17 More Dead Kids

[Fragony]

Ouch. unlike most I don't dislike Trump, but using this for his vendetta with the FBI is really low, according to him they must have been too busy with Russian meddling with the elections.

[CrossLOPER]

Again, this concern is, to my lights, NOT a gun control issue. There is a cultural problem here that will not be alleviated by some "restriction" on gun ownership.

Under the current system, every day someone can buy a gun and cause a massacre. There is absolutely nothing stropping them from getting powerful rifles and modifying them to eject death at a rate that simulates automatic fire without actually being automatic. They can have as many rounds and as many guns as they like, so long as they are the "good guy" or a "law abiding citizen".

Please explain to me how this is a functional system.

[Montmorency]

So apparently the "proto-fascist" guy I quoted above was lying about prospective gunman Cruz being a member of the militia, and then complained that the media tricked him into making the claim.

But in fact it was pre-planned by 4Chan Nazis - or something?

How many layers of lies does it take to get to the center of the lying Jew media?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...nalists-415672
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...z-blames-media
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...ng-hoax/219415

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rigorous gun control laws would cut down on the number of guns in circulation. It seems likely that there would be a concomitant reduction in the number of deaths from accidental shootings, spur of the moment family arguments, and possibly suicides. It is also possible that the number of mass shootings would decrease because of the greater difficulties in acquiring weapons and/or the tools to modify existing weapons so as to enhance their rate of fire. The statistics noted above by Montmorency would certainly support such assertions.

My concern is what about US culture makes this kind of crime in any way appealing? How can we be developing so many persons who are functionally amoral/asocial to the extent that they stop viewing these other persons as people? These are not crimes of vengeance, however misplaced. As a lecturer, I run that risk and some few of my colleagues over the years have been killed for giving a student a failing grade. Where does the random strangers thing come into it? This latest mass shooter wasn't much as a student, but could read and write and politely wait in line at McDonalds. He was informally fostered to another family and was, apparently, clean and neat and participatory with that new family. How can such an individual slip gears into killing people with no personal meaning or threat to him?

[Husar]

How can we be developing so many persons who are functionally amoral/asocial to the extent that they stop viewing these other persons as people?

Well, with so many politicians (and people who vote for them) who think survival is optional for people who can't afford healthcare by themselves, who don't care about climate change as long as they can't profit from it and who support businesses even in cases where doing so kills people indirectly or drives people into some kind of wage slavery, I'd say the sentiment is quite deeply rooted...

Going out to shoot directly at people is by far not the only or even most effective way to kill them. And certainly not the only amoral/asocial thing one can do either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, with so many politicians (and people who vote for them) who think survival is optional for people who can't afford healthcare by themselves, who don't care about climate change as long as they can't profit from it and who support businesses even in cases where doing so kills people indirectly or drives people into some kind of wage slavery, I'd say the sentiment is quite deeply rooted...

Going out to shoot directly at people is by far not the only or even most effective way to kill them. And certainly not the only amoral/asocial thing one can do either.

But these mass shootings were less common during the 50s when we were rabid commie haters, blithely racist, and healthcare was almost always on your own nickel. You used your soapbox time well, but the issues you ID don't fit our mass shooters.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But these mass shootings were less common during the 50s when we were rabid commie haters, blithely racist, and healthcare was almost always on your own nickel. You used your soapbox time well, but the issues you ID don't fit our mass shooters.

There wasn't any MRI machines in the 50s.

[spmetla]

But these mass shootings were less common during the 50s when we were rabid commie haters, blithely racist, and healthcare was almost always on your own nickel. You used your soapbox time well, but the issues you ID don't fit our mass shooters.

There's many reasons. Biggest one is probably the rise of the internet. It allows people to escape into their own world and find people that are like them. People pick on you and you want to kill them, I'm sure there's a group for that. You find pleasure in sick things? you can find a group for that and just hate the world for not liking what you love.
For dangerous people with a fetish for killing, the internet feeds that too. Now you can watch snuff videos, shootings, convenience store robberies and anything else you want until you're no longer satisfied by watching but want to do. Picked on in school? you can within seconds find all the mass shootings that have happened and look at those shooters as heros or at least comrades. None of the above was possible in the 50s. When there were serial killers they made the news, then there was follow up coverage and then it went away. There were no secret online shrines built to those serial killers.

