at this point, we cant keep letting this happen. something has to change and the only thing i can see that will make a difference is stricter laws on guns. we've been at a point for a long time where we cant just blame the individual child. THIS HAPPENS EVERY WEEK. We have to ask ourselves why our children are taking guns to school to kill people and what we can do to stop this from happening. The only reasonable answer is to take guns away or to tighten the laws but no one wants to do it. i don't even understand the need to carry a weapon but if they insist on keeping them at least try to help the situation. america prides itself on freedom and compared to the rest of the world people live extremely well but if we cant even send our kids to school without fearing they'll be shot then what is the point in having pride in this country, it isn't a safe place anymore.

You also need to combat the "good guy with a gun" bullshit as the good guy is always too late and most people are a crappy shot any way. — Benkei

The use of the word "combat" and the "good guy with a gun" bullshit is a bit ironic in that in this instance, the school security guard was armed with a flashlight and nothing more. One shot from the bad guy with the gun took out what could have been, what should have been, what will be in the future "the good guy with a gun". It is not a perfect system to curb this trend but it is most definitely a start.

Another prong to help curb this trend is being studied by my son's University Embry Riddle in that they were awarded just over a three quarters of a million dollar grant to figure out a way to buy the kids within the school the extra 6 minutes that Sandy Hook Elementary school needed to save the lives that were lost in that school shooting.

"The Sandy Hook shooting took six minutes from the first to last shot," said Foley. "We are figuring out how to keep a shooter away from students long enough for police to arrive and stop the shooter. In essence, we are figuring out how to enhance security design to give the kids at the next Sandy Hook six minutes before the bad guy can get to them."

"The funds will be used to test various barrier technologies (doors, windows, window films, and locks) to determine how long each technology will delay an intruder's ability to move past that barrier. Each product will be tested against 9mm, .357, 5.56 x 45mm, and 12 gauge shotgun ammunition and brute force attacks."

The first line of defense HAS to be the administrators of the school because that is who, we the parents, are entrusting with our children's safety.

The proverbial horse branded with the NRA logo has left the barn and maybe it needs a revamp or maybe the mental stability of our nation needs to be weighed but this time, the signs were there, the dots were connected by fellow classmates and people did speak up, it is just no one was listening. The community approach has been "See something, say something" and this time it failed us, we failed us.

you're solutions aren't tackling the source of the problem, only symptoms. I'll pray for all the US children that will die for years to come because grown ups don't have the balls to do what's necessary.

The first line of defense HAS to be the administrators of the school because that is who, we the parents, are entrusting with our children's safety. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But this is peripheral, and ignores the fundamental issue: should private civilians have access to guns, and if so, what restrictions/regulations should be implemented? The idea that the 2nd Amendment's intent is to allow individual citizens the access to guns for reasons of self-defense, hunting, or other private uses outside the scope of regulated militias is dubious. But even if we are to accept that, a 19 year old was nevertheless legally able to purchase an AR-15, an incredibly destructive weapon, but is unable to purchase a beer. A few months ago, Senator David Simmons of Florida sponsored a bill, SB-1288, which would increase the minimum legal age of purchasing cigarettes and tobacco chew, etc. from 18 to 21. Sen. Simmons stated, "“Raising the age limit for smoking to 21 years is essential if we are serious about saving lives." And yet, Sen. Simmons has an A+ rating from the NRA.

If you want to get to the fundamental issue we should think about how to disarm governments too.

If you want to get to the fundamental issue we should think about how to disarm governments too. — Roke

'We", being? Are you advocating civil insurrection?

So stopping the sale of guns can save lives. Of course, that's constitutionally not entirely feasible but... — Benkei

Yes, that small constitutional problem... Actually, the interpretation that everyone may own any gun is a recent interpretation (like, less than 50 years ago).

You could outlaw carrying or keeping certain guns that are particularly effective in gun massacres (assault rifles, bump stocks). — Benkei

Good idea. We'll just try to get that law passed.

meanwhile confiscate when seen or found. Reward people for turning them in. Jail time after 5 years. — Benkei

More constitutional problems. Buying guns off the street... sure.

gun laws reduce gun homicides — Benkei

I'm sure they do. The problem is getting them passed and past a court review.

the "good guy with a gun" bullshit — Benkei

Agreed. Total bullshit.

