Do "hardened schools" prevent mass shootings?

[Magniankh]

@Mijin

Three answers to your rhetorical question:

1. The automobile deaths are almost entirely accidental.

2. We do do a lot to mitigate automobile deaths. Like, oh look - tiered licensing and registration, the things I have been saying would form the core of common-sense gun control.

While it’s true that most automobile deaths are accidental in nature, driving into crowds to purposefully murder people does happen. Usually only one or two people die with many more being injured. Do a quick Google search, I was surprised so many hits came up. Looks like most of them happen during protests or rallies.

Recently in Oregon one mom drove her family off a cliff, killing everyone, but it didn’t make national news – probably because she didn’t use an AR to do it. Think about it.

Still, the fact remains that more people die from automobile related deaths than firearms, more than twice as many. And, statistically, gun-related suicides count as “firearm related deaths” in many studies, which skews the real number of actual homicides.

Most murders with firearms use handguns anyway, not ARs.

Frankly I think gun-related killings and mass shootings are more sensationalized than someone driving a car into a crowd, or driving their family off a cliff. Another tid-bit left out of national news is how often guns DO save a life in self-defense. Recently that waffle house robber was shot and killed by a concealed carry citizen. Earlier in the year a female motorcyclist was attacked on the road and had a pistol to defend herself. There’s actually a bunch of stories like this out there where guns are used appropriately for self-defense purposes. In 1997 a school principal in Mississippi had a .45 on him and stopped a school shooting from happening at his school.

Again, usually handguns are used in murders and self-defense, I’ll grant you, Not ARs.

I’m not against stronger licensing measures for gun ownership, it’s probably a good idea. There already are tiers to ownership, though, such as owning silencers, fully automatic weapons, and some specific weapons like mounted machine-guns. If you wanted to create a tier for semi-auto rifles I’d say that’s probably valid, although I think a simple age requirement would eliminate newly purchased ARs from ever being used by high schoolers.

[Magniankh]

@ElvisL1ves

That’s what the well-regulated militia stuff means, huh? How about all the other stuff in the Constitution about suppressing insurrections - that’s all about staving off tyranny too, is it?

Come on now. That interpretation was created only in the last few decades.

I disagree.

The Founding Fathers were against the idea of a standing army because it was controlled by a government or other ruling entity, and therefore dangerous to a free society because whoever controlled the army could potentially oppress citizens. The well-regulated militia was a compromise that every (white) man was also a part-time soldier able to defend his town and nation, and therefore a standing army was not necessary.

The 2A was drafted to 1. prevent a standing army and 2. enable a free society.
Obviously the US long ago waved aside ideas that standing armies were inherently oppressive, but the legislation was drafted in order for citizens to thwart a tyrannical ruling party that controlled a standing army. I believe the interpretation still stands.

By the way, I inserted the parenthetical, (white), for the sake of accuracy, not to say that’s how it should be today. In the 18th century gun ownership did not extend to blacks or native Americans. I didn’t want a rebuttal on that point by sounding too romantic about the original legislation. That’s what they believed then, but the spirit of the law should extend to every citizen, of course.

[Mijin]

@Magniankh

Recently in Oregon one mom drove her family off a cliff, killing everyone, but it didn’t make national news – probably because she didn’t use an AR to do it. Think about it.

I’ve thought about it and I don’t see any double-standard.
1,200 people die each year in the US in murder-suicides, 9 out of 10 of which are perpetrated with guns. I would argue this tragic case of suicide by car got much more coverage by virtue of its novelty.

Still, the fact remains that more people die from automobile related deaths than firearms, more than twice as many.

Right, and again we’re doing a lot to get that down. What are we doing for guns?

Most murders with firearms use handguns anyway, not ARs.

Once again, I never said “let’s only restrict ARs” or whatever. In fact I’ve had to say the opposite now, explicitly, several times.
But this is a thread about a kind of mass shooting, so of course the discussion is going to have more focus on ARs.