Additionally gun culture has changed. It's become a massive consumer product, there are magazines, TV shows, all gun stores now stock a wide variety of guns and accessories. Plenty of my friends spend a lot of time and money planning for their next new 'purchase'. Up until the 80s most people bought simple reliable weapons, bolt and lever actions, revolvers and so on. Perhaps they were more popular because they were 'American' and seen in the plethora of Westerns that were made then. Also typical for the period, former servicemen purchased surplus weapons of the kind they trained on, M1 Garands, Carbines, and M14s were popular for a long time until the Vietnam generation led to the rise of the AR-15's popularity. Remember in the 80s and 90s when in movies the only people that had arsenals and AR-15s were usually crazy vietnam vets living out of buses in the woods?
The NRA has also changed its stance, up to the 70s they were usually helpful in crafting sensible legislation. They just like the Republican party have changed into something unrecognizable with its past. They've stoked the fires against any legislation so much that they are backed into a stance that any regulation is unconstitutional.
http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

There's also the general shift in how people work together and interact. Up until the 60s, Americans were 'joiners' we joined Boy Scouts, Rotary Club, formed athletic teams with our friends. We as a nation no longer 'join' anything unless they send a magazine or it's involvement involves Facebook likes. We don't even have select-service to draw people into the military that used to be the great american melting pot. Actually getting together with different people with only one common interest happens less and less. It could be part of the problem created by the 60s counter-culture in which all organizations and authority was to be not trusted. The book "Bowling Alone" was a very detailed look into this aspect of modern life. It could be why people are so completely unsatisfied with life and need to binge things or search for religion or meaning in a world with no real 'purpose' anymore.

As for what makes our mass shooters so different it's really just that ours have easy access to very powerful weapons. Every other first world country has similar problems to what I've outlined above, the difference is we make it far too easy to buy weapons with extremely deadly potential. How was a 19 year old kid able to buy so many guns? He didn't seem to be a hunter, wasn't part of a shooting club, so why should it be normal for a kid to stockpile weapons.
You can't legislate away kids being bullied or people having mental problems. You can however draft legislation that at least makes it less easy for folks to buy guns and blow people away.

[Fragony]

It's also really easy to get here though, there is a large remnant stock of weapons from the Balkan-war, if you want an AK from me now I can have it tommorow, 500 euro should do, assasinations with automatic-weapons are all the craze over here between drug-gangs. The deeper problems I can go with though

[Beskar]

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There's many reasons. Biggest one is probably the rise of the internet. It allows people to escape into their own world and find people that are like them. People pick on you and you want to kill them, I'm sure there's a group for that. You find pleasure in sick things? you can find a group for that and just hate the world for not liking what you love.
For dangerous people with a fetish for killing, the internet feeds that too. Now you can watch snuff videos, shootings, convenience store robberies and anything else you want until you're no longer satisfied by watching but want to do. Picked on in school? you can within seconds find all the mass shootings that have happened and look at those shooters as heros or at least comrades. None of the above was possible in the 50s. When there were serial killers they made the news, then there was follow up coverage and then it went away. There were no secret online shrines built to those serial killers.

Additionally gun culture has changed. It's become a massive consumer product, there are magazines, TV shows, all gun stores now stock a wide variety of guns and accessories. Plenty of my friends spend a lot of time and money planning for their next new 'purchase'. Up until the 80s most people bought simple reliable weapons, bolt and lever actions, revolvers and so on. Perhaps they were more popular because they were 'American' and seen in the plethora of Westerns that were made then. Also typical for the period, former servicemen purchased surplus weapons of the kind they trained on, M1 Garands, Carbines, and M14s were popular for a long time until the Vietnam generation led to the rise of the AR-15's popularity. Remember in the 80s and 90s when in movies the only people that had arsenals and AR-15s were usually crazy vietnam vets living out of buses in the woods?
The NRA has also changed its stance, up to the 70s they were usually helpful in crafting sensible legislation. They just like the Republican party have changed into something unrecognizable with its past. They've stoked the fires against any legislation so much that they are backed into a stance that any regulation is unconstitutional.
http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/


There's also the general shift in how people work together and interact. Up until the 60s, Americans were 'joiners' we joined Boy Scouts, Rotary Club, formed athletic teams with our friends. We as a nation no longer 'join' anything unless they send a magazine or it's involvement involves Facebook likes. We don't even have select-service to draw people into the military that used to be the great american melting pot. Actually getting together with different people with only one common interest happens less and less. It could be part of the problem created by the 60s counter-culture in which all organizations and authority was to be not trusted. The book "Bowling Alone" was a very detailed look into this aspect of modern life. It could be why people are so completely unsatisfied with life and need to binge things or search for religion or meaning in a world with no real 'purpose' anymore.

