Shooting at Texas school - Kids among victims (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

100% disagree.

You’re talking about criminals/murderers with mental illness. You seem to think if we just had more gun laws, this would go away.  But I struggle to believe that.  Why?  Because there are laws against murder.  That didn’t deter them.  So even if you banned guns completely, I have a hard time thinking they would care about that law.

But Everytime a mass shooting happens, some of you get on here and ask if the Conservative side is willing to listen.  But you’re not willing to listen.

I’m fine with more gun control laws being put in place.  But when the next guy buys his AR illegally out of someone’s trunk, are you going to feel so much better about the world that “at least he had to break the law to get a gun to then break the law?”

There are multiple layers to the problem.  Mental health is very central to it.  But that’s not part of your team’s platform so you blow it off as disengenuous when it comes up.

So what problem are you looking to solve?  Because more gun control alone won’t get rid of school shootings.  

I am all in favor of spending more money on mental health. And on additional school security. And a lot of other things. I am not in favor of these being used as an excuse to do nothing about the main issue, and that is what we’re currently hearing from most Republican politicians. 

 

[Chaz McNulty]

You're right.  It's sane, rational and logical thinking young men shooting these places up.  Good call. 

Do you believe that the US has an 8 fold problem with mental health compared to other Western countries?

Does talking about mental health make you feel better about wanting to maintain the status quo and accepting that some schools will be shot up in order for everyone to keep their assault rifles?

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Mental health plays a tremendous role in this.  Gun control laws alone won’t fix this problem.

It feels like some of you guys are more worried about the politics of this than an actual solution.  Because it seems supremely obvious that anyone willing to shoot up a school of 10/11 year old kids is suffering from mental illness.  Dismissing it over and over seems like a bad strategy if what you’re after is less school shootings.

Now explain the 8x more school shootings in the US compared to other Western countries.  Do they not have mental health issues?

Discussing mental health rather than gun control is exactly 'playing politics'.

 

[jm192]

I am all in favor of spending more money on mental health. And on additional school security. And a lot of other things. I am not in favor of these being used as an excuse to do nothing about the main issue, and that is what we’re currently hearing from most Republican politicians. 

I think the mental illness that tells someone it’s ok to murder a school of 10/11 year old kids seems pretty darn central.  I don’t think gun control laws are the quick fix you think they’re gonna be.

 

[timschochet]

I am certainly for common sense restrictions.  But, in general, if you're old enough to fight in a war you should be able to purchase a firearm.  If we're going to raise the age of firearm purchase then we raise the age of joining the service to that age.

Unless service men and women are exempt.

I think making servicemen and women exempt from age restrictions would be a reasonable compromise. I could accept that. 

My larger point however is that unless you believe that the 2nd Amendment offers unlimited access to firearms without restrictions, then you shouldn’t offer it as any kind of argument against reasonable gun control as you did earlier. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I’m not arguing for shooter drills.  
 

I think the security at most schools can be drastically upgraded.  I don’t think most schools are “as safe as they can be.”  If it requires armed guards at every school to keep the kids alive, then do that.  I haven’t seen the numbers, but I’m guessing more secure schools are attacked at a lesser rate.

But I’m not saying increase security only.  Gun control is a part of this.  We need to take all the steps.

Here are my overall issue with the armed guards at every schools ideas:

• as a whole, our schools are already underfunded for day to day things.   IF we have $100K extra for a security guard or two, what does that say about us that we don't have these funds for teachers, supplies, and mental health infrastructure at those same schools?    Do we have $200K for each school to do both, or are we choosing between guards and day to day things?
  
• the last couple shootings haven't instilled the greatest confidence that average school guard (remember there are 130K schools in the country) is going to do much in the event that this happens.  
  
• these are extremely rare events despite being in the back of our minds a lot currently.   27 school shootings have happened this year out of 131K schools.   Chances are a shooting wouldn't have happened at that school regardless.  Because it's so rare, I am not sure it's accurate to point to schools that beef up security and say "well, look - they didn't have any shootings".   Well, odds are very slim they would have to begin with.  And again, it didn't stop this last couple shooters from trying and succeeding.  
  

