School/Mass shootings what's the answer?

[Zach]

There has been a lot of posts linking a lack of religion to this issue. It isn't surprising that this has been brought up so much as America is one of the most religious of the industrialized countries and it sounds like a good, common sense argument. However, I also don't think this argument holds water because these mass shootings don't happen with the same frequency in Europe, where people are less religious on average than Americans.

I am also skeptical that it we can just lay this blame on the media people digest. People in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Canada and other places digest a lot of the same media that we do. They play the same video games and they watch the same movies, or at least movies with similar levels of violence. You could make some argument that there are cultural differences between Europe and Asia and the United States and that maybe there is some cultural tick that makes us more predisposed to committing mass shootings after consuming violent media. But Canada is right next door, and I have a hard time believing Canadians are so drastically different from Americans as to explain the gulf of mass shootings between our countries.

I think the argument that there has been a disruption of the family dynamic is important to this debate. I remember reading an article in the last year that stated that much of the growth of the economy since the 1970s was due to women entering the workforce in mass. My generation (those dang millenials) is going to be in for a bumpy ride unless things change relatively quickly. There are more women than men earning college degrees today and continuing to expect women to work the same jobs as men for less pay while also being the families primary caretaker just doesn't seem like a situation that can persist for much longer. Something needs to give. But at the same time, the rest of the industrialized world went through the same changes we did at roughly the same time and they haven't had the same problem of mass shootings like we have had. So either Europe has done a better job balancing a healthy family life with having women work than we have, or that isn't really the main cause of this problem.

There has been a lot of comments stating that criminals will find ways to commit crimes, so outlawing firearms will do nothing. I think this argument really rests on the idea of these crimes being premeditated with extensive commitment and planning. Some of these mass shootings do seem to fit this criteria. The Arvada theater shooting, Columbine, and the recent Las Vegas shooting all were premeditated, or at least have strong evidence of premeditation in the case of the Las Vegas shooting. But a lot of these school shootings don't seem to show extensive planning beforehand. Sandy Hook is the clearest example in my mind that didn't seem to show very extensive planning. The kid just seemed to have mental health issues and easy access to assault weapons. This seems to be exactly the kind of situation that by limiting access to assault weapons, we could have a real impact in curtailing these crimes. I really think the argument that criminals will find ways to access these weapons is trying to take the NRA's argument against gun control as relating to gang violence and forcing it onto these mass shootings. If this argument was true, I think that Canada would see a rate of mass shootings at least approaching that of the United States. We are just across the border and it wouldn't be too hard to smuggle an illegal assault weapon if the person wanted it. But that isn't born by the data (0.48 deaths per thousand versus 3.85 for the US).

The 2nd amendment is really outdated. It made more sense when the difference between the army of the worlds biggest super power and a rag tag group of colonials was some training and more reliable supplies. The idea that a militia of average citizens could stand up to the army of a nuclear power and expect to pull off the same feat that we did in 1776 is just unrealistic and has been so for a while. Instead, we are handcuffed by a special interest group (partly funded by Russians) screaming about protecting individual liberty which hampers our ability to find a solution to the issue, even if it is only a 80% or even 20% of a solution. At the end of the day 20% of a solution is better than 0% of a solution, which is where we currently sit.

1st paragraph. I think you have your question and you answer it. America, unlike other countries, has made an effort to separate itself from all other countries, even the ones we border. Think of it this way. You have several children, one of them boasts about how good & righteous they are, the others don't. When the child that professed about his morality does bad things, is he not thought of worse than the ones who don't and commit the same transgression?

Last paragraph. If you think the 2nd is outdated, we need to trash all of the amendments then and start over...
The Russians, really?

 

[Zach]

The echo chamber on this board and across the web of "guns are just a tool, they don't kill anyone" while in the same breath saying "I mean just look at these video games/movies/music" as the reasoning is self delusional hypocrisy at its finest.

Essentially, it CANT be the fault of this metal box I choose to use, it MUST be the fault of this metal box I don't use.

Almost as ridiculous as saying that kids these days just don't have enough religious dogma forced on them to make them "good" citizens. The broad scope of history would show that ANY major religion hasn't really done much to hold back violence, rather it propagates it against those that are "not us"

What saddens me the most is that if a fellow gun owner even SUGGESTS that there needs to be a conversation about gun regulation in this country, that the first response is to demonize them as "liberal" and cover your ears, rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.

I would say there is a very real and intelligent conversation to be had on why these pretend AR-15's don't belong in the hands of citizens, and a equally intelligent conversation on why they should, but if the best you can do is echo the same, simple minded bull chit and not listen to other opinions, than maybe you shouldn't be the one having the conversation to begin with.