Benkei, I'm not perplexed because I haven't thought of any of this; I'm perplexed because there are

a) so damned many political barriers, given politics operating the way it does.
b) so damned many guns already installed.

Yes, guns wear out, they rust, break, etc. But we have to assume that EVEN IF we stopped further gun production and sales today, (which I am in favor of) it would take many years to exhaust the existing inventory.

A ban on ammunition would perhaps be more effective. Bullets are a disposable one-use product. The existing supply of ammunition could be exhausted a lot sooner than the guns themselves.

Will ammunition manufacturing be reduced? Over the dead bodies of the NRA. Of course, there are ample guns and bullets available to accomplish converting the NRA into dead bodies, but it would probably be considered, hmmmm, bad form, bad taste, impolite, politically incorrect, rude, etc., not to mention murder in the first degree.

Our gun problem is the result of poorly regulated or entirely unregulated capitalism; this is true for a lot of our problems, like global warming, pollution, pandemic obesity, poverty, etc. etc. etc. It's also a product of a right-wing political agenda which has been in operation for around... 40+ years. It's no accident that the NRA was taken over by right wingers and converted from a gun-safety to a gun-rights organization.

That could run foul of the Fourth Amendment, though. There needs to be probable cause, not just "red flags". — Michael

Then when I go into a retail store and asset protection / loss prevention personnel are following me and watching me--and you know that they are doing it--they are violating the 4th Amendment?

It is insulting--I feel like laughing at them and saying, "Do you really think that there is anything in this store I would find worth stealing?"--but, no, it is not likely that any court would say that my 4th Amendment rights are being violated.

But that is a private business. What about the state? Well, many times when I am at a gas pump I see a picture of a state police trooper with his arms crossed and words warning me about driving off without paying. In other words, "You are being watched". All perfectly constitutional, apparently.

Meanwhile, I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that you do not need a search warrant if the person or property owner cooperates and gives you permission to search.

Again, the gun buyer would have the legal right not to cooperate.

And I do not see how keeping an eye on somebody from a distance violates any protection against unreasonable searches and seizures or any right to privacy. You are watching them to be able to stop them if they try to kill people, not to try to incriminate them.

Many of these shooters don't care anyway. They kill their own selves, so there is never a trial and, therefore, never any requirement of probable cause.

And your argument could be made against all police presence. Has the U.S. Supreme Court said that there must be probable cause before streets are patrolled? Does probable cause have to be demonstrated and a warrant issued before police can be present at a football game? There have been massacres that were carried out with legally purchased firearms. The Virginia Tech gunman legally bought guns at a Roanoke, VA pawn shop shortly before using them in the massacre, if I recall correctly. Therefore, it goes without saying that the point of sale of firearms can be a public safety hazard just like streets and football games with no police presence. Therefore, I do not see how police monitoring gun buyers would be any different in the eyes of the Constitution than private businesses monitoring their sales floors and asking a shopper if they can be of any assistance or the police monitoring streets and asking a group of teenagers what they are doing.

Apparently the more that we try to stop gun violence the more that we are going to interpret the Constitution to weaken the state and make it powerless to stop anything

THIS HAPPENS EVERY WEEK — David Solman

No it doesn't. Many of the school shootings are suicides, for example.

The Gun "Debate" is like the Abortion "Debate" Everyone's heard all the arguments, and whether or not one side is more rational than the other, it's all about political muscle at this point. Liberals in America won issues like abortion and gay marriage and Conservatives won guns.

No it doesn't. Many of the school shootings are suicides, for example — Thorongil

This doesn't obviate the issue.

'We' being people who value human life. Governments are made of people. But the point of the comment was more that it's not so easy to treat the source of this pathology. And so, in principle, I don't think we should belittle strategies that treat symptoms.

The source of the problem is not quite that Americans have guns. That's certainly part of it, but it's complicated. e.g. 100% of the people doing this are young men. I think to take this seriously we need to look very closely at what we're doing to young men in public education. It seems a number of young men are flipping over the game board on a terrifyingly regular basis in America. Why? It's not just access to guns. If we get rid of all guns will they build pipe bombs? I don't know.