As for what makes our mass shooters so different it's really just that ours have easy access to very powerful weapons. Every other first world country has similar problems to what I've outlined above, the difference is we make it far too easy to buy weapons with extremely deadly potential. How was a 19 year old kid able to buy so many guns? He didn't seem to be a hunter, wasn't part of a shooting club, so why should it be normal for a kid to stockpile weapons.
You can't legislate away kids being bullied or people having mental problems. You can however draft legislation that at least makes it less easy for folks to buy guns and blow people away.

Thanks. this was the kind of cultural assessment I was looking for. Not saying I agree, but I want to re-read this one and ponder a bit, so thank you.

EDIT: Better still on the re-read. I had thought of the internet component, but not of the "joiner" issue. Interesting.

The constitutional purist in me (any mentally competent adult can own any weapon) is being forced to consider the impact of 1) the Constitution was written when states were relevant. We now have only a Federal Governance system. We either need to revert to a more state-centric model, or recraft things to correctly reflect the more federalized model, and 2) the ubiquitous access to the internet is having the kind of impact Doug Adams predicted in his books when he mentioned the Babble Fish (he said a universal translator would INCREASE conflict as we all now KNEW what the others were saying of us -- The internet is not bringing us together in one big happy world so much as onanistically balkanizing us as we restrict our message intake to what we already agree with (obviously, many are using it positively, but people usually selectively listen and the internet only intensifies this effect).

[spmetla]

Thanks. this was the kind of cultural assessment I was looking for. Not saying I agree, but I want to re-read this one and ponder a bit, so thank you.

EDIT: Better still on the re-read. I had thought of the internet component, but not of the "joiner" issue. Interesting.

The constitutional purist in me (any mentally competent adult can own any weapon) is being forced to consider the impact of 1) the Constitution was written when states were relevant. We now have only a Federal Governance system. We either need to revert to a more state-centric model, or recraft things to correctly reflect the more federalized model, and 2) the ubiquitous access to the internet is having the kind of impact Doug Adams predicted in his books when he mentioned the Babble Fish (he said a universal translator would INCREASE conflict as we all now KNEW what the others were saying of us -- The internet is not bringing us together in one big happy world so much as onanistically balkanizing us as we restrict our message intake to what we already agree with (obviously, many are using it positively, but people usually selectively listen and the internet only intensifies this effect).

States are still relevant but in a economy and culture where people move so often they become less relevant. For things like health care, guns, and a number of other issues they just add another level of bureaucracy and legal issues that now makes it less efficient. So many States now depend of federal programs that of course that makes the lower level less important (Freeways, University funding, State level DoD).
The current grid lock in politics in my mind is more a problem with our majority rules system in Congress. The majority gets to decide who's chair of all the committees, what topics are to be discussed and at the state level get to implement gerrymandering. If the majority rules system were somehow curtailed it would mean the parties wouldn't need to have the Big Tent approach. The Democrats could in theory split in to a Democratic party and a Socialist party, the Republicans could encourage the tea-party wing to break off and form their own party (Christian Nationalist Party?). The need to actually form coalitions as the more parliamentarian systems do instead of just pushing for enough seats to take control and dictate policy might help matters.

For the constitutional purist in you just remember we were warned about the dangers of factions (political parties). How would you feel about removing the ability to directly vote for Senators? I'd like it if it were back to State Legislatures to appoint Senators because it would make them less subject to populism and would allow the States to appoint Senators that might actually be good technocrats too instead of just good campaigners.

It is odd how the internet has made people more connected and more alone at the same time. You ever had dinner with friends that just look at their facebook feed on the phone? It's irritating as hell and makes it a real difficult effort to hold any sort of conversation.

As for the firearms thing, my cellphone text alert from Hawaii County has let me know that the local police have had to arrest two students in two different high schools that were threatening to shoot up their schools online as well. I'm sure there are similar copy-cat threats being made throughout the country.

Glad to hear that Trump has finally done something more than tweet about this latest incident though. Hopefully it actually leads to real action instead of just rhetoric as we had after the Las Vegas attack:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=53245367
Trump holds listening session with students on mass shootings

For his part, President Trump offered the gathering an opportunity to grieve and to be heard by the powerful. He was joined by Vice President Mike Pence and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

“We are going to do something about this horrible situation that’s going on," Trump said. "We will figure it out together.”

That something, he vowed, would include strengthening background checks.

The president's proposed 2019 budget could potentially roll back federal grants aimed at helping states report to the national background check system.

