Honestly I think it would be premature to prescribe a treatment plan; we first need to understand the disease better.
SOMETHING is happening in our society that is increasing suicide rates in teens and preventing a decrease in mass shooting sorts of homicides, even while other acts of violence and many risk taking behaviors by teens are on the decrease. Before we can know what to do about that something we need to have some reasoned hypotheses about what it is. So yes fund some quality research aimed at understanding that. Maybe apply some epidemiological tools like was recently done in Newark visavis murder rates.
Meanwhile throw resources at identifying and treating teens with mental health issues. Address suicide more seriously as part of the school curriculum. Similar to the bullying curriculum the focus is educating the crowd: what do you do when you have reason to be concerned that a friend is “not doing well”? Give the concerned bystanders the tools they need.
And yes trying to help more realize that the perceived gain from having an unsecured loaded gun in your nightstand, or left under the seat in your car, to defend yourself is smaller than the risks such creates. I have no problem with holding people partially liable for what happens as a result of leaving a weapon easily accessible to others. But it does not rank at the top of my to-do list.
I don’t know what would be the big travesty if we banned guns meeting specific specifications. We ban/restrict substances that carry with them certain addictive and psychotropic properties. We have determined that the costs of such substances outweigh any benefit, and moreover they inflict serious harm on society when in the possession of irresponsible/vulnerable people. We can comfortably make this conclusion even though most drug users do not constitute a serious threat to society and responsible recreational drug use is possible, theoretically, if everyone could be properly educated and held accountable.
Now I understand that there is a serious argument to be made for legalizing or decriminalizing illicit substances. But just as I can’t get worked up about me not having unrestrained access to top-shelf crystal meth, I can’t get worked up about my next-door-neighbor being disallowed from owning all the guns he wants. Because even if he is a stand-up guy, his ne’er-do-well brother who has keys to the place may not be. And just holding next-door-neighbor criminally liable for the bullet his wacked-out brother shoots into my head ain’t going to make me feel better about being dead.
Unlike psychoactive substances, firearms can be modified with relatively little difficulty to meet “specific specifications”. Restrictions on ammunition storage? Buy an aftermarket expanded magazine. Restrictions on rate of fire? Most semiautomatic rifles are just fully automatic weapons with the full-auto components removed.
Got Sudafed? Go on the internets and find out how to turn it into crystal meth.
Got ammonium nitrate? Go on the internets and find out how to make a bomb!
You’re right that it’s not so hard to modify firearms so that they become even deadlier. But you can transform many legal things into dangerous and illegal objects. This is not a good argument for allowing illegal objects, though.
I think it is right on point – go back as many years as you’d like and cite the number of murders by the three methods named. Or even easier, cite the number of first world nations with gun-control laws in place with a higher number of massacres as does US.
We agreed up until this. You can certainly loan your car to your born-again Christian neighbor with a perfect driving record who never drinks or uses drugs. If he gets into an “his fault” accident, you had no knowledge or reason to suspect he would do something irresponsible with your vehicle. You are not liable for negligent entrustment.
OTOH, if your neighbor has 14 DUIs and has had his latest car impounded for DUI and wants to borrow your car to go out drinking…that is negligent entrustment.
Your explanation made it seem like strict liability..
If we want to prevent murder sprees we have to understand what causes them. This would take unbiased scientific study and may come to conclusions we don’t like. My uneducated guess would be that these people feel they are not a part of our society but rather a victim of it and they want to make us feel their pain. When my dad’s workplace got shot up he said, “I don’t understand it. The people he shot were the nicest people there.” I understood it though. If you look at it from the shooters perspective it becomes obvious. If you want to make people suffer you don’t shoot the assholes, you shoot the nice guys because then everyone will feel more pain and anger. These children were killed to make the entire community suffer. The shooter did not see them as individuals, he saw them as an opportunity for payback. My opinion is that if we want to stop these types of mass murder incidents we have to take a good hard look at what allows us to dehumanize each other. We will also have to do a better job of helping those who feel alienated by society.
I would love to see at least one heavily pro-gun jurisdiction- maybe Florida, Texas, or Wyoming- give armed teachers a try. I think it would be like Shall Issue: the rest of the country would see it working just fine, and more would give it a try.
That I did know. At different times Friday it was reported that shooter’s Sig Sauer was a handgun and that it was a rifle, and now everybody seems to have settled on it being a handgun. But all the children were shot with the rifle. I presume that means he used the handguns (mostly) on the adults and perhaps himself.
Most of these mass school shootings involve a gunman with a mental illness.
Their mind ain’t quite right. Although they can organize themselves to kill quite effectively, their moral judgement is controlled by faulty chemistry in the brain. Either they haven’t been diagnosed with a full blown psychosis, gotten off their meds, or gradually their meds have failed.
Now we could reduce mass school shootings with far more effective programs to diagnose the potentially dangerous mentally ill and provide lifetime medical support and regular monitoring including confinement if evidence of regression occurs. As a parent of a mentally ill person I provided the initial “diagnosis”, asserted demand for treatment and keep a close eye on her condition. My child was deemed dangerous by a crisis counselor during the one and only psychosis and I’ll be damned if I don’t keep an eye on her regularly. It scares me that our medical system will reluctantly treat the severely mentally ill, then push them out and hope for the best. Not every mentally ill person has a vigilant loved one. Much too costly for the government I suppose :rolleyes:
But I don’t think society really understands bipolar or schizophrenia. It galls me that they are looking for a motive. They just won’t find one.
Of course if the gunman didn’t have access to a gun…
Interesting idea I just heard on Facebook - can we develop technology that prevents anyone except the owner of the gun from firing it? Some kind of chip or keycoding? I understand it won’t stop every shooting, but if every gun is required to have it set at the time of registration, it could do some good.
People have tried to do it in the past, but the technology available then didn’t work very well. As biometric sensors get better, it might be possible to use them on guns to prevent unauthorized use, but right now biometric fingerprint readers just aren’t reliable enough to trust (especially on a self-defense weapon, where you can’t afford a sensor glitch locking the gun at just the wrong moment).
Even if the technology is perfected, though, there are going to be millions of guns already in circulation which won’t have it. So it would help, but it wouldn’t completely solve the problem of unauthorized use.
Good post. These shootings are about power, and they are carried out by those usually young people, who feel powerless. Outcasts, poor social skills, untreated mental illness, bad family life, and other reasons may be the cause.
These young men who do these mass shootings seem to have common traits. Normal individuals with social skills and friends do not do these things. It is almost a stereotype that he was quiet, shy, kept to himself, etc.
These powerless individuals eventually strike out at those who are in an even weaker position than they are. The Virginia Tech guy, Aurora Colorado, the Portland shopping center shooter a few days ago, and now the Kindergarten Killer or whatever the media label will be.
They all have things in common that are not being addressed. I am talking about mental illness and the tendancy to just attempt to medicate the problem away without really addressing it at all.
And when some teacher loses his temper and kills one or more students, there’ll be a short spate of outrage in the media. And then we’ll go right on arming the teachers because guns are the magic solution to all problems, and because human life is worth nothing, while guns are important.
I love this plan. Keep defunding education so we fill teachers ranks with morons, and then arm them. Armed morons: we could call them the Teach Party. I can see the signs “Get the govt out of public school”, “If you can read this thank a 9mm.”
Of course, the teachers and staff were unarmed, weren’t they? Were they forbidden from carrying weapons? I seem to remember an incident in a school in Israel where an armed attacker was killed by armed staff or students or both.