Can we talk about the mass shootings in America?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Because the "right to keep and bear arms" is enshrined in our Constitution. So, even if the solution to these incidents was to simply ban guns, that isn't really an option without a Constitutional amendment.

In order to amend the Constitution a bill needs to be approved by 2/3 majority in both legislative houses. It then must be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

I believe the probability of that happening within my lifetime is functionally zero.

 

That is a very recent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Activist judges and all that. In 2008 the Supreme Court overturned prior precedent and decided that the 2nd Amendment allowed all individuals to have a right to be armed (with certain provisos). There was a propaganda apparatus for decades before that telling everyone that the 2nd Amendment meant individuals and not the militias. Before that both the federal and state governments regulated firearms and who could own them and the Second Amendment was not considered as a challenge to those laws. We forget our own history and insist that how things are now go back to the founders. Our national memory is really spotty and generally useless.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, provoman said:

This isn’t a discussion for histrionics.

The object did not harm anyone. The human caused the harm. 

So the solution is, of course, MORE WEAPONS!!!!!!!

The solution that has worked for the rest of the world is inapplicable because Americans are incapable of learning from our own history. When this shooting happened the calls for solutions included things that had already been done at that specific school. They failed.

We could humble ourselves and realize that arming ourselves for conflict endlessly is just provoking more conflict. We could humble ourselves and repent of our gun idolatry. Instead we choose the path of Shiz and Coriantumr. We should expect the same fate.

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

There is so much we do not need, but we accept that people want things, and despite the minute number of irresponsible people, society accepts that the responsible majority can have access : for example, motorcycles, alcohol, vehicles, 

all those have laws though regarding their use. i.e an 18 yr can't legally drink, you can't serve alcohol to an underage person etc. You deserve everything that you get.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

the image is the 2020 data on things used to kill other humans

The stats are rather meaningless though unless you include how often they are used for constructive and/or necessary purposes as well (I don’t think it is wise to rate something that is primarily used for entertainment as higher value to keep around just because it may be used more often than something that is occasion used but when used makes a big difference, such as a medical device like an asthma inhaler vs a video game cartridge).  So the stat should be imo percentage of use that results in injury and percentage of use that results in death.  Not only will this make for better comparisons, it will remove to some extent the emotional reaction to guns as only dangerous if one includes statistical usage that has not caused harm…though again, I think what it is used for should make a difference.  A higher rating of risk on something that is necessary (medication for example) still would not mean it should be banned while a relatively low risk on something that is just for fun (a specific baby toy that breaks on rare occasions) might be a good reason to ban it.

Though the fact that the handguns and firearms were used 4 times as more than the closest ‘challenger’ knives should be a red flag.  Knives being next up should be looked at as well, but the percentage of knife usage that is killing or injury vs other non dangerous usage…my guess is the killing percentage of use is very, very low.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The stats are rather meaningless though unless you include how often they are used for constructive and/or necessary purposes as well (I don’t think it is wise to rate something that is primarily used for entertainment as higher value to keep around just because it may be used more often than something that is occasion used but when used makes a big difference, such as a medical device like an asthma inhaler vs a video game cartridge).  So the stat should be imo percentage of use that results in injury and percentage of use that results in death.  Not only will this make for better comparisons, it will remove to some extent the emotional reaction to guns as only dangerous if one includes statistical usage that has not caused harm…though again, I think what it is used for should make a difference.  A higher rating of risk on something that is necessary (medication for example) still would not mean it should be banned while a relatively low risk on something that is just for fun (a specific baby toy that breaks on rare occasions) might be a good reason to ban it.

Though the fact that the handguns and firearms were used 4 times as more than the closest ‘challenger’ knives should be a red flag.  Knives being next up should be looked at as well, but the percentage of knife usage that is killing or injury vs other non dangerous usage…my guess is the killing percentage of use is very, very low.

It is very hard to kill large numbers of people quickly with a knife.

