Florida School Shooting - at least 17 dead

[qolbinau]

"There is no way to prevent bad people from doing bad things", a republican voter was overhead saying while enjoying his 'freedoms' in the only country in the history of the world suffering from this on-going endemic. 

The president tweets: "My prayers and condolences to the families of the victims of the terrible Florida shooting. No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school." 

Lucky he has prayed to his imaginary friend. That's all we need to do. Thoughts and prayers. 

[dramamama611]

Yes, particularly to your first paragraph.

[javero]

This tragedy has me musing over what I'd be willing to give up to ensure no repeats in the future. While I was in high school during the early 80s, there were no school shooting sprees.  Similarly, there was no publicly-accessible Internet, chart-topping gangster rap music, ubiquitous first-person shooter video game inventory, reliable nationwide cellular phone network, home computer penetration, nor so-called social media and the attendant cyberbullying.  But, there were plenty of guns in homes all over back then.

I can't bring myself to look at gun ownership in isolation. That, to me, would be both intellectually dishonest and quite naive.  My dad reminded me earlier this evening that the lobbying arm of the NRA started to assert itself in the mid-70s after the shock of the King and Kennedy brothers assassinations had worn off.

ETA: Nearly forgot that the early 80s ushered in the crack cocaine epidemic in several major US cities.  Homicide rates shot up among young black guys in their teens and early 20s but that doesn't account for the spike in mass shootings. 

[SNAFU]

Yes, homes had guns but were assault rifles credibly available to the public in the 70s?

 

[MikeInTheDistrict]

I think one of the reasons we've seen seemingly growing numbers of mass shootings in the U.S. is because such acts are far more prevalent in the public consciousness. At this school where the shooting took place today, the staff had actually done a safety drill involving shooting a gun with blanks. Thirty years ago, it probably would not occur to a troubled teenager to go into his school and shoot indiscriminately at his classmates and teachers because it simply wouldn't have occurred to him to do so. The mental model for doing so wasn't so ubiquitous.

 Since Columbine, the way the media has fixated on and sensationalized these shootings has created a sort of "meme" out of the act. Similar to "suicide contagion" or copycat terrorist acts, I think there has emerged a "mass shooting contagion" where a seed has now been planted in vulnerable people's minds that wasn't there before. Now we have schools doing "mass shooting drills" and it's even devolved into a throwaway joke on TV, movies, and on stage (in Dear Evan Hansen, Jared accuses Connor of looking like a school shooter).

 Then we have the fact that Reagan shut down the mental institutions (which were often terrible and deserved to be shut down), but replaced them with... nothing. I was in school not all that long ago. The way many schools are run these days is akin to a prison. Kids are anonymous numbers, and the way we write off "delinquent" students and their victims (both often suffering from trauma at home, poverty, abuse, criminalization, stigmatization, etc.) only exacerbates things.

[mar6411]

SNAFU said: "Yes, homes had guns but were assault rifles credibly available to the public in the 70s?

Bingo.  I don't know all the history/details, but they are so common now and used in all these crimes.  The 1994 ban on assault weapons expired in 2004.  There was a 1986 ban signed by Reagan - not sure how that ties into the 1994 ban but in any case the proliferation of assault weapons is a key difference.

 

[javero]

"Yes, homes had guns but were assault rifles credibly available to the public in the 70s?"

Nope and I concede the point to you.  They are were largely introduced in the late 80s/early 90s.  It's all coming back to me.  Scores of elementary school children and a few teachers were massacred or injured in Stockton, CA in the late 80s by a AK-47 bearer.  Bill Clinton subsequently signed into a law some key legislation that effectively banned the domestic manufacture of semi-automatics for 10 years but not before the mother of all fights with the NRA.  Before him, Bush 41 outlawed their import into the nation.  Before the 10-year ban expired local gun manufacturers retooled their wares to work around the design constraints.  I now remember that one of the Columbine shooters used a semi-auto that had been modified to comply with the law.

Perhaps laws need to be rewritten to remove the strict liability shields that currently protect most manufacturers and importers of military-grade semi-automatic assault rifles destined for consumers.

[adamgreer]

Thoughts and prayers. That’s all you’ll get.

When we did nothing after 20-something first graders were murdered, I knew this fight was lost.