Trump also said he would soon be speaking with a gathering of the nation's governors and would discuss school safety.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

States are still relevant but in a economy and culture where people move so often they become less relevant. For things like health care, guns, and a number of other issues they just add another level of bureaucracy and legal issues that now makes it less efficient. So many States now depend of federal programs that of course that makes the lower level less important (Freeways, University funding, State level DoD).
The current grid lock in politics in my mind is more a problem with our majority rules system in Congress. The majority gets to decide who's chair of all the committees, what topics are to be discussed and at the state level get to implement gerrymandering. If the majority rules system were somehow curtailed it would mean the parties wouldn't need to have the Big Tent approach. The Democrats could in theory split in to a Democratic party and a Socialist party, the Republicans could encourage the tea-party wing to break off and form their own party (Christian Nationalist Party?). The need to actually form coalitions as the more parliamentarian systems do instead of just pushing for enough seats to take control and dictate policy might help matters.

For the constitutional purist in you just remember we were warned about the dangers of factions (political parties). How would you feel about removing the ability to directly vote for Senators? I'd like it if it were back to State Legislatures to appoint Senators because it would make them less subject to populism and would allow the States to appoint Senators that might actually be good technocrats too instead of just good campaigners....

I've argued in other threads that I believe that the 16th through 18th amendments were all poor choices. We've only repealed the 18th (prohibition of alcohol).

The state legislatures and governorships are, of course, not without importance and I recognize that I was indulging in a bit of hyperbole in my earlier post. Too many legislatures, however, are adding their layer of laws and regulations mostly with an eye on recouping as much federal money as possible by conforming to federal guidelines. County school systems do the same thing with federal guidelines on education. We've ended up, all too often at least, with a state support apparatus doing the day-to-day work of enacting the federal plan.

Also, the gerrymandering in most state houses is atrocious -- and all too often that redistricting seems to be the only thing that the national parties give a crap about.

BOTH the 16th and 17th amendments contributed to this. Direct federal taxation, not apportioned among the states, lets the federal level do as it wills with little consultation with the states and limited oversight every 2 to 6 years from an electorate that chooses ignorance and then votes their ignorance. When taxes were apportioned among the states, the states were a LOT more involved with their reps in Congress because they had to fund whatever their reps had agreed to (or been outvoted trying to stop). The 17th exacerbates this by making ALL Senators beholden only to 50%+1 of their state electorates and only every 6 years. Admittedly, even when it was passed, most states had moved or were moving to direct election as their selection method of choice, but that should have remained just that, the choice of the state.

As it is, the state level of governance doesn't seem to improve the lot of their electorates and serves to worsen the consistent implementation of law and regulation from the "real" source of power -- the unelected bureaucracies of DC with their "must improve our fiefdom" organizational agendae (this is, by the way, an almost inevitable concomitant of bureaucracy, I am not talking conspiracy theory crap here. Weber was correct about their advantages in an ideal form, but life is not ideal and organizational politics is as inevitable as the inevitability of Marxism is not).

[Montmorency]

The social theorizing is interesting to an extent, and there are many questions I can't begin to even think to ask, but for the narrow question of "why were mass shootings less common in the past?" the answer may be much simpler than it seems at first blush.

No supporting evidence, but wasn't violence more endemic to society in the 1950s, in the sense of being a common and accepted mode of interaction between men and women, parents and children, men in general? Maybe there were more mass shootings than there are now - that just didn't become mass shootings by our standard because the weapons used were less lethal and the people less concentrated. How many mass shootings were there in all the centuries before the 20th? Not communal violence, not the mythical cowboy standoffs, but genuine lone-wolf mass shootings? It just wasn't possible. Now it is.

As long as we're plugging speculation, I would say these or parallel factors - in addition to the Internet/other communication channels as noted by Spmetla - are what have allowed international terrorism to really become a phenomenon. Didn't Marxist terrorism only really take off in the 1970s and 1980s? This is all continuous trends, until it can no longer fly beneath notice.

As a lecturer, I run that risk and some few of my colleagues over the years have been killed for giving a student a failing grade. Where does the random strangers thing come into it?

Also, damn.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The social theorizing is interesting to an extent, and there are many questions I can't begin to even think to ask, but for the narrow question of "why were mass shootings less common in the past?" the answer may be much simpler than it seems at first blush.

No supporting evidence, but wasn't violence more endemic to society in the 1950s, in the sense of being a common and accepted mode of interaction between men and women, parents and children, men in general? Maybe there were more mass shootings than there are now - that just didn't become mass shootings by our standard because the weapons used were less lethal and the people less concentrated. How many mass shootings were there in all the centuries before the 20th? Not communal violence, not the mythical cowboy standoffs, but genuine lone-wolf mass shootings? It just wasn't possible. Now it is...