I can sit and stare at my guns all day long, they don't affect my brain. You sit and watch/listen some of the garbage being put out as "music" or a "game" and I bet it will influence you.

Guess I'm a delusional hypocrite...

 

[dannyb278]

I can sit and stare at my guns all day long, they don't affect my brain. You sit and watch/listen some of the garbage being put out as "music" or a "game" and I bet it will influence you.

Guess I'm a delusional hypocrite...

Yes, in this case I would say that's exactly what you are being. I can sit and stare all day at violent movies, play video games and sing my favorite song ever about a career criminal who "shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die" and just like you with your hobby of gun staring, not go out and kill a bunch of kids.

 

[pabearhunter]

I used the 10-22 as an example only. And, I hate to think this, but in the right hands any semi-auto, regardless of cartridge, would be deadly. An outright ban on so called "assault rifles" could be widespread and include firearms that are seemingly a normal firearm to you and me. Sorry for the U-turn, just something I noticed. mtmuley

I completely agree. Anything with the intent to do great bodily harm is a deadly weapon.

 

[Zach]

Yes, in this case I would say that's exactly what you are being. I can sit and stare all day at violent movies, play video games and sing my favorite song ever about a career criminal who "shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die" and just like you with your gun staring, not go out and kill a bunch of kids.

If you don't think that affects you, well then we differ in opinion. Only when we die will we know who is right and who is wrong.

I won't go so far as to call you a delusional hypocrite though.

 

[MTGomer]

The echo chamber on this board and across the web of "guns are just a tool, they don't kill anyone" while in the same breath saying "I mean just look at these video games/movies/music" as the reasoning is self delusional hypocrisy at its finest.

Essentially, it CANT be the fault of this metal box I choose to use, it MUST be the fault of this metal box I don't use.

Almost as ridiculous as saying that kids these days just don't have enough religious dogma forced on them to make them "good" citizens. The broad scope of history would show that ANY major religion hasn't really done much to hold back violence, rather it propagates it against those that are "not us"

What saddens me the most is that if a fellow gun owner even SUGGESTS that there needs to be a conversation about gun regulation in this country, that the first response is to demonize them as "liberal" and cover your ears, rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.

I would say there is a very real and intelligent conversation to be had on why these pretend AR-15's don't belong in the hands of citizens, and a equally intelligent conversation on why they should, but if the best you can do is echo the same, simple minded bull chit and not listen to other opinions, than maybe you shouldn't be the one having the conversation to begin with.

You’re right that religion is hands down the most deadly ‘idea’ if you will, since the beginning of time. But i don’t think that kids not having religion forced down their throat is what people mean when they talk about the changes in society, but more the evaporation in society if a common sense of decency and the ‘family unit’ as they call it, which basic tenants of Christianity promote, such as love, humility, forgiveness, etc.
Not to mention, people of some kind of faith believe that if they shoot 19 kindergartners and then themselves, they will have to answer for that.


I don’t know if video games have anything to do with it directly or not, but kids are definitely becoming more and more introverted and lacking social skills, not to mention a work ethic. Combine that with internet bullying and the victims being taught they have to take it, instead of defend themselves. Kids just bottle it all up and some snap.
A couple years ago the son of the city engineer of the City of Billings killed himself after being bullied terribly and the school district wouldn’t help him. Some kids might take a gun to school and get revenge instead.

Why does this happen in the USA and not other countries? Our access to these type of guns may allow for higher casualties when an event like this occurs, but access to these guns is obviously not what causes someone to decide to kill a bunch of innocent kids to begin with.
There are a lot of countries with guns. But, aside from politically motivated slaughters like Islamic terrorism, the random killing of innocent strangers doesn’t happen regularly anywhere but here. Why? Perhaps no one really knows.


I feel that the people who shouldn’t be a part of the conversation are those with an agenda other than keeping people alive. Politically, the supporters of gun control are also abortion advocates. Believing in ‘choice’ right up until birth. People that support murdering babies can spare us all their bullshit crocodile tears about how they pretend to be sad that some innocent kids got shot. I have a hard time believing that these politicians are the people that should be trying to solve this problem. Like many here have said, it’s best solved by responsible gun owners. It’s the ‘how?’ That we seem hung up on.

 

[dannyb278]

If you don't think that affects you, well then we differ in opinion. Only when we die will we know who is right and who is wrong.

I won't go so far as to call you a delusional hypocrite though.