[ErikJ972]

javero said: "This tragedy has me musing overwhat I'd be willing to give up to ensure no repeats in the future. While I was in high school during the early 80s, there were no school shooting sprees. Similarly, there was no publicly-accessible Internet, chart-topping gangster rap music, ubiquitous first-person shooter video game inventory, reliable nationwide cellular phone network, home computer penetration, nor so-called social media and the attendant cyberbullying. But, there were plenty of guns in homes all over back then.

I can't bring myself to look at gun ownership in isolation. That, to me, would be both intellectually dishonest and quite naive. My dad reminded me earlier this evening that the lobbying arm of the NRA started to assert itself in the mid-70s after the shock of the King and Kennedy brothers assassinations had worn off.

ETA: Nearly forgot that the early 80s ushered in the crack cocaine epidemic in several major US cities. Homicide rates shot up among young black guys in their teens and early 20s but that doesn't account for the spike inmass shootings."

The internet, rap music, violent video games etc is something every other industrialized nation in the world deals with. They don't have mass school shootings.

Also gun ownership has exploded since the 80's. The United States accounts for 5% of the worlds population had 35-50% of the worlds civillian owned guns.

The problem is guns.

[javero]

ErikJ972 said: "The problem is guns."

How does the US compare/contrast with the rest of the industrialized world with respect to the treatment of mental illness?  I don't dismiss the suggestion that guns, specifically assault rifles, are the root of the problem.  But, any attempt on the part of the government to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens would leave them defenseless which is a non starter for many Americans.  I have no idea how we address the issue of private arms sales nationally.  I also don't have a lot of faith in the ability of social media platforms to flag content expressing the intent to commit a felony with a fire arm.  The discoveries seem to occur after the fact. 

 

[Call_me_jorge]

I’d say our mental health is so bad, that video games, music and the internet becomes a problem. It’s not like they are the problem by themselves.
I just think it’s problematic the CDC can’t even study the effects of guns.

[javero]

I gotta admit that I really have no interest in living in a concealed carry state.  There's a map of states that have reciprocity agreements at the link below. 

CCW Reciprocity Maps

I wish we could send the 2nd amendment to the dust bin of history but that's not likely to happen in my lifetime.  A repeal has the potential to generate a retake of the failed war on drugs in the context of guns.

[mar6411]

javero - why do law abiding citizens need assault weapons?  

And while I agree that there is a component of mental illness, any comparison between the US and any other country shows that guns is the key difference in these mass shootings.  We have more than any country - guns and mass shootings.  Guns are the difference!

[javero]

"javero - why do law abiding citizens need assault weapons?"  

Oh I could never justify purchasing an assault weapon for the protection of my home but others have no qualms about it.

[TheGingerBreadMan]

There is absolutely no reason that any private citizen would ever need to own any type of semi-automatic, automatic, or assault weapon. When the second amendment was written, guns could fire 1 - 2 rounds per minute. Today, many weapons can fire 1 - 2 rounds per second. Guns have changed and laws need to change with them. If a person wants to keep a small handgun in case of an intruder or other threat, fine. You don't need a f*cking assault rifle under your bed.

[javero]

A colleague forwarded a link of a video of some guy's 8-year old daughter shooting an AR-15.  My dad taught me to shoot a rifle at around 11 before my first hunting trip but this crap is ridiculous.  Call me naive but I had no idea parents post these kinds of videos on the Tube.

WARNING: Disturbing Video of a Young Girl Shooting the Same Rifle as the Parkland FL Shooter

[adamgreer]

javero said: "A colleague forwarded a link of a video of some guy's 8-year old daughter shooting an AR-15. My dad taught me to shoot a rifle at around 11 before my first hunting trip but this crap is ridiculous. Call me naive but I had no idea parents post these kinds of videos on the Tube.

WARNING: Disturbing Video of a Young GirlShooting the Same Rifle as the Parkland FL Shooter"

Yup.  And these people get to vote.  And their vote counts the same as yours or mine. It's frightening these people exist in this country.

[qolbinau]

Maybe there are complexities RE: mental health, learned behaviours etc.. as discussed but if Assault weapons become impossible or very difficult to acquire it's hard not to believe that it would reduce the number of attacks. What other options would they have? Bring a hand gun and you might have some fatalities, but far less as people will be more able to run away (or even defend themselves in a worst-case situation). I assume explosives are difficult to obtain. They could try the 'running them over' tactic perhaps - though would also seem less effective. To me, gun control seems to be the most obvious and immediate bandaid to this problem. 