So IMO like somebody said, if we are listing off dozens of things that should be done armed security guards should be very low on the list.  It's a fairly expensive and reactive solution that also only addresses one thing.    

ETA:   I don't want this to come off as thought I am against school safety or want it to be twisted that way.  I just think armed guards at every school is a bit much and a waste of resources.

 

[Amused to Death]

You’re talking about criminals/murderers with mental illness. You seem to think if we just had more gun laws, this would go away.  But I struggle to believe that.  Why?  Because there are laws against murder.  That didn’t deter them.  So even if you banned guns completely, I have a hard time thinking they would care about that law.

Do you think there's any correlation between MA's strict laws and the fact they have the lowest rate of gun violence in the country?

NJ has strict laws and we're the 3rd lowest.

 

[timschochet]

I think the mental illness that tells someone it’s ok to murder a school of 10/11 year old kids seems pretty darn central.  I don’t think gun control laws are the quick fix you think they’re gonna be.

I don’t think they’re a quick fix at all. I think they MAY help…a little. We won’t know unless and until they’re actually tried and so far that isn’t happening. My anger and frustration lies not in the fact that I think reasonable gun restrictions will be a panacea, but that we are unable to even attempt them due to the refusal of Republican politicians to agree to try them out. 

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Do you think there's any correlation between MA's strict laws and the fact they have the lowest rate of gun violence in the country?

They must be doing a bang-up job of dealing with mental illness in that state!

 

[jm192]

Now explain the 8x more school shootings in the US compared to other Western countries.  Do they not have mental health issues?

Discussing mental health rather than gun control is exactly 'playing politics'.

I addressed this earlier.  If you google US mental illness vs other countries:  we’re at or near the top of the list in several studies.  
 

The second factor is that we have poorer access to mental  health care due to cost/lack of services locally/etc.

But it seems to be a favorite response “do other countries not have mental health issues?”  And while they do, we have more.  And we’re worse at treating it.  

 

[jm192]

Do you think there's any correlation between MA's strict laws and the fact they have the lowest rate of gun violence in the country?

NJ has strict laws and we're the 3rd lowest.

I think gun control laws play a role in solving this.  I don’t think it’s as black and white as these 2 states seem to imply.

Doesn’t Chicago have strict gun laws and high rates of gun violence?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think gun control laws play a role in solving this.  I don’t think it’s as black and white as these 2 states seem to imply.

Doesn’t Chicago have strict gun laws and high rates of gun violence?

Yeah, I was literally just about to type a response to that post, pointing out that it's the exact same argument that people on the other side always bring up about Chicago.  These arguments are never very persuasive.

 

[The Z Machine]

Why do responsible, skilled gun owners have no willingness get these guns off the market?  

Cuz they are fun to shoot.

 

[Amused to Death]

I think gun control laws play a role in solving this.  I don’t think it’s as black and white as these 2 states seem to imply.

Doesn’t Chicago have strict gun laws and high rates of gun violence?

Its not just 2 though. NY, CT, CA, WA, OR...all have some of the lowest rates of gun violence. On the flip side, MS, LA, WY, MT, SC all are among the highest.

Link

And I'm not naive enough to believe stricter laws solves all gun deaths - but as you say it helps.

 

[Amused to Death]

Yeah, I was literally just about to type a response to that post, pointing out that it's the exact same argument that people on the other side always bring up about Chicago.  These arguments are never very persuasive.

OK, so you can cite one city where the violence is high. Do you think one outlier negates all other stats?

 

[jm192]

They must be doing a bang-up job of dealing with mental illness in that state!

Mental Health America ranks New Jersey as 4th, Maine as 31st.

Of course, Chicago which has strict gun control laws and high rates of gun violence gets left out of the discussion.

 

[steeler6]

They must be doing a bang-up job of dealing with mental illness in that state!

https://www.rtor.org/directory/mental-health-massachusetts/

Massachusetts is ranked 2 out of the 50 states and Washington D.C. for providing access to mental health services.

We are.

 

[Desert_Power]

Once again:

But as a report released earlier this year by the office of Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) reveals, most of the guns recovered in Chicago came from outside the state.

