Mass shooting du jour

[normanintheskywithsapphires]

buy an insurance for each gun a person owns, like we have to buy for each car we own? (Then there will be one more checkpoint - insurance companies). Insurance companies are also a very big business here, maybe bigger than NRA, but unlike NRA, they do some checking.

That is one of the best ideas I have heard (though I'm not a specialist on guns since I have never even held one). Private insurances would really look into who is buying what why. Brilliant open market solution. Must find friends in the US, right?

 

[monarch64]

Insurance won’t work. One, you could never get that passed in most states. I live in Indiana and there is no way that would get passed into law here. Two, people would find ways around it. I can have all sorts of cars I don’t drive that I don’t plate nor insure, either til they’re street legal or let’s say I own land and I drive them only on private property. Tractor? No license, registration, or insurance required. Old beater pickup that I park in a barn and use to haul brush or firewood? Why bother plating and insuring if it never leaves the property? Who is going to enforce this gun insurance? See where I’m going with this?

 

[normanintheskywithsapphires]

The USA seems to be a rather 'lawless' country. You couldn't do such car-licence stuff in Europe (no space anyway). I guess we are historically more used to / open to government control than you young freedom countries over there. As we see, this can be good and bad. The Australians got guns under control. It was a short painful fight but the government prevailed. Then, Australia is a Ex-convict island and they are very law-abiding there.

 

[t-c]

The USA seems to be a rather 'lawless' country. You couldn't do such car-licence stuff in Europe (no space anyway). I guess we are historically more used to / open to government control than you young freedom countries over there. As we see, this can be good and bad. The Australians got guns under control. It was a short painful fight but the government prevailed. Then, Australia is a Ex-convict island and they are very law-abiding there.

Interestingly, there is more individual privacy in the EU than the US. Doesn't the EU allows residents to have a say on what information Google et al will retain and post (the "right to be forgotten")?

 

[House Cat]

The USA seems to be a rather 'lawless' country. You couldn't do such car-licence stuff in Europe (no space anyway). I guess we are historically more used to / open to government control than you young freedom countries over there. As we see, this can be good and bad. The Australians got guns under control. It was a short painful fight but the government prevailed. Then, Australia is a Ex-convict island and they are very law-abiding there.

Using Australia as a comparison to the US in terms of gun control is too simple. You are comparing apples to shoes.

I love that Australia got it’s gun issue under control. However, I have to point out that Australia is essentially an island. We are bordered by two other countries. Our borders are not secure. One of those countries is completely overridden by drug cartels.

I don’t point this out to say that “bad guys will get guns” if we ban guns in our nation. i point this out to say that EVERYONE will continue to get guns in our nation through the Cartel and we will strengthen them more than we already do through meth sales.

This is just one of the differences. We have cultural differences, differences in how we take care of our mentally ill, political differences. The list goes on and on.

Our gun problem is very deep and complex. It is multi pronged. It will require intelligence and compromise but first it will require a strong desire from all sides to solve the problem. I don’t see that yet. I’m deeply troubled by that fact.

The second amendment was never meant to arm the people in the way that we are armed today. Our forefathers meant to arm each state in the form of militias so that they could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. It wasn’t until a 2008 Supreme Court ruling (Scalia) gave a person the right to defend themselves that the second amendment became bastardized by the NRA. From that point on, the second amendment has morphed and lost its true meaning.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history

I think a good starting point is to take a look at the original meaning of the second amendment and get back to its roots. People were still allowed to own guns, but it wasn’t like this. There was a different purpose behind gun ownership. The NRA tells everyone gun ownership is their inherent right and everyone believes. The second amendment states gun ownership is part of a duty to defend your state (the people) against a tyrannical government. That’s a very different mindset.

 

[VRBeauty]

Tehema county, Northern California. A farily rural area. Five people including the gunman are dead. Early reports indicating that the dead included two children appear to be incorrect, although the gunman's "random" targets did include an elementary school, and two children were among the injured.

And this:

[Assistant Sheriff] Johnston said the gunman tried to get into rooms at the elementary school to shoot more kids, but a lockdown saved lives.

*sigh*



https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/Fatal-Tehama-County-Shooting-457497863.html?bc

 

[AGBF]

The link you posted shows it is yet another mass shooting with at least ten other people wounded besides the ones who were killed. So yet again we have a "random" mass shooting.

 

[Calliecake]

Just another day in America and yet some say we don't have a gun problem.