Another tid-bit left out of national news is how often guns DO save a life in self-defense. Recently that waffle house robber was shot and killed by a concealed carry citizen. Earlier in the year a female motorcyclist was attacked on the road and had a pistol to defend herself. There’s actually a bunch of stories like this out there where guns are used appropriately for self-defense purposes. In 1997 a school principal in Mississippi had a .45 on him and stopped a school shooting from happening at his school.

No, the exact opposite is true.
Instances where “a good guy with a gun” saves the day get massive exposure.
Ever heard of a case where a good guy shot the wrong person, or people got in the crossfire? Or police shot said good guy? Or just generally a child got hold of a legal gun owner’s gun (absent any kind of shooting situation) and caused a fatality?
I would wager zero, because no-one wants to hear these kinds of stories.

I’m not against stronger licensing measures for gun ownership, it’s probably a good idea. There already are tiers to ownership, though, such as owning silencers, fully automatic weapons, and some specific weapons like mounted machine-guns. If you wanted to create a tier for semi-auto rifles I’d say that’s probably valid, although I think a simple age requirement would eliminate newly purchased ARs from ever being used by high schoolers.

What I mean by tiered licensing is:

to own *any *firearm you must meet a list of requirements indicating that there are no known reasons why you would be an unsafe owner, and pass an exam / attend some kind of training, and have to wait for a while.
And a whole bunch of things can strip you of your license at any time.

But if you want to own an AR-15 or an uzi or whatever, the requirements are much more strict: you need to provide good reason why you need that kind of firearm (and defence of the home would not be such a reason), maybe police need to visit your home to check you have good storage options for the weapon, and periodically you need to take part in an evaluation that you’re still fit to own this weapon.

I know it would take a lot for americans to ever move to a system like this, but this is what it would take to drastically drop gun homicides and spree killings.

[Magniankh]

I think some of your suggestions are valid, logical, and possible. Better screening for gun ownership should be a reality.

[DrDeth]

@Magniankh

I
By the way, I inserted the parenthetical, (white), for the sake of accuracy, not to say that’s how it should be today. In the 18th century gun ownership did not extend to blacks or native Americans. I didn’t want a rebuttal on that point by sounding too romantic about the original legislation. That’s what they believed then, but the spirit of the law should extend to every citizen, of course.

Do you have a cite that free blacks in the North couldn’t own guns?

The South yes, but not the North.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Magniankh

I disagree.

The Founding Fathers were against the idea of a standing army because it was controlled by a government or other ruling entity, and therefore dangerous to a free society because whoever controlled the army could potentially oppress citizens.

And yet they established one almost immediately thereafter. Crazy, huh?

The 2A was drafted to 1. prevent a standing army

To *substitute *for one.

and 2. enable a free society.

By providing a ready military capability for exactly the purpose they stated elsewhere, “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Not to allow some band of disaffected yahoos to *overthrow *the government, but to *defend *it from that sort of thing. Our free society is enabled by the *entire *document, with one sentence added to clarify that we need a military capability to help do it.

You can repeat the recently-invented rationalizations the NRA has provided all you want, but that does not make them historically correct or logically consistent, and it certainly is not grounded in any sort of moral or philosophical code other than “We like guns”. The idea that you’re all going to somehow regulate yourselves so you can overthrow a (vastly better armed) government that democratically passes a law you don’t like is sheer fantasy, and that’s being kind.

In the 18th century gun ownership did not extend to blacks or native Americans.

Right, speaking of insurrections that We the People had to defend against. Insurrections against us and our democratic republic are threatened by different groups now, though - as your post describes.

the spirit of the law should extend to every citizen, of course.

It certainly should. You just need to get straight on what the spirit is.

[ElvisL1ves]

@DrDeth

Mexico has very strict gun control.

But they still have a massive problem with guns being smuggled in from a neighboring place where they are easily available, and you know where that is - it’s just like Chicago being flooded with guns bought in Indiana.

[k9bfriender]

@Magniankh

Recently in Oregon one mom drove her family off a cliff, killing everyone, but it didn’t make national news – probably because she didn’t use an AR to do it. Think about it.