I definitely understand the challenges of achieving this though - the cultural values around guns that can easily be 'justified' with a very important document seem to make this so challenging.

[Islander_fan]

While yes, I do agree with the notion that laws on gun restrictions need to change to keep up with the times. But, how is that even going to come close to being accomplished? Especially with the far right who view restrictions as another way of saying taking away guns altogether. It needs to be done. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I battle mental illness. It's a real thing and not to be taken lightly. However, there are many people, myself included, who can go about a day to day life as if nothing is bothering them. That said, The number one Republican talking point whenever there is a shooting, is not reforming gun control policy, it's mental illness. They dig their heels in the ground and never come close to even thinking that gun reform laws could help. Instead they always attribute it to (whether it's warranted or not) to mental illness. I just feel that when they do that, they discredit mental illness as a genuine medical issue which it is. 

[kdogg36]

javero said: "I wish we could send the 2nd amendment to the dust bin of history but that's not likely to happen in my lifetime. A repeal has the potential to generate a retake of the failed war on drugs in the context of guns."

I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Why would repeal of the Second Amendment make it easier to end the war on drugs? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

Drug laws and gun control laws do have one very salient thing in common: both are used as a pretext to imprison many, many people - mostly poor people, mostly minorities - who have never actually hurt anyone.

Regarding the larger debate, my views on guns are the same as my views on hard drugs: I think buying them is pretty much always a bad idea, but I will never be on board with throwing people in cages for making, selling, or owning something just because I don't like it.

I know my position on guns puts me at odds with most or all of you on a very sensitive subject. I hope discussion can nonetheless be civil, as I promise to be with all of you.

[ErikJ972]

"Regarding the larger debate, my views on guns are the same as my views on hard drugs: I think buying them is pretty much always a bad idea, but I will never be on board with throwing people in cages for making, selling, or owning something just because I don't like it."

I'm curious where you draw the line on that? Bomb making material? Dirty bombs? People should just be able to purchase whatever they want with no restrictions? I don't see where the common sense is in that.

[kdogg36]

ErikJ972 said: "I'm curious where you draw the line on that? Bomb making material? Dirty bombs? People should just be able to purchase whatever they want with no restrictions? I don't see where the common sense is in that."

While acknowledging that there might not be any way to draw completely precise borders, I have two answers to that. First, the making of some things, like bombs, would usually be evidence of some kind of intent to attack others rather than defend oneself (or shoot targets at a range). Second, there are some things that I don't even think governments can ethically possess, like chemical and nuclear weapons. Even the small chance of accidental detonation makes their very existence a threat, given the damage they could do. So I'd be fine with putting people - civilian or otherwise - in jail for those categories of weapon.

 

[adamgreer]

kdogg36 said: "ErikJ972 said: "I'm curious where you draw the line on that? Bomb making material? Dirty bombs? People should just be able to purchase whatever they want with no restrictions? I don't see where the common sense is in that."

While acknowledging that there might not be any way to draw completely precise borders, I have two answers to that. First, the making of some things, like bombs, would usually be evidence of some kind of intent to attack others rather than defend oneself (or shoot targets at a range). Second, there are some things that I don't even thinkgovernments can ethically possess, like chemical andnuclear weapons. Even the small chance of accidental detonation makes their very existence a threat, given the damage they could do. So I'd be fine with putting people - civilianor otherwise -in jail for those categories of weapon.

"

You don’t need an AR 15 to defend your home or go hunting. Anyone purchasing such a weapon almost always has nefarious intentions. 

[ErikJ972]

So doesn't stockpiling weapons of war and ammunition fall into that same category?

[kdogg36]

adamgreer said: "You don’t need an AR 15 to defend your home or go hunting. Anyone purchasing such a weapon almost always has nefarious intentions."

I don't think that's true. I know (or know of) a few people who own an AR-15 and will never use it to harm anyone (except maybe under extreme circumstances). I'd be interested to see if you have any data to back up the claim that most people who buy an AR-15 intend to harm innocent people.

I want to stress that I don't think these people have made a good choice. But I also don't think they (or those who sold them the guns) should be in jail.