Well, the UK ban seems to have worked. It hasn’t entirely eradicated gun homicides, of course. Also, this guy was willing to go out guns blazing today, but probably wasn’t for most of his life.
ETA: I feel obliged to state, as I usually do in these threads, that I am not in favor of gun control more restrictive than anything we have now given the continued viability of the Second Amendment. However, I support repeal of the Amendment and then all bets are off.
re: Online schooling
I don’t know if Merneith was serious, but I was scanning this thread to see how long it took for somebody to suggest it. I’m at least as serious in suggesting it again as all the people are who say we should get rid of all the guns. It’d take about as long, and cause about as much ruckus, and be about as unenforceable either way.
My prediction for the future: optional online schooling, at which point all the rich kids (who have a parent or housekeepr or au pair who can stay at home and watch the kids stare at their computers all day) will be allowed to stay home and suddenly it’s just the middle- and lower-class who have to send their kids out for schooling.
Sorry, that was 100 times more risky for one our teens to die of suicide than in a mass shooting.
Yeah, RNATB I understand human nature is what it is and that rational analysis has very little to do with how we perceive risks. But we can at least *be aware *that we are reacting primally, emotionally, innumerately, and irrationally. It won’t stop our responding how we do, I know.
Oh really? I’d say the rational takeaway from both policies is that a blanket ban on anything that is legally and harmlessly enjoyed by the vast majority of the population is likely to fail. I don’t see how guns are any different from alcohol in this respect. Hell, guns even have legitimate a practical use (self-defense) - alcohol is purely recreational.
If that’s your standard, very few people are “okay with guns”. Most people support laws restricting gun purchases by minors (in CT you have to be 21 to buy a handgun), and I doubt anyone wants to repeal laws that make it illegal to shoot someone.
I don’t agree that guns and alcohol are utterly dissimilar products with dissimilar uses, except that guns actually have a practical use while alcohol is purely recreational. Other than that I think they’re really quite similar in all the ways that matter. The fact that you view them as different is just evidence that your thinking on this matter is biased. They’re both primarily recreational products that also happen to kill many innocent people each year. Oh yes, that’s another difference - alcohol kills countless more people than guns*.
Regarding your last statement - I have no idea whatsoever how to brew beer, but I could probably purchase a few parts and tools and build a gun in my garage. To you, that may sound laughable - to me, the idea that someone would try to brew beer in their kitchen is laughable. In any case, both are totally irrelevant, since hardly anyone does either.
*especially if we are talking about mass shootings and not all gun homicides, many of which would still occur even if guns were less available
I think a focus on identifying mentally unstable humans and restricting there access to weapons is a good first step. I’m in the navy and we screen each and every person before issuing a weapon. If they have ANY record of ANY sign of unstableness or previous events of misuse, they have ZERO access to any weapons. Plain and simple. There’s no grey area. If a child or teen is identified by a school counselor as showing any mental health issues then that’s it! Put he/she in a database that prevents any future access of any kind unless cleared by a PHD.
Also, I’d like to hear from some more teachers in this thread. What do they think the answers could be?
When I first heard about the shooting today, I was thinking about Gun Control legislation, but then I was informed of another mass killing in China this morning.
He killed a similar amount of children using a knife. Judging by the article I linked, this has happened before, it reports 20 dead and 50 injured (children, too) by similar incidents in 2010, and another recent slashing of women on a train with a boxcutter.
Given that, I’m not certain gun control will do much, the weapon of choice might change, and they may choose harder to police locations (i.e. backalleys and subways instead of schools), but I’m not sure it will prevent mass killings. I think it’s a deeper societal problem that requires social changes, and especially better access to mental healthcare to solve.
Other than one extremely specific case (drunk driving), alcohol poses no threat to anyone but the drinker. Guns can pose a threat to anyone, anywhere, regardless of if you have ever even touched a gun. Nobody is calling for a repeal of drunk driving laws (personally I wouldn’t have a problem if they were even more restrictive).
I think you hit on something we both seem to agree on, here: gun control should probably be all-or-nothing, because gun restriction seems fairly pointless.