I have disagreements with much of your post, but other posters have mostly addressed those.

I just wanted to point out that not only was your comment that there was no national newsabout it wrong, we even had a thread about it here.

[DrDeth]

@ElvisL1ves

But they still have a massive problem with guns being smuggled in from a neighboring place where they are easily available, and you know where that is - it’s just like Chicago being flooded with guns bought in Indiana.

That is always the excuse as to why gun control doesnt work, yes.

[ElvisL1ves]

The broader, and truer, explanation is that we haven’t fucking tried it yet. Everywhere else, experience is that it does indeed work.

“It doesn’t work” is the common avoidance excuse from YOUR side.

[Scumpup]

@ElvisL1ves

But they still have a massive problem with guns being smuggled in from a neighboring place where they are easily available, and you know where that is - it’s just like Chicago being flooded with guns bought in Indiana.

Cite on the massive part there, big fella? Given the intimate relationship between the cartels and their military, and their use of military firearms and explosives, Imma want to see that any significant part of Mexico’s issues springs from guns smuggled there from the US.

[Slash1972]

Here is an article from NPR: In Mexico, Tens Of Thousands Of Illegal Guns Come From The U.S.

I thought this was common knowledge actually.

[ElvisL1ves]

Not for those who find it inconvenient, apparently.

[ElvisL1ves]

Here’s another from, oh, what the hell, Hong Kong.

Like the Second Amendment in the United States, Mexico’s Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, but it also stipulates that federal law “will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places” of gun ownership.

For many Mexicans, even those who love guns, the thought of an unfettered right to owning one is perplexing.

Yet on this issue, like so many aspects of life in Mexico, the influence of its powerful neighbour to the north is keenly felt: each day the army gun store sells on average just 38 firearms to civilians, while an estimated 580 weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the United States.

That’s the *only *legal gun store in Mexico, btw.

[Magniankh]

@ElvisL1ves

I’m not an NRA member, nor do I expose myself willingly to their rhetoric. Also it sounds like you are making the argument for owning guns a bit too circular – we own guns to protect the right to own guns? I mean, I guess you could look at it that way, but I think it has more to do with a distrust of the government. The same government that loses 21 trillion dollars, and proposes engaging in domestic terrorism in order to incite wars. JFK shot down Operation Northwoods because JFK was a real human being, but do you think Trump has such ethical standards? He wouldn’t bat an eye if the current Joint Chiefs of Staff approached him with a plan to engage in domestic terrorism.

The 2A represents (for many Americans) the final line in the sand, the very last resort if violent revolution breaks out. Are you so trusting of the government, THIS US government, that you would eliminate that final line because 344 people died from mass shootings in 2017? I’m not sure on the total count through the decades, but that’s how many people died from mass shootings in 2017. Meanwhile 40,000 people died in automobiles in 2017 and an estimated 600,000 thousand Americans will die from cancer in 2018. So why are guns so feared? Also, as I previously pointed out, most murders are perpetrated with handguns anyway, so what is the point of banning semi-auto rifles when, statistically, fractions of a percent, are ever used to harm another human? In 2009 a study found that over 310 million guns were privately owned by Americans, I’m sure the number is higher now considering gun sales are increasing, not decreasing.

Yes, the US government is vastly overpowered. Yes, a guerrilla war against the US would probably be futile. But remember that the US lost the Vietnam War even though we had helicopters, napalm, air-power, field radios, and modern weapons. It’s not always about sheer firepower, especially in guerrilla wars. Guns are an enabler – everything that the US military has is technically within grasp of a few dumb or willing citizens. Tank depots, Drone Control Depots, National Guard Depots, etc., could be stormed and overpowered. There, now you’ve leveled the playing field a bit just by gaining access to the same firepower. Not to mention that the US military is made up of US citizens – I know a handful of veterans from my graduating class, and I can tell you that many vets are disenfranchised with the system, as well. If lines truly had to be drawn there would be more “defectors” than you may think. I’m not saying I want a violent revolution, but I am saying that I understand that guns represent the final line in the sand just in case. For me, the number of civilian deaths associated with guns doesn’t scream “guns are evil.” Do you blame spoons for obesity? Do you blame pencils for hate speech?