Only 40 percent of the guns recovered in the city were purchased in Illinois, the report read, including hundreds purchased at gun shops outside city boundaries. The report includes maps of two gun shops from which a large number of guns recovered in Chicago were purchased. The black dots are where the guns were recovered; the red Xs are the locations of the gun stores.

 

[jm192]

OK, so you can cite one city where the violence is high. Do you think one outlier negates all other stats?

Yes and no.  it certainly says it’s not as simple as “stricter laws=less shootings.”

The argument has always been “well Chicago criminals get their guns from other states.”  Ok well what are Texas criminals going to do when they want a gun?  
 

I don’t believe stricter gun control laws in every state means criminals don’t find a way.  I think gun control is needed.  But I think as always—stats can be applied to present whatever point one wishes to present.
 

 

[timschochet]

https://www.rtor.org/directory/mental-health-massachusetts/

Massachusetts is ranked 2 out of the 50 states and Washington D.C. for providing access to mental health services.

We are.

You know, a reasonable person would look at this statistic and the statistics about gun violence state by state and conclude that mental health spending has a positive effect and gun restrictions have a positive effect and that as a society we should try out both. 

 

[jm192]

Once again:

But as a report released earlier this year by the office of Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) reveals, most of the guns recovered in Chicago came from outside the state.

Only 40 percent of the guns recovered in the city were purchased in Illinois, the report read, including hundreds purchased at gun shops outside city boundaries. The report includes maps of two gun shops from which a large number of guns recovered in Chicago were purchased. The black dots are where the guns were recovered; the red Xs are the locations of the gun stores.

You want me to read it and conclude if there were nationwide gun laws, this would stop.  Instead I read it and say “yup, criminals that want guns are going to do whatever they have to to get them.”

 

[timschochet]

Yes and no.  it certainly says it’s not as simple as “stricter laws=less shootings.”

The argument has always been “well Chicago criminals get their guns from other states.”  Ok well what are Texas criminals going to do when they want a gun?  
 

I don’t believe stricter gun control laws in every state means criminals don’t find a way.  I think gun control is needed.  But I think as always—stats can be applied to present whatever point one wishes to present.
 

This is the main reason so many of us have called for federal gun restrictions. 

 

[Desert_Power]

Maybe.  Maybe that’s why other countries don’t have this.  Their mentally ill can just walk in and get help.

Thanks, just seems like another variable we should consider with these comparisons to other OECD type of countries.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don’t believe stricter gun control laws in every state means criminals don’t find a way.  I think gun control is needed.  But I think as always—stats can be applied to present whatever point one wishes to present.

Nor do I. But its hard to ignore that states with stricter laws tend to have lower rates of gun violence. Then look globally and you see a definite pattern.

 

[That one guy]

I’ve read/skimmed a majority of this thread…is it safe to surmise at this point that we're really going to die on the “guns don’t kill people, people do” hill and fight 100% against any reform that targets guns and access to them?  Continually using the silly “it won’t stop every crime!” defense for opposing such things and the equally silly 2A worship as though that can’t be tweaked? Just off-hand “mental illness” and “harden soft targets” phrases that have little teeth

We're really going to let the battle be don’t touch the tool of destruction and the access to/training for them?  Just completely leave that alone, it’s clearly not part of the problem in the least?

I don’t dislike guns in the whole, I dislike our country’s very weird affinity for firepower and military role play in civilian space…it’s unhealthy and disturbing 

 

[Desert_Power]

So you’re saying criminals were willing to do what it took to get a gun?  Thanks for clearing that up.

This is the least compelling argument of all.  You want me to read it and conclude if there were nationwide gun laws, this would stop.  Instead I read it and say “yup, criminals that want guns are going to do whatever they have to to get them.”

It isn't an argument itself as much as showing why harping on Chicago's gun laws as being ineffective is a bad faith take. They are somewhat ineffective because their neighbors have such loose gun regulation. If we had stricter gun control at a federal level, it would be harder for criminals to legally obtain one. Clearly there is an expressed preference for them to not shoot the moon in committing crimes here.