 

[telephone89]

 

[Matata]

Another one today http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-norcal-elementary-school-shooting-20171114-story.html

All of those who say guns don't kill people are correct. Bullets kill people; the proof is on their death certificates which state "death by gunshot" not "killed by psycho/terrorist/gun". Let everyone have their guns, ban ammunition

 

[VRBeauty]

He spent six minutes trying to find a way to kill people at that elementary school. It could have been much, much worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/california-tehama-county-shootings/index.html

 

[redwood66]

People who have a restraining order issued against them should not have access to firearms. According to the news he did and killed the lady neighbor who held it. As @House Cat said in another thread, many of the homicides are domestic violence. I think this might have problems with current laws though because the person may not yet, or ever be, convicted of anything as required for firearm purchase or ownership. If you have proven a lack of self control by having a restraining order against you, you cannot be trusted.

 

[Loves Vintage]

There should be at least one armed police officer (active, not retired) at every public school in this country. And, the federal government (that is, we the people) should pay for it.

NRA doesn't want guns taken away from crazy people, so regrettably, that is the only solution we are left with.

 

[redwood66]

School resource officers (law enforcement) are generally armed, at least the ones in our area are and they work for the local PD or sheriff dept. The elementary schools might not have them but the middle and HSs do.

 

[Loves Vintage]

I'm sure this varies by town and city. More SROs!!! Of course, this doesn't do much for the church or concert go-ers or mall shoppers or or or, but something needs to be done and no one is doing ANYTHING.

 

[kenny]

I'm sure this varies by town and city. More SROs!!! Of course, this doesn't do much for the church or concert go-ers or mall shoppers or or or, but something needs to be done and no one is doing ANYTHING.

What do you mean?
They're praying.

 

[lyra]

Can't we just keep the school doors locked from the inside all day long? There shouldn't even be access. It could even be a protocol like having to be buzzed in. I mean, no one is going to change any meaningful things, so at least protect the kids since this isn't the first time that young kids were targeted. Won't be the last either.

 

[Rhea]

Have you listened to yourselves? Perhaps it's because I'm on the outside looking in, but locking school children inside their school and paying an armed officer (the average salary of a security guard has already been discussed upthread) genuinely sound crazy. Or like you're bargaining http://www.thecounsellorsguide.co.uk/five-stages-dealing-issues.html. This is stage 3 of 5. Perhaps shortly you'll just realise that such is life, or death in this case, and get to acceptance of individual rights to own many different types of guns with little regulation being more important than individual safety.

 

[Maria D]

What do you mean?
They're praying.

and thinking thoughts!

 

[Maria D]

Can't we just keep the school doors locked from the inside all day long? There shouldn't even be access. It could even be a protocol like having to be buzzed in. I mean, no one is going to change any meaningful things, so at least protect the kids since this isn't the first time that young kids were targeted. Won't be the last either.

Adam Lanza shot his way through locked doors before he mutilated his victims with the rapid fire bullets from the really excellent killing machines that are for sale in discount department stores all over the U.S.

Columbine HS had an armed guard during the 1999 massacre. That didn't prevent the incident which some would call a tragedy but I call an inevitability.

 

[lyra]

Maybe the gov't should get into the bullet proof glass, blast proof door and kevlar vest businesses. Maybe then there would be some safety, because it's not coming through any other sensible means.

I hate that schools and churches are big ole targets now. Such cowardly acts.

 

[Maria D]

Look how much fun these sexy ladies are having!

 

[AGBF]

Have you listened to yourselves? Perhaps it's because I'm on the outside looking in, but locking school children inside their school and paying an armed officer (the average salary of a security guard has already been discussed upthread) genuinely sound crazy.

As soon as I saw "locking the children in" I thought of The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, where a fire killed many young women who had been locked into that sweatshop on The Lower East Side (where NYU now is) in Manhattan. It led to some of the reforms of The Progressive Era. I don't want to lock children in.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Have you listened to yourselves? Perhaps it's because I'm on the outside looking in, but locking school children inside their school and paying an armed officer (the average salary of a security guard has already been discussed upthread) genuinely sound crazy. Or like you're bargaining http://www.thecounsellorsguide.co.uk/five-stages-dealing-issues.html. This is stage 3 of 5. Perhaps shortly you'll just realise that such is life, or death in this case, and get to acceptance of individual rights to own many different types of guns with little regulation being more important than individual safety.

Of course it sounds crazy -- it is. But, what is it exactly that you would propose I do? I have children and am part of the half of the country that thinks mentally ill people should not have guns, child abusers and significant other abusers should not have guns, and weapons that fire in great quantities and/or rapidly should no longer be sold. So I'm part of this half. And, the NRA exists and is not going away any time soon. And, the NRA and the other half of the country thinks these weapons are ok, and arming the mentally ill is a super idea, and I AM NOT IN CHARGE HERE. So what exactly is it that you want me to do instead of proposing a risk reducing measure (SROs in schools) given the circumstances as they are here? Should we all leave the country?