Maybe to strong worded, but my point is that this binary current of "if not this-than must be that" going through the national dialogue does us all a disservice. Everyone here knows its not one thing that is to blame for this, yet that is always the direction so many people turn. we would rather put things in to 2, diametrically opposed boxes rather than have real dialogue. Then 16 years of Democratic and Republican held Administrations go by, nothing gets done and kids continue to die.

I read a REALLY astute comment on Facebook today (shocking I know), that pointed out that we now have a whole generation of kids reaching voting age who are essentially "survivors" of a culture of mass shootings in schools.

 

[onpoint]

"...we now have a whole generation of kids reaching voting age who are essentially "survivors" of a culture of mass shootings in schools".

Yup - and will they be the ones to bring about some kind of change? And how many of them are hunters, like "us"?

And you were correct Tradewind, rant acknowledged - past time to step away from this one.................

 

[dannyb278]

"...we now have a whole generation of kids reaching voting age who are essentially "survivors" of a culture of mass shootings in schools".

Yup - and will they be the ones to bring about some kind of change? And how many of them are hunters, like "us"?

.................

That's my point. Using these kids death as a political chip by both R's and D's doesn't do them or the future of hunting any good. Actual discussion and compromise might. Though it leaves a small bit of vomit in my mouth to think that some kind of regulation that results in the death of less children should be seen as "compromise" by gun owners.

 

[noharleyyet]

4 year old article

SIAP; http://www.businessinsider.com/school-shootings-drove-stephen-king-to-take-rage-off-shelves-2014-3

 

[Tradewind]

"...we now have a whole generation of kids reaching voting age who are essentially "survivors" of a culture of mass shootings in schools".

Yup - and will they be the ones to bring about some kind of change? And how many of them are hunters, like "us"?

And you were correct Tradewind, rant acknowledged - past time to step away from this one.................

Me too. Normally I avoid these. I usually ask myself if I have accomplished or solved anything. Generally no on any forum.

 

[MTGomer]

Above someone mentioned other countries; Japan, Canada, Germany.

I seriously believe you could put a pile of machine guns on every street corner in tokyo and nobody would hurt anybody. ‘Canadian Nice’ is a real thing too.
The few other countries I’ve been to really make you realize that Americans really are kind of arrogant pricks. Maybe not so much in the rural west, but elsewhere yes. It’s hard to really put a finger on exactly what it is with words but there’s something about our culture that is different and not for the better.

 

[Doublecluck]

I keep seeing people in this thread suggest that somehow the 2a is outdated or not needed or should only apply to certain weapons. I don’t know where you folks were in the LA riots, in that situation I don’t want to be the guy holding a single shot rifle. If you think the government can protect you and your family, you are a fool.

 

[RobG]

I don't think people who cling to arguments like "guns don't kill people..." are hypocrites, they just have their heads in the sand if they can't see most people think it is a dumb argument. However, the hypocrisy is large in Hollywood for putting out movies glorifying mowing down people to solve all problems and then complaining when people adopt that mentality.

SIAP; http://www.businessinsider.com/school-shootings-drove-stephen-king-to-take-rage-off-shelves-2014-3

 

[OhHeyThereBen]

Interesting analogy. Are you suggesting anyone with an AR must be licensed by the state and adhere to any/all Federal and State legislation about how they are operated?

I think you're digging a suggestion out of an analogy. But to go along with it, no matter what regulations are in place there will be deaths with cars, just like there are deaths with guns. To imply that there are no federal/state regulations about how guns are operated isn't a very good statement. You can't kill people or even endanger someone of being harmed. Just like you can't run people over with cars or speed.

VikingsGuy - Thank you for the statistics that you posted a couple of pages ago.

mtmiller - One reason that my analogy isn't perfect is that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, for the reasons that many have stated on here (basically, an assurance of freedom). We do not have anything in any laws in any states (as far as I'm aware) guaranteeing anybody the right to drive a vehicle. Yet, there are far more people killed and injured by cars per year than guns. And out of the gun deaths, the majority of them are suicides.

All of this death is horrible. I don't like it any more than anyone else on here. But the source of the problem is what the main argument is here. To me, statistics prove that we have a problem with mental illness and general mindset in this country. How to fix that, I don't know, but I'm glad that people are willing to bring that into the conversation instead of taking a knee-jerk poke at guns every darn time. The same can be said for strong second amendment advocates; I don't remember who said it in an earlier post but yelling "LIBERAL" and shutting yourself off to the world isn't a way to help the problem.

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'm fairly new and this solidifies my participation and respect of this fine forum. Keep on.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I think it is remarkably short sighted to talk about gun control, and not talk about the ideas that are causing these people to commit mass murder.