 

[KarmaPolice]

We definitely disagree what the central issue is. And I could have missed it but I didn't realize Mental health was a republican talking point. And say it is, does that make it automatically wrong? 

I think it's wrong if you continually say that and:  1.  never seem to make policies to address it, and 2.  specifically lay out what these shooters have in common and what to look for.     

Repeating "mental illness" over and over without specifics or solutions is not doing anything constructive.  

Also, it's not as big of a factor in the far more common mass shootings like gang shootings.  Focusing making it hard for people to get guns would help address those as well.  

 

[The Z Machine]

I disagree.

The central issue is people losing their lives, especially little children.  Gun control won’t make it go away.  It will curb it some.  But some people act like if we could just get some background checks, this thing will be a distant memory.  It won’t.  

You're right.  We need to go to an Australian style relationship with firearms.

 

[Amused to Death]

I would be on board with beefing up school security, increase access to mental health and better identify those who shouldn't own guns, and a requirement for a gun license with periodic renewal.

 

[steeler6]

You know, a reasonable person would look at this statistic and the statistics about gun violence state by state and conclude that mental health spending has a positive effect and gun restrictions have a positive effect and that as a society we should try out both. 

Couldn't agree more. But until politicians on both side see it this way, we're going to continue to go around in circles on this issue. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Couldn't agree more. But until politicians on both side see it this way, we're going to continue to go around in circles on this issue. 

Until we find some solutions more innocent people are going to die - many of them kids.

Vote your conscience. 

 

[jm192]

You're right.  We need to go to an Australian style relationship with firearms.

Yeah.  This sort of solution will definitely get something done.  The GOP is dying to compromise with this argument.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yeah, I was literally just about to type a response to that post, pointing out that it's the exact same argument that people on the other side always bring up about Chicago.  These arguments are never very persuasive.

I think it's more accurate of stats when you pull out and look at bigger areas.  Yes, Chicago itself has strict laws, but it's not uniform in the suburbs and a state that's <1hour away.  Do you think that is a great data point to look at?   Looking at state trends is better, IMO and looking at countries is better yet.  

I just don't get why people on either side would continually keep trying to point to Chicago as though it would be expected that they would drastically reduce gun violence when they are surrounded on all sides by more lax laws.  

 

[jm192]

It isn't an argument itself as much as showing why harping on Chicago's gun laws as being ineffective is a bad faith take. They are somewhat ineffective because their neighbors have such loose gun regulation. If we had stricter gun control at a federal level, it would be harder for criminals to legally obtain one. Clearly there is an expressed preference for them to not shoot the moon in committing crimes here.

Sorry for the snark in my response.  You didn’t deserve that.

I question if even with federal laws, people will go through illegal means to obtain guns.  I’m not sure how hard it is to bring in guns from outside the country, but seems like a consideration.

I think to our other conversation:  Dems should jump on the Universal Health care thing.  Tell Republicans if you want to fix mental health, here’s your chance.

 

[Amused to Death]

I think to our other conversation:  Dems should jump on the Universal Health care thing.  Tell Republicans if you want to fix mental health, here’s your chance.

I was going to make this point - if we're going to put the blame mostly on mental health then I would expect to see more Republicans push for better access. Let's see some concerted effort to combat it and not just use it as lip service.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Sorry for the snark in my response.  You didn’t deserve that.

I question if even with federal laws, people will go through illegal means to obtain guns.  I’m not sure how hard it is to bring in guns from outside the country, but seems like a consideration.

I think to our other conversation:  Dems should jump on the Universal Health care thing.  Tell Republicans if you want to fix mental health, here’s your chance.

Some will, for sure.    Why do we have to make it easy to do so? 

But, like you said - people will look at the stats and see what they want to see.  You seem to see the Chicago example as saying they are just going to go elsewhere for a gun.  I look at the Chicago example as a dumb policy to try to have a highly populated city try to do it alone, and further proof that we need federal guidelines and commitment to background checks and other measures.  