I think you are underestimating the lethality of firearms available from the turn of the 20th forward, as well as explosives and other tools for killing en masse. The worst school killing was with explosives, not a gun. The Camden walk of death in 1949 involved only a handgun. The mobsters of the 20s and 30s had lots of automatic weaponry (suggesting that such could have been found. Yet the rash of mass shootings we now experience isn't simply a question of accessibility of semi-automatic weaponry. Such weapons have been available for the last 50-60 years. But only in the last 30 or so do we see these kinds of events becoming comparatively frequent.

Why now and not in the turbulent 60s? Why is 2001-2018 so much more rife with such events than was 1972 - 1990? Even if I grant that semi-automatic weapons are more accessible now than a century ago, it still does not address why it is more common now than it was in the 1980s? Your position on gun control cannot be the sole answer (setting aside the Constitutional issues currently under debate). There is more to it than that.

Also, damn.

To be fair, the only colleague I have known personally to have been murdered was murdered by his ex wife. I was using colleague in the larger sense with my earlier comment. I did learn of three different graduate faculty (all STEM types) who were murdered by students after awarding them failing grades in graduate school. Two shootings and one death by ballpeen hammer.

[Montmorency]

Reposting from ""F*** You, I Like Guns."" Mind the quotation marks.

I’ll start. I’m an Army veteran. I like M-4’s, which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few extra features that people almost never use anyway. I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split between various and sundry machineguns and grenade launchers. My experience is pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really good with an M-4, and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. I can name dozens of other soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing. This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a dream, and is light to carry around. I’m probably more accurate with it than I would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. When I was in the military, I enjoyed combining these two things as often as they’d let me.

The fact is, though, when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as possible, and that was never a secret.

As an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. Let’s stop pretending they’re not.

With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? And why wouldn’t they? High capacity magazine, ease of loading and unloading, almost no recoil, really accurate even without a scope, but numerous scopes available for high precision, great from a distance or up close, easy to carry, and readily available. You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter, especially the young one. If he could custom design a weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job than Armalite did with this one already.

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one. We simply don’t need these things in society at large. I always find it interesting that when I was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t carry them around just because we liked them. We didn’t bluster on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. We tucked our rifles away in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had been done since the Army’s inception. The military police protected us from threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this system has worked well. There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably well trained with them. Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian population take a page from that book?

I understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. People have to get a license to operate a car, and if you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble for that. We manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people by their misuse. In addition to cars, we manage drugs, alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t own Serval cats, for example), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any activity a person wants to conduct since those activities could affect others, and we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people.

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is bullshit, and everybody knows.

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse.

Let’s be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of people, that’s all an AR-15 is... Some people are good with this stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the overall rule... Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. Nobody does. Society needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours.

Another thought: Gun maximalists, as I said before, are more likely a threat than a bulwark to the commonweal in the event of government tyranny, but there's an interesting association. This type of person frequently denigrates the idea of civic engagement, civil disobedience, activism, and protest, as a process or response to the inaction or malpractice of the government. 'Those whiny libby libs? They don't know what they're doing, and fine for the government to suppress. Gun owners though, they're the heroes, the ones somehow keeping tyranny in check. You don't have to do anything in particular, or act exemplary and accountable to society, just be a badass gun owner and probably ready to shoot at the Feds once the UN troops have landed...'

I think you are underestimating the lethality of firearms available from the turn of the 20th forward, as well as explosives and other tools for killing en masse. The worst school killing was with explosives, not a gun. The Camden walk of death in 1949 involved only a handgun. The mobsters of the 20s and 30s had lots of automatic weaponry (suggesting that such could have been found. Yet the rash of mass shootings we now experience isn't simply a question of accessibility of semi-automatic weaponry. Such weapons have been available for the last 50-60 years. But only in the last 30 or so do we see these kinds of events becoming comparatively frequent.

Why now and not in the turbulent 60s? Why is 2001-2018 so much more rife with such events than was 1972 - 1990? Even if I grant that semi-automatic weapons are more accessible now than a century ago, it still does not address why it is more common now than it was in the 1980s? Your position on gun control cannot be the sole answer (setting aside the Constitutional issues currently under debate). There is more to it than that.


To be fair, the only colleague I have known personally to have been murdered was murdered by his ex wife. I was using colleague in the larger sense with my earlier comment. I did learn of three different graduate faculty (all STEM types) who were murdered by students after awarding them failing grades in graduate school. Two shootings and one death by ballpeen hammer.