[The Nehor]

Adapted from elsewhere:

America: "Help! HELP! I'm stuck in a well with all my guns!!!"
Countries1-4: "Climb! Leave the guns and climb up and take our hands!"
America: "I'm thinking I should dig... should I dig?"
Country5: "NO! I was trapped in a well, and digging is a bad idea! Climb out!"
Countries6-8: "We’re lowering ropes! Take hold of a rope!"
Country9: "I've even tied a harness to the end of this one!"
America: "I can feel the ropes, but I don't want to hold onto them since they might not hold the weight of my guns... should I dig?"
Country10: "No! If you dig, you'll hit water, and then you'll be properly screwed. I should know, I almost drowned."
America: "I dug a little bit just now, and I haven't hit water. I'm gonna keep digging..."
Countries 11-18: "No! Climb! Leave the guns and climb out!"
America: "Guys, I'm seriously stuck in this well! Help! HELP!!!"
Country19: "I was trapped in a well once. It took me two years, but I managed to build a climbing machine that pulled me to safety out of a well bucket and a pocket watch. I'm dropping the blueprints, extra buckets, and an assortment of pocket watches."
Country20: "I've engineered a jet-pack that will rocket you to safety. Stay where you are and we'll lower it down!""
OP: "Thanks for your help, guys. I'm gonna keep digging. I'll find the Mines of Moria and I'll just walk to the surface. If Durin’s Bane shows up I can just shoot it."

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Guns don’t win wars or fight aggressors. People do. If the police response in Uvalde can be taken as a general indicator of the will of the American people to resist a threat we would surrender to attackers so quickly it would make the French look at us in disgust. Having a lot of guns isn’t what provides safety. It is the will to resist. We have a lot of people eager to brag about how they will resist enemy threats but I suspect most of it is empty posturing.

In Afghanistan we had a well-armed nation in terms of equipment and it folded in a few days. In Ukraine you had a less armed nation and they fought hard and got the weapons they needed. There would have been no point in sending weapons if the people there had no will to use them.

The idea that America is somehow uniquely suited to repel invaders is probably a national myth. The continental United States has not been attacked by a foreign military for over two centuries and we have enjoyed safety as the two nations bordering us don’t harbor any imperial ambitions against us. The Chinese army is not going to invade the US. Neither is Russia. The posturing over how well we could fight them off is just posturing. A vast array of overweight old guys with tacticool weapons and equipment is not preserving the United States. They might destroy it though.

It was tounge in cheek. I don't own a weapon.  I do believe in my fellow citizens right to own a gun though.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So the solution is, of course, MORE WEAPONS!!!!!!!

The solution that has worked for the rest of the world is inapplicable because Americans are incapable of learning from our own history. When this shooting happened the calls for solutions included things that had already been done at that specific school. They failed.

We could humble ourselves and realize that arming ourselves for conflict endlessly is just provoking more conflict. We could humble ourselves and repent of our gun idolatry. Instead we choose the path of Shiz and Coriantumr. We should expect the same fate.

Did I say the solution is “more weapons”? No I did not. 

And why did something fail? Because someone propped a drop open.

But it is not the objects fault. A depraved mind pulled the trigger. A depraved mind planned the act.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The stats are rather meaningless though unless you include how often they are used for constructive and/or necessary purposes as well (I don’t think it is wise to rate something that is primarily used for entertainment as higher value to keep around just because it may be used more often than something that is occasion used but when used makes a big difference, such as a medical device like an asthma inhaler vs a video game cartridge).  So the stat should be imo percentage of use that results in injury and percentage of use that results in death.  Not only will this make for better comparisons, it will remove to some extent the emotional reaction to guns as only dangerous if one includes statistical usage that has not caused harm…though again, I think what it is used for should make a difference.  A higher rating of risk on something that is necessary (medication for example) still would not mean it should be banned while a relatively low risk on something that is just for fun (a specific baby toy that breaks on rare occasions) might be a good reason to ban it.

Though the fact that the handguns and firearms were used 4 times as more than the closest ‘challenger’ knives should be a red flag.  Knives being next up should be looked at as well, but the percentage of knife usage that is killing or injury vs other non dangerous usage…my guess is the killing percentage of use is very, very low.

I am mostly on mobile, the FBI’s “crime data explorer” is not mobile friendly. On desktop or laptop, you can filter by # or % and other factors.

what I found interesting is “Rifle (automatic)” was far down on the list.

But I agree about the stats promote a fear factor about the use of firearms.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

all those have laws though regarding their use. i.e an 18 yr can't legally drink, you can't serve alcohol to an underage person etc. You deserve everything that you get.

I agree about laws concerning use. Of which there are laws regarding use of firearms. And people being people disregard the laws.

[Chum]

34 minutes ago, provoman said:

And why did something fail? Because someone propped a drop open.

Doesn't appear to be the case. Door was closed, pulled closed even and failed to lock.

[Chum]

Too few want less guns and too few are willing to stop rewarding shooters (with lavish attention to their 'work'). Well, okay.

Do we know with certainty stopping those things will lead to a sharp drop off in shootings. No. Less guns might work and/or it might take us back to the 1970 tactics of hundreds of US bombing a year. As far as not rewarding shooters, that gets a big yawn everywhere. We can't say either of those things will work because we're not willing to plan/try either in a sufficient way.