 

[Obie Wan]

There was a twitter thread posted about Uvalde's training and policy. It was in their policy to engage (even if alone) the shooter. They didnt follow their own policy on active shooter engagements. They had just trained on it two months prior as well, so they knew.

sure seems like a lot of "coincidences" needed to happen to make this op front page news 

- ignore shooter firing weapon before entering the school

-  secure door "left" ajar - by some unnamed, unknown school employee

- armed security guard assigned to the school, mysteriously absent on day of shooting, and not replaced

- police ignore numerous 911 calls advising of still active shooter 

- 20 police trained in active shooter protocols which mandate immediate engagement, ignore all protocols to wait while shooter kills more kids

- police would probably still be waiting with many more dead if the off-duty BP agent did not go rogue, engage and kill the shooter

maybe the shooting is not as random as they would like you to believe

 

[KarmaPolice]

I was going to make this point - if we're going to put the blame mostly on mental health then I would expect to see more Republicans push for better access. Let's see some concerted effort to combat it and not just use it as lip service.

That was my point to BR.   IMO if they don't start addressing and signing on for measures that really help on that side of the equation, it's going to be more and more digging into removing guns from the equation.(most agree it's the easier and clearer side to address)    But from where I sit, one side seems to be unwilling to talk much about either part of the problem, and they are going to start losing more and more so why don't they become the champion for helping address the mental illness problem they claim is the #1 issue?  

 

[FairWarning]

Once again:

But as a report released earlier this year by the office of Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) reveals, most of the guns recovered in Chicago came from outside the state.

Only 40 percent of the guns recovered in the city were purchased in Illinois, the report read, including hundreds purchased at gun shops outside city boundaries. The report includes maps of two gun shops from which a large number of guns recovered in Chicago were purchased. The black dots are where the guns were recovered; the red Xs are the locations of the gun stores.

That is from 2017. 

I’m sick of the excuse that Indiana has loose laws.  We’ll, I guess they do compared to the Chicago laws.  Do we want the national laws to be as tough as Chicago?  The Indiana/Ill border is roughly 200 miles, only Chicago las this problem,  The Mich/Ind border is 100 miles long, the crime rates are not higher here.  It’s a Chicago issue,   

 

[FairWarning]

Chicago has a shooting every 3 hours on average this year,  Think about that.

 

[steeler6]

I think it's wrong if you continually say that and:  1.  never seem to make policies to address it, and 2.  specifically lay out what these shooters have in common and what to look for.     

Repeating "mental illness" over and over without specifics or solutions is not doing anything constructive.  

Also, it's not as big of a factor in the far more common mass shootings like gang shootings.  Focusing making it hard for people to get guns would help address those as well.  

I'm not smart enough to come up with a solution to such a complex problem. I guess my answer would be to do what the state I live in does. I'm not sure that would work everywhere though. MA is the 3rd most densely populated state in the States. That has to help making those services more accessible. Would another state who commits the same resources and offer the same programs have similar success? I don't know. 

And just out of curiosity, what percentage of gang shootings do you think are done with legally purchased firearms?

And for the record, I don't think anyone should be able to buy an AR15 or to be able to purchase any other kind of gun before turning 21. 

 

[kwille]

Link

In the U.S., kids are more likely to die from gun violence than in other wealthy countries

For years, researchers at the University of San Francisco and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health have compared the rates of firearm deaths in the U.S. and other populous, high-income countries — mostly nations in Europe.

Their most recent study, which looks at data from 2015, finds that the U.S. accounts for the vast majority of firearm deaths among children. Across the 29 countries in the study, the U.S. accounted for almost 97% of the firearm deaths among children 4 years old or younger, and 92% of firearm deaths for those between the ages of 5 and 14.

 

[The Z Machine]

Yeah.  This sort of solution will definitely get something done.  The GOP is dying to compromise with this argument.

I'm sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees here.  A huge part (not the only part) of reducing gun violence is restricting access to guns.  We can't do that because of the 2A right now.  So change the 2A.

 

[phandango]

All this.

I already mentioned how it would take me MAYBE 5 minutes to enter my kid's school by just waiting for someone to walk in or walk out and "bum a ride" while the door is open.  Sure, if I were to do it in my current capacity, I might get stopped at the office and ask who I am, etc.  If I'm there to inflict harm, that's irrelevant at that point.  Short of an armed guard and a metal detector at the entrance screening every person coming in, this is the equivalent of closing a screen door to keep rain out.