That's certainly part of it, but it's complicated. e.g. 100% of the people doing this are young men. — Roke

Dunno about age, but according to this, of the 95 mass shootings (3+ killed?) between 1982 and 2017, there were 3 women.

So they will undercut their own sales? Fat chance. There are toilets more regulated than this.

If you have the time/means, I'd be interested to know the demographics. I have the sense that these are mostly young white men age 15-35 with most of the cluster near 18-20.

Here's an interesting breakdown.

Of the 90 mass shootings (I don't know why this number differs from the previous figure of 95), 66 involved legally obtained guns, 1 contained both legally and illegally obtained guns, and 10 were unknown.

Are white males responsible for more mass shootings than any other group?

In terms of numbers, white men are the majority, but then that's because most men are white (63%). Two different statistics on mass shooters shows white men to be responsible in 63% and 54% of cases.

you're solutions aren't tackling the source of the problem, only symptoms. — Benkei

Oh well please, let me teach my children to watch a person bleed out if they have ever been injured by way of malice instead of trying to come up a with solution to save the person's life. Once again, from the time he fired his first shot until he fired his last was six minutes. There is something about that six minute time frame that might relate to a swing in a mental breakdown, I don't know.

I'll pray for all the US children that will die for years to come because grown ups don't have the balls to do what's necessary. — Benkei

While thoughts and prayers can be of a comfort they are not a solution either. So what exactly do I as an adult "don't have the balls to do"?

But this is peripheral, and ignores the fundamental issue: should private civilians have access to guns, and if so, what restrictions/regulations should be implemented? The idea that the 2nd Amendment's intent is to allow individual citizens the access to guns for reasons of self-defense, hunting, or other private uses outside the scope of regulated militias is dubious. But even if we are to accept that, a 19 year old was nevertheless legally able to purchase an AR-15, an incredibly destructive weapon, but is unable to purchase a beer. A few months ago, Senator David Simmons of Florida sponsored a bill, SB-1288, which would increase the minimum legal age of purchasing cigarettes and tobacco chew, etc. from 18 to 21. Sen. Simmons stated, "“Raising the age limit for smoking to 21 years is essential if we are serious about saving lives." And yet, Sen. Simmons has an A+ rating from the NRA. — Maw

I think that the age of 18 being set to purchase a fire arm correlates to the age of legal responsibility. If you are 18 and get a DUI they don't put your parents in jail because you are 18. If at 17 you get a DUI, you loose your license till you are 21. The age of 18 makes legal sense in the age of enlistment into our military as well where they will be trained and issued a fire arm.

Thanks, interesting.

I do see it as a 'flipping over the game board' response. Anyone else? What makes people flip over game boards? How might we avoid eliciting this response?

See my earlier posts on gun control laws. This might *gasp* require you to vote for a Democrat who's pro gun control if there's no Republican option for it.

I do see it as a 'flipping over the game board' response. Anyone else? What makes people flip over game boards? How might we avoid eliciting this response? — Roke

Don't let them near board games?

See my earlier posts on gun control laws. This might *gasp* require you to vote for a Democrat who's pro gun control if there's no Republican option for it. — Benkei

Sorry, I thought you had an actual suggestion.

Sorry, I thought you had an actual suggestion. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It was a suggestion.

Sorry, I thought you had an actual suggestion. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Meanwhile, children are dying.

It was a suggestion. — Michael

Voting for a President is based on more than a singular position, on a singular topic.

Meanwhile, children are dying. — Benkei

Children are dying from all kinds of threats Benkei and there are some threats that are 'hills I am willing to die on' to protect my children and others children from. A human out to injure others with a firearm is not the most prevalent threat to the greater population of children than those I am willing to take on.

Children are dying from all kinds of threats Benkei and there are some threats that are 'hills I am willing to die on' to protect my children and others children from. A human out to injure others with a firearm is not the most prevalent threat to the greater population of children than those I am willing to take on. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What threats?

What threats? — Benkei

Opiates that 40% of high school students have tried and Heroin that is $4 a hit and easier to get that a tobacco cigarette. That is a hill I am willing to die on.

10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, United States - 2015



10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States - 2015