I am fine with the debate about reducing the efficacy of a mass shooter by limiting tools available, and I am also fine with a debate around what our kids our exposed to and the new societal norms that influence their development, but to have either debate while ignoring the other shows an incredible lack of critical thinking on behalf of our society, regardless of your political leaning.

I have read only a little about this event, but this kid learned those tactics somewhere. Call of duty perhaps???? The brain is the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield, so what really made this kid dangerous? I can see an argument for it being a combination of influences and opportunity, but not either independently.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I think you're digging a suggestion out of an analogy. But to go along with it, no matter what regulations are in place there will be deaths with cars, just like there are deaths with guns. To imply that there are no federal/state regulations about how guns are operated isn't a very good statement. You can't kill people or even endanger someone of being harmed. Just like you can't run people over with cars or speed.

VikingsGuy - Thank you for the statistics that you posted a couple of pages ago.

mtmiller - One reason that my analogy isn't perfect is that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, for the reasons that many have stated on here (basically, an assurance of freedom). We do not have anything in any laws in any states (as far as I'm aware) guaranteeing anybody the right to drive a vehicle. Yet, there are far more people killed and injured by cars per year than guns. And out of the gun deaths, the majority of them are suicides.

All of this death is horrible. I don't like it any more than anyone else on here. But the source of the problem is what the main argument is here. To me, statistics prove that we have a problem with mental illness and general mindset in this country. How to fix that, I don't know, but I'm glad that people are willing to bring that into the conversation instead of taking a knee-jerk poke at guns every darn time. The same can be said for strong second amendment advocates; I don't remember who said it in an earlier post but yelling "LIBERAL" and shutting yourself off to the world isn't a way to help the problem.

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'm fairly new and this solidifies my participation and respect of this fine forum. Keep on.

I think you guys are comparing apples and oranges. If you were comparing accidental deaths from cars and firearms, or if you were comparing the use of vehicles and firearms as weapons, it may make more sense.

 

[Carl]

Every time there is a tragedy like this one, it is typical for everyone to get very wound up and there is a lot of discussion had surrounding the topics of mass shootings, active shooter scenarios, and gun control. School shootings in particular are highly tragic, and very scary. This most recent situation is no different, and I feel for anyone personally touched by the violence.

It is easy, even for me (I'm definitely biased towards gun freedoms due to both my upbringing on a farm being fairly surrounded by guns, and being an avid competition shooter), to think for a moment that things are getting out of control and that something MUST be done. Then I look the numbers up again, as I know in the back of my head what the numbers say.

Roughly 2,600,000 die in the US each year. Roughly 33,000 are firearms deaths, or just over 1%.

This is those 33,000 represented visually (keep in mind, this is represents ~ 1% of deaths):




Of those, ~ .1 % are terrorist related OR mass shootings:




So ~ 1 of each 1,000 firearms related deaths are attributable to mass shootings, to make it 1 of each 100,000 total deaths.

Then you think, sure, but the mass shooting numbers are rising so quickly that it's rapidly becoming a larger problem. However...it really hasn't changed in the last few decades as much as you think (admittedly this stops prior to Vegas):





At this point I realize that if we want to keep people from dying, that there is MUCH more low hanging fruit than working on the mass shooting problem. While it is very scary, you could eliminate it completely forever and the reduction in tragedy in this country (one of the least tragic places of them all, in one of the least tragic periods of time of them all) would be basically a rounding error. Let's keep this in mind when we're discussing reducing the freedom's of 323,000,000 people in order to make a minimal impact on a problem we probably shouldn't be focusing on to begin with.

 

[OhHeyThereBen]

I think you guys are comparing apples and oranges. If you were comparing accidental deaths from cars and firearms, or if you were comparing the use of vehicles and firearms as weapons, it may make more sense.

I'm talking deaths in general. I do understand where you're coming from though. Just continuing the analogy after mtmiller asked.

 

[RobG]

At this point I realize that if we want to keep people from dying, that there is MUCH more low hanging fruit than working on the mass shooting problem. While it is very scary, you could eliminate it completely forever and the reduction in tragedy in this country (one of the least tragic places of them all, in one of the least tragic periods of time of them all) would be basically a rounding error. Let's keep this in mind when we're discussing reducing the freedom's of 323,000,000 people in order to make a minimal impact on a problem we probably shouldn't be focusing on to begin with.

Carl - your pictures didn't come through.

If you follow the logic of what I think you are saying, terrorism is even an order of magnitude less significant, yet we've given up far more rights fighting it. Even if someone got a nuke to go off in New York Harbor the military says 100,000 people would be killed, or three years worth of gun deaths. And on average guns take far more lives than terrorism. Which is worse? What these faux-analyses don't consider is that the impacts extend far beyond a mere body count.