I'm not saying not to do it.  Have at it.  But, that, along with windows, other ways to "enter", and usual familiarity with a school by these shooters and this should be #100 on a list of things to do to address what's going on.  Numbers 1-90 are "limit guns" in some form.

20 pages in and this is still being argued as a viable solution? 

Other countries probably don't even lock their schools and yet that isn't resulting in shooting rampages.  We are the only one with this problem to this magnitude.  And the one thing that sticks out isn't the amount of locked doors or mental health or video games.  It's the number of guns available to people that live here.  Until we address that, none of the rest of it will make any significant dent.  Enough is enough.  As stated earlier, Sandy Hook was 10 years ago and all we've effectively done is train our kids how to hide and smear blood on themselves to try and stay alive.  Even calling the police doesn't seem to work.

####.

The "harden the schools" solution operates under the assumption that school shootings are an inevitability that we all need to live with. That's pathetic. 

Steel-tipped lawn darts killed a few kids in the '80s. The government banned them. No one argued that kids should wear helmets and pads when playing with lawn darts, or that banning lawn darts meant that it's a "slippery slope" to banning regular darts at the corner bar. 

Pseudoephedrine can be used to make meth. Now those medicines are locked up in a lot of places and sometimes require showing ID to buy them. Somehow, the argument that "the vast majority of people who buy medicines with pseudoephedrine are law-abiding citizens" wasn't a deal-breaker in this case. 

A guy tried to board a plane with a bomb in his shoe. We know the rest of the story. We should have retro-fitted all planes with contraptions that wrapped everyone's shoes in special bomb-defusing encasements while they were seated. 

People keep using assault rifles to commit mass murder in places where mass murders are least expected to occur. But banning these weapons is out of the question, so why not just give kids Kevlar vests and helmets when they enter school through the single locked entry-point?

 

[massraider]

What about Chicago???????

 

[FairWarning]

What about Chicago???????

I would let the dems clean it up but they had 90 years.  

 

[Desert_Power]

Sorry for the snark in my response.  You didn’t deserve that.

I question if even with federal laws, people will go through illegal means to obtain guns.  I’m not sure how hard it is to bring in guns from outside the country, but seems like a consideration.

I think to our other conversation:  Dems should jump on the Universal Health care thing.  Tell Republicans if you want to fix mental health, here’s your chance.

I definitely do sometimes, but appreciate the discussion today. This whole topic is rawer for me than usual because it is the first one of these school shootings where I've had a son.

I recognize that, with 400 million guns already in US circulation, it will probably be far too easy for criminals to get their hands on them even with universal background checks and regulation. My neighborhood officers are always bemoaning how many handguns are simply stolen from their owners unlocked cars.

However, I do think adding those steps would be incremental progress. Putting more legal obstacles between someone committing these heinous acts doesn't take the risk anywhere near down to zero, but I believe it will reduce it. We basically put more checkpoints into the system because getting caught on a lesser crime still helps stop these things.

Regarding guns crossing the border, it seems like right now a lot are going south. It is easy to understand though that guns would be just as easy to move back north as people and drugs are.

 

[dozer]

You know, a reasonable person would look at this statistic and the statistics about gun violence state by state and conclude that mental health spending has a positive effect and gun restrictions have a positive effect and that as a society we should try out both. 

Please re-post this several times using ALL CAPS.

 

[Desert_Power]

Question for the group: Since we know the USA government has capabilities to (and likely does)  monitor internet traffic along with social media, should we be leveraging this information to intervene in the lives of these shooters earlier? Another common thread between Buffalo and Uvalde is the shooters TOLD people they were going to do this.

 

[The Z Machine]

Question for the group: Since we know the USA government has capabilities to (and likely does)  monitor internet traffic along with social media, should we be leveraging this information to intervene in the lives of these shooters earlier? Another common thread between Buffalo and Uvalde is the shooters TOLD people they were going to this.

No. That power will be abused 100% of the time. We don't need internet censors.  We should have a well known hotline and a robust SOP to respond to threats of gun violence either to self or others.