not sure just a locked door is enough.  I'm not sure how we would go about securing our schools.  I believe a few who would think to come to a school knowing they'd be met by trained individuals ready to defend the school would be deterred.  Its not a fix all. 

When I was going to school we had bomb drills, they called them duck and cover. 

When I was in elementary school we had bomb threats for at least one school year.  I thought the teachers were brave because they went inside and got our coats for us in the winter. 

I'm sure school security varies, but the schools I've been in have fences with locked gates, single point entry, at least one police officer, and locked building or classroom doors.  As long as staff follows procedures, it's about as tough as you can make it.

The reason I don't believe these shootings are strictly about gun availability is because the guns were more easily available when I was a kid.  Prior to 1968, you could buy an AR15 as easily as you could buy a garden rake.  Pay money, take rifle.  The number of  shootings has skyrocketed in this century, but there was nothing stopping it from happening in the last.  Mental health people say that shooters aren't mentally ill.   OK, but what is it that makes this so inviting or exciting to outcasts now, but didn't in 1970?

[MadPlumbarian]

Ah man this can be put so many diff ways, but I have to agree with what the chief said this is definitely a mental thing, it’s all about having control, people all over make you believe as to who’s in control and then they will do anything for them, I mean look at Waco.
Both of our kids have fired a firearm and rifle and know the safeties of them, both understand them but the younger kid wouldn’t touch a firearm without someone, although the older one goes to his friends parents upstate and will have fun shooting targets with his buddies, I mean again the little guy got his license and will like only break the speed limit by 2, yet again his brother has his nice Camaro and will get on the highway and well no comment.. but each kid has lived through the same life, it’s all mental, and what your willing to open it to,
I mean even back in my day I was mind washed by my father who always had to have control over every little thing I did, I couldn’t do anything without his approval, that was until I met the Mrs who showed me there was a whole other world beyond what little I was shown and able to do, so yeah it’s all control and mental..
JR

[Sos24]

What baffles me is how easy it is to get on school campus'.  There are some parents who don't want their schools "hardened".  There are many who do.  I can only speak to California, even if schools want to add layers of protection, the schools budgets are often cut for needed programs so theres no money anyways. 

I'm not sure just a locked door is enough.  I'm not sure how we would go about securing our schools.  I believe a few who would think to come to a school knowing they'd be met by trained individuals ready to defend the school would be deterred.  Its not a fix all. 

Rules, laws, etc are only as good if people follow them and they are enforced (to include fear of repercussions if not followed). 

This goes directly to the access and hardening of schools.  There was a report that a teacher propped open a door and that is how the school was accessed.  [The report has since changed to the prop was removed but the door failed to automatically lock].  I know for a fact that propping open school doors is not rare, but nothing is done about it.  Maybe that will change now, but it didn’t change here after someone accessed a school with a machete through a propped door.  Fortunately, he didn’t go on a killing rampage, but what if he had wanted to. 

Then you have the armed Resource Officer whose responsibilities include security.  In Uvalde, he wasn’t on campus because he goes between 3 schools and didn’t arrive until after the school was accessed.  What if he had been at the school?  Could this have been stopped?  Our schools are the same way one Resource Officer per 2-3 schools.  There was a bill presented, shortly before Uvalde, to change that to a minimum of one per school.  The same people who want to ban guns and are condemning those who don’t want, were against it and it failed.  They feared it would increase the “school to prison pipeline” (students getting in legal trouble at an early age).  Even after the bill was changed to have their only job be armed security, it was still voted against.

As far as budgets, there seems to always be something more important at the time.  But are those things really more important important than the potential life of a child.  Schools can have fancy electronic white boards and give children computers and upgrade sports stuff, but can’t afford security upgrades.  Cities spend money in the millions on entertainment and sports venues, but don’t have money for security upgrades to protect children.  Many politicians and celebrities are surrounded by security details with guns, but yet it would be harmful to have armed security in schools.

[Top-Gear-24]

I did not read all comments here, because it would probably get my blood boiling. Which is probably the reason these kind of topics are generally not welcome on MTo.

So here are my 2 cents, that i know won't change a damn thing but I still had to post because I have had enough of this BS. In a civilised society there is ABSOLUTELY NO logical reason why a civilian should be allowed to own an assault rifle. None whatsover. It is a weapon of war. Nothing else. It is not a tool and you cannot use it to hunt. And the fact that every idiot can walk into Walmart and buy one, is quite frankly insane.

While we are discussing this, there were multiple more shootings were people died and got severly injured.

So much for tiptoeing...

[Nix]

Then you have the armed Resource Officer whose responsibilities include security.  In Uvalde, he wasn’t on campus because he goes between 3 schools and didn’t arrive until after the school was accessed.  What if he had been at the school?  Could this have been stopped?  Our schools are the same way one Resource Officer per 2-3 schools.  There was a bill presented, shortly before Uvalde, to change that to a minimum of one per school.  The same people who want to ban guns and are condemning those who don’t want, were against it and it failed.  They feared it would increase the “school to prison pipeline” (students getting in legal trouble at an early age).  Even after the bill was changed to have their only job be armed security, it was still voted against.

Last year there was a move to remove our SRO's from the schools. There were the same sort of concerns voiced that kids would be adversely affected by by having a police officer on campus. This seemed odd, because the officers have traditionally been helpful to kids.

A group of concerned citizens applied some pressure--we wrote letters--and the SRO's were kept on duty...for now.

[Syncop8r]

As to  "Children should never have to go through active shooter drills as part of their schooling." posted by GF. 
I respectfully disagree.  They most certainly should as should the entire school staff.  Sadly this is the time we live in. 

When I was going to school we had bomb drills, they called them duck and cover.  We heard the schools siren and we rush to get under our desks.       

It is the time and place you live in.

I agree with GF that in an ideal world, children would be oblivious of such terrors and 'active shooter' drills would be a footnote in the history books. Sadly, not the case currently.

I guess I live in an "ideal world"? 

Freedom is also knowing you can go out and live your life and the chance of being shot is extremely low.
Where is the freedom for those little kids who died?

There have been 32 mass shootings (definition being that they have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident) in the US since Uvalde.