Again, this is simply evidence of the bias in your thinking. You think alcohol is okay but guns are evil and nasty, probably because you have some experience with alcohol but no experience with guns.
Yet statistically, you are much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a gun, even if you have never had a drink in your life. If guns “pose a threat to anyone, anywhere”, then so does alcohol. They really are not at all different, except (as stated above) that alcohol kills far more people and guns actually have a practical use, as opposed to alcohol which merely tastes good.
And as I said, no one is calling for a repeal of laws against shooting people.
Read closer. 4 were seriously injured and sent to larger hospitals, the rest treated locally.
If you think guns don’t make it easier to kill large numbers of people, I don’t know what to tell you. There is a reason the military carries them.
Just to add some numbers.
Approximately 100,000 people die each year in the US in some manner related to alcohol consumption. Approximately 14,000 people are killed each year in the US by drunk drivers.
In comparison, approximately 200 people are killed each year in mass shootings.
If we are talking about mass shootings, the numbers are so different as to make any comparison ludicrous. Deaths of innocents due to drunk driving is far, far worse. And even if you include all gun homicides, drunk driving is still worse. True, approximately 10,000 people are killed each year in gun homicides, but a large fraction of those people would have been killed by other means if the gun were not available. You will not eliminate all homicide in the US by banning guns. The majority of these gun homicides are among young criminals in urban areas, not innocent people driving home from dinner.
I have experience with guns but that isn’t relevant. Drunk driving poses a threat to people on the road, and we can take specific steps to address that (we haven’t yet, but that is a discussion for another thread). With guns, there is no boundary. You could be at school, at the mall, in your home, whatever. There is no equivalence here, despite how hard you try.
It’s an inconsequential distinction. To get to school, the mall, back home, whatever, you have to be on or near the roads. Drunk drivers hit pedestrians too. You can no more protect yourself from drunk drivers than you can protect yourself from mass shooters. And drunk drivers kill vastly more people.
Outlaw guns except for special permits, confiscate them and melt them down until the U.S. has a similar situation re: Europe or Japan. Will never happen, of course, but anything else is closing the door after the horses have fled. Even that wouldn’t be totally effective because people would hide their weapons and there’d be a healthy black market.
Yes you can, because there is a very clear line you can draw - where the drunk driver enters the vehicle. No such line exists with guns. Once they are owned, at any point in any situation it can be turned on people (unless you want to argue that the line is “when the trigger is pulled.” If you want to allow guns but outlaw firing them, well fine) to great harm.
shriek shriek shriek
Yes, but the issue is less about the total impact, and more about why are we not really even trying to prevent these incidents in earnest? The word out of the White House spokesperson today was about how it’s not the time to talk about gun control. Do you think if some NFL team, or a bus full of school kids were killed by a drunk driver, we wouldn’t have politicians at least discussing ways to prevent drunk driving? Even basic measures like closing gun show loopholes become political footballs. I don’t think it would be effective to start trying to round up guns, but the fact that ANY law that would make obtaining gun harder is basically off the table is really troubling to me.
That’s why, if I had my druthers I would make three basic changes. One, ban private sale or transfer of guns w/o the use of a licensed intermediary. Two, require that all guns be registered and tagged. Three, require all gun owners to have insurance that covers damages due to the use of a gun they own in any criminal action, and a law that says one can be held criminally liable for not adequately protecting your guns.
Are you shrieking because you’re unable to deal with the suggestion?
In any case, you’re artificially dividing gun related deaths in your argument. The spree murders are only a part of the much larger group of gun related deaths. By focusing on the spree murders you’re pretending that they are less of a societal problem than they are.
Ah, I missed where you mention the other gun related deaths.
I withdraw the comment.
Haven’t read the whole thread yet but I wanted to post a comment I found that was both funny and to the point: “We have armed guards at our banks; apparently we care more about our money being safe than our children”. I think either professional security guards or trained and armed teacher volunteers would work. The Israelis had a couple of terrorist school massacres back in the 1970s, and their response was to form army reservists and civilian volunteers into armed security cadres. It’s claimed that they were so successful in killing terrorist gunmen before they could kill more than one or two people that the terrorists gave up on gunman attacks and switched to bombings.