However, we don't have non-toxic, civil-rights preserving alternatives (to less guns/rewards) ready to queue up either. And we've had a LOT of time to come up with them.

We'll continue having the occasional school get shot up and efforts will shift to remodeling all schools into being more like prisons. A shooter will next show up at a school's arrival or departure time - and afterward, kids everywhere get prison fencing around their school. Shooters then target school buses on the roads and kids get prison buses. After that the next shooter thinks for 5 minutes and comes up with the next thing. Kids get stuck with the next loss of childhood that hapless adults come up with.

As long as our national priorities are dominated by winning at politics and culture wars, we'll continue to be awesome at politics and culture wars. As a nation, we are demonstrating that we want this more than alternatives.

Since this is the America we're choosing, I'd rather stop wasting energy debating and admit this is the best we can offer.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Chum

[strappinglad]

Until the lion lies down with the lamb , there will be these kinds of terrible events. We could be trying to avoid car bombs or short range missiles on a daily basis. We could be running from a mob that are swinging machetes. We could be fleeing rioters that are burning down whole blocks of buildings. 

For  now the lambs need a strong fence and a guardian ,with sharp teeth or a jack-/ I mean a donkey with a sour temper. 

As far as knives not being able to mass kill, may I suggest that ,given 45 minutes to work, a psycho could have killed  everyone in that classroom. If only there was a law that deranged people must first kill themselves before harming the innocent. 

 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Did I say the solution is “more weapons”? No I did not. 

You didn't have to.

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

For  now the lambs need a strong fence and a guardian ,with sharp teeth or a jack-

They might be helpful to keep peace at the cemetery. As for the living, they don't seem to be having much impact.

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

As far as knives not being able to mass kill, may I suggest that ,given 45 minutes to work, a psycho could have killed  everyone in that classroom. If only there was a law that deranged people must first kill themselves before harming the innocent. 

I think you agree, there's little in our present course that indicates we're going to change the overall outcome.  I mean it might be possible to make schools so miserable that shooters will chose to kill kids elsewhere. That wouldn't be a meaningful difference tho.

[Chum]

On 6/1/2022 at 10:18 PM, rodheadlee said:

I guess you have never seen the movie Red dawn? The one reason Russia , China  or anybody will never invade us is because we have 400 million guns in America. 

Or because we don't share a land border with them.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Chum

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

And why did something fail? Because someone propped a drop open.

This has been disproved. While the door was propped open the teacher removed the doorstop and closed it before the shooter got there. It looks like the self-locking door mechanism failed.

The horrible thing is this story was literally based on what people reported from the video feed but anyone who watched the feed would also have seen that the teacher shut the classroom door. So someone saw the video and decided to throw a dead teacher under the bus to be the scapegoat. Whoever did this should be tossed into a woodchipper.

And this story will be passed around for months as if it were completely true. The corrections never get as much coverage as the initial lie.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Until the lion lies down with the lamb , there will be these kinds of terrible events. We could be trying to avoid car bombs or short range missiles on a daily basis. We could be running from a mob that are swinging machetes. We could be fleeing rioters that are burning down whole blocks of buildings. 

For  now the lambs need a strong fence and a guardian ,with sharp teeth or a jack-/ I mean a donkey with a sour temper. 

As far as knives not being able to mass kill, may I suggest that ,given 45 minutes to work, a psycho could have killed  everyone in that classroom. If only there was a law that deranged people must first kill themselves before harming the innocent. 

 

I would like to believe the “brave” law enforcement officers might have moved in to stop someone with a knife since that would be less risky. Maybe they wouldn’t have faffed around trying to call the shooter to negotiate. So stupid. You literally heard the gunshots. How could you think this was a hostage situation you dumb idiots?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

But I agree about the stats promote a fear factor about the use of firearms.

Given they are only used for shooting and not say cracking walnuts open, even if entertainment value is high, I personally wouldn’t find the value of firearms as worthy enough to justify deaths (both killings of others and self) as people can find other ways to entertain themselves while dead is dead given the percentage of times they are the aggressor’s choice of weapon.  And there is a problem as to whether they discourage home breakins or attacks in greater numbers than they promote the aggression and bravado or whatever it is that makes certain people think they can benefit from attacking someone or breaking into a house.  And suicide, besides having a greater chance of intervention after the act, how many would think twice before attempting to kill themselves if they weren’t so certain it would be quick and guaranteed?