Hold on, though. There's a clear difference in technology available, as mentioned earlier in the thread. Maybe not mentioned in the thread, but the 1930s were a strong decade for federal gun control just because of the prevalence of such weapons, and bringing up gang/Mafia shootings in their context is unfair - killing secondary to criminal enterprise is a separate issue.


As for why it didn't start or explode in the 1980s, I don't have a good answer beyond spmetla's: mass media making it look like a viable trope for whatever mental disposition(s) unite these people.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Hold on, though. There's a clear difference in technology available, as mentioned earlier in the thread. Maybe not mentioned in the thread, but the 1930s were a strong decade for federal gun control just because of the prevalence of such weapons, and bringing up gang/Mafia shootings in their context is unfair - killing secondary to criminal enterprise is a separate issue....

I brought them up to indicate that such weapons were in existence and that some could get hold of them. I was not including the criminal element in the discussion. The St. Valentine's Day Massacre was certainly a mass shooting, but obviously does not connect to this discussion. Sorry if I was confusing in how the point was used.

[spmetla]

Such weapons have been available for the last 50-60 years. But only in the last 30 or so do we see these kinds of events becoming comparatively frequent.

Why now and not in the turbulent 60s? Why is 2001-2018 so much more rife with such events than was 1972 - 1990? Even if I grant that semi-automatic weapons are more accessible now than a century ago, it still does not address why it is more common now than it was in the 1980s? Your position on gun control cannot be the sole answer (setting aside the Constitutional issues currently under debate). There is more to it than that.

They've been available but not in the same quantity. If you went back in time to the average gun shop in the 50s and 60s they'd be stocking primarily hunting rifles and shotguns because that was the market. People didn't buy military weapons for hunting and there wasn't this cult following for military weapons that buy them for home defense or to resist the government. ARs and other mid caliber semi autos are actually far more dangerous for home defense than pistols or shotguns because such fast yet light bullets pierce walls more easily.
People buy a lot of AR-15s now just because it's a fad rifle with lots of accessories, there's really zero purpose to owning them. I understand the appeal for collectors and sports shooters but there are too many that truly 'love' the AR15. The vietnam era M16A1s were such crap that even former servicemen didn't like them due to unreliability, poor ammo, and that it craps carbon all over the bolt with each shot. From a gun lovers point of view the rise of popularity of the AR15 as opposed to far better and more reliable assault rifles is unusual and probably tied more to the being seen on TV in the hands of American Servicemen fighting the GWOT. Some people are stocking up for the fight against the islamist hordes that they think are coming.

These guns have been available for decades but not available in every gun store as it is now. The gun-lobby campaigns that the M4/AR-15 variants are the modern day equivalent to the musket don't help dispel the cultish love for the ARs.
As for the gun regulation aspect. If these kids had access to shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols instead they'd still be able to inflict plenty of damage and carnage but just because these are less capable weapons there would be far fewer wounded and dead. Rapid fire, low recoil, weapons with large magazine capacity and quick reload just make it very very easy for anyone to cause a lot of carnage. SMGs, pistols, and manual action rifles/shotguns are just no where near as capable of shooting a lot of people in short order.

As for why now and not the turbulent 60s? Well there were plenty of assassinations, lynchings, and wars going on for people to 'partake in'. Every racist that just wanted to fight blacks or communists could go to Africa and join one of many European led mercenary groups. Every militant anarchist could do the same in africa or in latin America. Our mass murderers and psychopaths had an outlet in an 'acceptable' environment.

One thing that might help is if we stop just calling these school shootings and consider them acts of terrorism. If Timothy McVeigh has used an assault rifle instead of a bomb would he be less of a terrorist? I know that typically you need political motives for it to be terrorism but isn't just instilling fear and terror into teachers, students, and parents terrorism? I do know on the racial/religious side that if these shooters doing it were muslim we'd all label it terrorism. Being labeled a terrorist over a school shooter might not seem like much but it might help.

Back to the 'joiner' issue, it's also part of our lack of any real sense of community. I'm not a christian man but I see the value that was to be had in everyone going to church or some sort of event every week in the way it built a sense of community. Do people really engage like that anymore? Company picnics and sporting events are uncommon for getting to know your colleagues out of work. Teachers generally don't engage parents and students outside of work or extracurricular activities. Everything has become far more insular. Go to school or work, do your tasks, then go home and either hang out with friends or binge on social media. People feel less and less inclined to talk about their problems in general to folks that are not immediate family.