If we all lived in a utopian Star Trek society that actually structured civilization on the basis of merit, yet not letting anyone go hungry or live with disease or mental disorder, if our ruling parties actually invested in our infrastructure, our education, and our health, if we actually put money into R&D to better our lives through tech and AI, eliminate pollution, and explore the stars, then yeah, we probably wouldn’t need guns because civilization would be merry. But instead we have a government that uses our own tax dollars to spy on its own citizens and engage in domestic terrorism to boot. We are literally paying our own government to spy on, and terrorize us – not exactly a benevolent ruling entity if you ask me, certainly not an entity to put a final ounce of trust into.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Magniankh

Also it sounds like you are making the argument for owning guns a bit too circular – we own guns to protect the right to own guns?

Uh, no. :rolleyes:

I think it has more to do with a distrust of the government.

The government that is otherwise called We the People? The one we vote in, and can replace with something we like better just by calling another convention? That one?

You can continue with this story all you want, but it won’t get you anywhere. I really recommend reading the entire Constitution sometime.

The 2A represents (for many Americans) the final line in the sand, the very last resort if violent revolution breaks out.

We keep hearing that the 2A worshipers would BE the “violent revolution”. Who else do you see doing it?

Are you so trusting of the government, THIS US government, that you would eliminate that final line because 344 people died from mass shootings in 2017?

Who else is going to stop it?

For someone who insists on independence from the NRA, you’re doing a fine job of parroting their party line.

Guns are an enabler – everything that the US military has is technically within grasp of a few dumb or willing citizens. Tank depots, Drone Control Depots, National Guard Depots, etc., could be stormed and overpowered.

I think we’re done here. Good day.

[Scumpup]

@Slash1972

Here is an article from NPR: In Mexico, Tens Of Thousands Of Illegal Guns Come From The U.S.

I thought this was common knowledge actually.

From your article:

The figure, based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, represents about 70 percent of the 104,850 firearms seized by Mexican authorities that were also submitted to U.S. authorities for tracing.

How many firearms were seized total? How many were not not submitted to the US authorities for tracing? How many were from the Mexican military or police? 104,850 sounds like a vast mountain of guns, to be sure, but there are more guns than that in the Pittsburgh area. All that article says is that the guns from the US that were submitted for tracing were from the US. It does nothing to put that number into any sort of context.

[ElvisL1ves]

Here was your challenge:

@Scumpup

Imma want to see that any significant part of Mexico’s issues springs from guns smuggled there from the US.

Now you know.

[Isamu]

@Magniankh

which was created for the very purpose of staving off tyranny. And before anyone enters the argument with, "

The US never experienced tyranny, just a few taxes. Which the US itself does to people today. Yes, taxation without representation. Done by the US.

Also, you will never prevail in a shooting war against a government who want to arrest you. Never.

[SamuelA]

@Velocity

Hardened schools aren’t ideal, but since it only takes one gun to carry out a school shooting, and there are 300,000,000 guns in America, it’s the only way a school can be truly safe from a shooting. It’s like airport security; it makes more sense to have security at the airport to prevent weapons from being carried aboard, than it does to ban all weapons nationwide and think that no weapons will be taken to airports/airplanes as a result.

Hardened schools are like “The Club” for automobiles. “The Club” does little to stop car theft. And a determined thief can defeat it. But if the owner of a common model of car uses The Club, and there are other instances of that exact car parked near each other, any thief is probably going to just go steal the easier to steal car.

Similarly, would be mass shooters probably do scout their targets. If they see a school is locked down like a prison with a million dollars of hardening upgrades, why not just go shoot up the school that isn’t that well protected?

Eventually, maybe all schools will be like fortresses but that will take a lot of time and money.