 

[redwood66]

Of course it sounds crazy -- it is. But, what is it exactly that you would propose I do? I have children and am part of the half of the country that thinks mentally ill people should not have guns, child abusers and significant other abusers should not have guns, and weapons that fire in great quantities and/or rapidly should no longer be sold. So I'm part of this half. And, the NRA exists and is not going away any time soon. And, the NRA and the other half of the country thinks these weapons are ok, and arming the mentally ill is a super idea, and I AM NOT IN CHARGE HERE. So what exactly is it that you want me to do instead of proposing a risk reducing measure (SROs in schools) given the circumstances as they are here? Should we all leave the country?

I have to gently correct you on your assertion that half of the country wants the mentally ill to have weapons. This is absolutely incorrect.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Thank you, redwood. I know that you are a reasonable person in all of this, and I half-knew that you would correct me on that one. But, I know that the NRA convinces people to fight regulations that attempt to accomplish removing guns from the mentally ill.

I will say that I know a co-worker was hospitalized for a mental issue, and her sister somehow got the police to remove her gun from her home. I have no idea how they accomplished this, but she wasn't too pleased about it at the time. I doubt there would be anything stopping her from purchasing new firearms though.

All things I should spend more time looking into!

 

[House Cat]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wtop.c...c-violence-mass-shootings-link-loopholes/amp/

Domestic violence is a very serious problem in our society. It seems to me that the mechanism in a man that allows him harm the people he is supposed to be hardwired to protect is the same mechanism that makes him capable of killing on a mass scale. I see it like this, everything shuts down inside of person like this except for rage. This personality type must be addressed! When a man can look at the face of his baby, feel nothing, and remain a monster, there is no telling what he can do to the rest of the world.

According to the article I’ve posted, domestic violence is a common denominator among mass shooters. Maybe it is time to look at this condition as a public health crisis rather than a feminine issue.

Furthermore, I don’t know the solution to mentally ill people having guns. Mental illness is a very broad brush. Almost one in five people in our nation has mental illness because we are talking about a group of illnesses that includes anxiety and depression all the way to schizophrenia and everything in between. Should a person who has occasional anxiety attacks be banned from owning a gun? And where does addiction lie in this ban? Addiction is classified as mental illness. Should alcoholics, pot addicts, opiate and coke addicts be banned from owning firearms? They alter their consciousness in a compulsive way. Not exactly the type of people we want owning guns.

And what is the fallout from such a ban? People will fail to seek treatment for their symptoms and then you will REALLY have some sick people owning guns.

I don’t know the solution to this problem, but this is what I see happening if we keep a ban like this overly simple.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Not to worry, HouseCat, no regulation regarding ownership of guns in this country will ever be simple.

Here are two thoughts.

(1) People with anxiety and depression are more likely to kill themselves and possibly close relatives. This happens every.single.day in this country. No one cares. We only care about mass shootings, really, but not enough to actually do anything about it.

(2) I would guess that in most cases law enforcement already knows about people suffering from severe mental illnesses, whether they seek medical treatment or not. They get the phone calls about these people regularly. Of course, then the question becomes what constitutes a mental illness vs. someone having a series of really bad days where they fire guns illegally from their property, threaten people, get put in jail, and then still for goodness sakes DO NOT GET THEIR GUNS TAKEN AWAY.

So, agree. It won't be simple.

 

[redwood66]

Thank you, redwood. I know that you are a reasonable person in all of this, and I half-knew that you would correct me on that one. But, I know that the NRA convinces people to fight regulations that attempt to accomplish removing guns from the mentally ill.

I will say that I know a co-worker was hospitalized for a mental issue, and her sister somehow got the police to remove her gun from her home. I have no idea how they accomplished this, but she wasn't too pleased about it at the time. I doubt there would be anything stopping her from purchasing new firearms though.

All things I should spend more time looking into!

As @House Cat just said, the mentally ill issue is so very complicated. The NRA stance as far as the Social Security Administration rule attempt was not one of wanting to allow the mentally ill to possess firearms. The SSA does not make a determination on mental illness, that is for a doctor to decide. If you have to have a third person make your financial decisions this does not make you mentally ill in a legal sense. The NRA was calling attention to government overreach that was not done through the legal process as it should be. I don't want the mentally ill to have firearms but I also don't want the government to do things in a back door manner either.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/319859-nra-the-mentally-ill-have-gun-rights-too

 

[Rhea]

@Loves Vintage it was a rhetorical question, followed by an example, meant to make the point that people are so desperate they are considering measures which are either unsafe or ineffective while certain individuals and the government value their rights to feel safe (good guy with a gun) over others to actually be safe.

I am not against you. And I'm not proposing anything. I have no suggestions which I haven't heard turned down. At this point your government doesn't care about your safety and this thread shows an attempt at bargaining and clutching at straws.

I imagine this will keep going. Smaller and smaller measures will be proposed in order to attempt to get anything at all agreed and passed. I heaven't yet heard any suggestions that the anti-regulation (I'm simplifying, I just don't know what to call them) side feels they can live with.