[Husar]

As for why now and not the turbulent 60s? Well there were plenty of assassinations, lynchings, and wars going on for people to 'partake in'. Every racist that just wanted to fight blacks or communists could go to Africa and join one of many European led mercenary groups. Every militant anarchist could do the same in africa or in latin America. Our mass murderers and psychopaths had an outlet in an 'acceptable' environment.

That does seem somewhat logical, but wouldn't that apply to other countries as well? Or do you think the USA have a much higher number of such people per capita than other countries?

[spmetla]

Of course it applied to other countries. No shortage of other countries providing mercenaries and revolutionaries in the third world.

Though I guess it was not even really just the third world though, the Irish troubles, Bader Meinhof Gang, Vietnam war, Algerian war, Malaysian intervention, Cypriot war. The middle east had the war in Yemen, the Lebanese civil war. There was a conflict for every almost nationality and religion to fight if they wanted to.

The more idealist folks went on hippy trips to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. For the smarter misfits they could just look at the leaps and bounds in space and underwater exploration and join those causes.

For people depressed like Nikolas Cruz, they could be raving alcoholics if they wanted, get addicted to new drugs about which the risks were little known, beat their family members to feel better about themselves or gang up against any minority and take their internal rage out on them. For dangerous people they were able to unfortunately vent their anger and depression in so many different ways that was sadly tolerated at the times.

[CrossLOPER]

People buy a lot of AR-15s now just because it's a fad rifle with lots of accessories, there's really zero purpose to owning them.

Sounds like someone can't afford the 100000 lootboxes you need to buy to get enough crafting material for "jagged clit piercing" skin with the lifetime kill counter attachment.

[Beskar]

Taken from elsewhere.

On the playground, a child starts hitting another child with a big stick. Do you:
a) Give everyone Sticks to equal it out.
b) Give those adapt at stick-fighting, Sticks, to defend everyone else.
c) Remove the Stick.

[Strike For The South]

As it turns out, the armed guard "took a position outside". He has since resigned his post. Now, I am not going to pass judgement on a man for not giving his life for a job that almost certainly paid too little. "Freezing" can happen to anyone, gun fights are hardly what you see in the movies. It simply serves as another illustrative point about how bonkers it would be to arm teachers. Other than the fact it is unethical to ask a teacher to become a solider.

Before we talk about what steps to take as far as gun control, we have to examine the absolute failure that was local and federal law enforcement in this case. The local PD fielded 23 calls in 2 years regarding Cruz as potentially dangerous and did nothing. The FBI fielded calls and did nothing. Cruz bought weapons before and after these calls. If we are going to be allowed guns, we need some sort of apparatus that will at least flag a suspect like this.

I am sure one of the walls of texts have pointed this out but the NRA is funded by gun manufactures and very much would like to sell two guns over one. Fear makes business boom and they have perfected it post Columbine. Dana Loesch is a total scumbag and I hope that all the money is worth the moral void in her soul.

At the bare minimum we can start with two positions the NRA supports (bump stocks and a comprehensive background system) and go from there. We can't just let people like Rubio ride this thing out.

[Montmorency]

Dana Loesch pointed out some limitations of background checks at the Town Hall. Not mentioned is how the NRA's lobbying and litigation is responsible for some of these limitations.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Requiring police to conduct background checks on would-be gun buyers is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday, striking down a key part of the Brady gun control law.

The decision, however, did not cover another controversial portion of the law, which requires a waiting period of up to five days before someone can buy a handgun. The court said it was not addressing that issue and there was nothing to stop authorities from voluntarily conducting a background check during the waiting period
...
Friday's ruling also did not deal with the portion of the law which directs the federal government to create a national system for instant background checks by late 1998. Until then, local authorities can still conduct background checks on their own.

"The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.

"Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

Scalia's opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
...
Citing the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects state and local governments from certain federal interference, they maintained that Congress overstepped its authority when it directed local law enforcement officials in their duties.

Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Writing for the four, Stevens said the background check requirement "is more comparable to a statute requiring local police officers to report the identity of missing children to the Crime Control Center of the Department of Justice than to an offensive federal command to a sovereign state.

"If Congress believes that such a statute will benefit the people of the nation ... we should respect both its policy judgment and its appraisal of its constitutional power," Stevens said.

[Devastatin Dave]

“Shall not be infringed”. Go “Find” Youselves.

[Husar]

“Shall not be infringed”. Go “Find” Youselves.

"well-regulated militia" found yourself!