 Maybe being around guns leads to greater risk taking behaviour.  I am not sure how you could tease out the difference to come up with a worthwhile enough stat given there are a multitude of factors influencing aggression and violence in a culture, perhaps compare overall assault numbers (no matter what type of weapon including no weapon) before and after any extensive gun restriction laws go into effect (it is useless to use a jurisdiction where one can move across the dividing line—building, town, county, state—with ease and pick up a gun there and bring it back into a no gun zone or whatever).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

As far as knives not being able to mass kill, may I suggest that ,given 45 minutes to work, a psycho could have killed  everyone in that classroom. If only there was a law that deranged people must first kill themselves before harming the innocent. 

Would the police have hesitated if they knew it was mostly likely a knife?  Would the killer have been able to both prevent people escaping (blocking a door) and get close enough to use a knife (he stays by the door, kids run to the other side of the room)?

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would the police have hesitated if they knew it was mostly likely a knife?  Would the killer have been able to both prevent people escaping (blocking a door) and get close enough to use a knife (he stays by the door, kids run to the other side of the room)?

👍

[Chum]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So someone saw the video and decided to throw a dead teacher under the bus to be the scapegoat. Whoever did this should be tossed into a woodchipper.

Woodchipee would be the director of Texas' state LEO agency, the TX Dept of Public Safety.

It fits an unfortunate pattern by LEO chiefs/PR spokesbots - where they will withhold bad cop info pending 'a careful investigation' but eagerly bullhorn the 1st draft when it's anyone else. I've seen chiefs that do better; they're typically from smaller jurisdictions.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And this story will be passed around for months as if it were completely true. The corrections never get as much coverage as the initial lie.

Fortunately, this time appears to be the exception to that rule.

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a very recent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

No, it is a recent holding - not a recent interpretation.

 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In 2008 the Supreme Court overturned prior precedent and decided that the 2nd Amendment allowed all individuals to have a right to be armed (with certain provisos).

I believe you are mistaken. The only prior precedent relevant in the Heller decision was United States v Miller (1939), which was a case that dealt only with the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment and not with the scope of the right to own and use those weapons.

Also, Heller didn't actually overturn Miller, so what prior precedent are you referring to here?

 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There was a propaganda apparatus for decades before that telling everyone that the 2nd Amendment meant individuals and not the militias.

Go back and read the Miller decision (it's really short) and see what it has to say about militias:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." [emphasis added]

I suppose, now that I think about it, Heller did technically expand on Miller, but only in that it extended the right to bear arms to everyone and not merely men.

 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Before that both the federal and state governments regulated firearms and who could own them and the Second Amendment was not considered as a challenge to those laws.

Federal and State governments can still regulate firearms and who can own them without impinging on the Second Amendment - they just can't regulate them out of existence. You know, sort of like how the government can still regulate speech or other Constitutionally protected rights.

This isn't something that was changed by Heller. In fact, the opinion expressly said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We forget our own history and insist that how things are now go back to the founders.

Um...the founders pretty much all had guns. If they (along with most everyone else) didn't, we'd still be Brits.

 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Our national memory is really spotty and generally useless.

I don't think memory is the problem. People just have legitimate differences of opinion on this subject.

Fortunately, our country affords people the freedom to vote with their feet. So, if you want to live in a state with tougher gun laws, like California or New York, you can do so. If you prefer a government that takes a more laissez faire approach, then you can move to Texas or New Hampshire. Do what you like - it's a free country after all.

 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

The stats are rather meaningless though unless you include how often they are used for constructive and/or necessary purposes as well [...]

Like hunting? Or the self defense of your life or livelihood?

The government isn't going to keep coyotes from ravishing your livestock - that is something you have got to do on your own.

 

Quote

So the stat should be imo percentage of use that results in injury and percentage of use that results in death.  Not only will this make for better comparisons, it will remove to some extent the emotional reaction to guns as only dangerous if one includes statistical usage that has not caused harm…though again, I think what it is used for should make a difference.  A higher rating of risk on something that is necessary (medication for example) still would not mean it should be banned while a relatively low risk on something that is just for fun (a specific baby toy that breaks on rare occasions) might be a good reason to ban it.

I think the reality is that people do this sort of calculation already.

In 2020, the last year we have complete data for, guns were responsible for 44,222 deaths - more than half of which were suicides. (source)

Excessive alcohol use contributes to approximately 144,000 deaths per year. (source)

And cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. (source)

Yet we don't ban alcohol or tobacco. Well, we tried banning alcohol before - it was an abysmal failure. I strongly suspect trying to do the same thing with guns would be even more tragically disastrous.

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Amulek