Btw, can't you remove or change the second amendment? Most countries can alter the constitution with 2/3rd of the vote in parliament or so. With 80% of the people wanting stricter controls, an actually representative congress should have the votes. Germany passed universal marriage in a similar fashion last year. Of course that necessitates that the USA are actually a democracy and not an oligarchy.

[rory_20_uk]

Taken from elsewhere.

On the playground, a child starts hitting another child with a big stick. Do you:
a) Give everyone sticks to equal it out.
b) Give those adapt at stick fighting Sticks to defend everyone else.
c) Remove the stick.

That really is the simplest way of demonstrating the insanity of thinking giving everyone weapons is a good idea.

Japan has exceptionally low levels of gun violence and guns are very restricted.

In essence if Americans are happy to have this many deaths, then so be it.

[ConjurerDragon]

"well-regulated militia" found yourself!

Btw, can't you remove or change the second amendment? Most countries can alter the constitution with 2/3rd of the vote in parliament or so. With 80% of the people wanting stricter controls, an actually representative congress should have the votes. Germany passed universal marriage in a similar fashion last year. Of course that necessitates that the USA are actually a democracy and not an oligarchy.

Germany did not do it that way and I find that problematic.

The right to "universal" marriage has been created by a simple federal law of the Bundestag
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/ehefueralle-129.html

The problem with that is that the german basic law/constitution was not changed.
The part of the basic law that the family has to receive special protection is only interpreted differently in the meaning that "family" is no longer just man+woman but a few other combinations (and by far not "universal" as everyone involved still have to be human, above a certain age, willing and not related too close to each other).

I find that problematic as at the creation of the basic law everyone only considered family to be the traditional one. At that time open male homosexuality was even prohibited by german law and quite a few men served jailtime for it which should emphasize the view of the time.

In the decades after the creation of the basic law the german high court has, several times, found that the family that has to be protected is the male+woman one that is supposed to be the smallest cell of the state, provide offspring and so on.

So - for a honest change, IMHO, a change of the basic law would have been necessary. That requires extensive and long discussions in the Bundestag because it needs a 2/3rd majority to pass such a change and would have needed votes of the opposition too. Something that would have shown that the whole of society would support such a change.

Instead a simple law was passed that needs only a simple majority and that shortly before elections so that it looks like a strategic ploy by Merkel to take some arguments of the opposition from them, that they could have used in the election campaign.

[Husar]

In essence if Americans are happy to have this many deaths, then so be it.

Is it not so that the 20% who are happy with it are forcing the other 80% who are not to swallow the status quo?

Germany did not do it that way and I find that problematic.

It did, I was referring to finding the votes to pass it. The CDU was mostly against it but they had a free vote and the SPD and opposition with a few CDU politicians passed the law IIRC. If they had tried to enforce strict party lines and the CDU had tried to force the SPD to vote with them, then the vote either hadn't happened in the first place or it had ended up a no.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "would have needed votes of the opposition too", it was mostly passed with votes of the opposition while the majority of the governing party, including Merkel herself, voted against the law: http://www.zeit.de/politik/2017-06/b...-ehe-fuer-alle

Whether it was a ploy by Merkel is not relevant for the outcome, everybody also knows she personally voted against it.

[ConjurerDragon]

...
It did, I was referring to finding the votes to pass it. The CDU was mostly against it but they had a free vote and the SPD and opposition with a few CDU politicians passed the law IIRC. If they had tried to enforce strict party lines and the CDU had tried to force the SPD to vote with them, then the vote either hadn't happened in the first place or it had ended up a no.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "would have needed votes of the opposition too", it was mostly passed with votes of the opposition while the majority of the governing party, including Merkel herself, voted against the law: http://www.zeit.de/politik/2017-06/b...-ehe-fuer-alle

The SIMPLE federal law was passed with 393 vs. 226 votes and so passed as a simple law only needs a simple majority (>50%). If they had attempted a change of the constitution they would have needed a 2/3rd majority and using the same numbers - failed.
That that is seen as a legal problem is explained e.g. here too:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/.../20003004.html

Whether it was a ploy by Merkel is not relevant for the outcome, everybody also knows she personally voted against it.

It is relevant as it was useful to take away a good argument from the opposition in time for the election.
Voting for it would have been political suicide as her own party, the CDU, has many conservative members that are in favour of a traditional family according to the christian values that the CDU (christian democratic union) once stood for.
So she played both - voting against the law to appeal to the conservative part of her own party and allowing all members of parliament to vote freely instead of giving out a way to vote for all members of the CDU to get the law passed and weaken the opposition that saw one of her key arguments for the election becoming a success for Merkel.