Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

chandler said:

yupididit said:

Noddaz said:

yupididit said:

Here's my issue. I as a parent can barely walk in my kids school without going through multiple levels of authentication. How did the Uvalde shooter get into the school, especially while clearly armed? The Police response, terrible. The shooter was a walking red flag and we missed it. So many things failed those kids. Its sad. 

I do like guns though. And would love to keep them. It's one of my hobbies. Would I give them up if that guaranteed no more kids would get killed by one? Certainly. But we can't promise that.

Also, I certainly do not associate with the NRA and never will for obvious reasons! 

To me the bolded part is just one of the symptoms and not the actual problem.  The fact that we have to lock children in a building to make them safe.

What needs to be done so people can go about their business without being afraid?

BTW, I agree about the NRA.  I don't belong and I won't belong.

 

I have to press a button (pages the front office)  and show my entire body to a camera that's over the button just to get let in the school, then if I want to visit a classroom or student I need to scan my govt ID to verify my identity. 

The kids aren't locked in as any door can be opened from the inside for people to leave. 

My kids do go to school on an Army Fort. But, even when my oldest was in a public school they had sensible measures to not let random people from outside have access to your children. 

AGAIN, they're not locked in, people are locked out. I as a parent appreciate it. The same thing would've kept that shooter in Uvalde out of that elementary school. 

My kid's school is the same way; and it's a backwater county school. Easy to get in with a gun though since all the doors are glass and I would guess not bulletproof. I always wonder how these people get into the schools so easily (maybe they don't) when I can't.

One of the problems at the Uvalde shooting was the fact that a teacher had propped a door open.  It wouldn't matter if you had more security than Langley at that school.  Someone left a door open.  I'm not saying that would always happen, but these are humans.  Not just flawed and make mistakes, but also lulled into a sense of security.  The school where I work has a very low perceived risk of something like this happening, but I would wager than nearly every school that experienced a shooting said the same thing... "it wouldn't happen here."

I know at my school, I frequently have to receive deliveries and load in goods through the loading dock which leads straight to the auditorium.  Nice day outside?  Let's leave the door open.  Kids coming in for rehearsal?  Stick a piece of 2x4 in the door so it doesn't latch.  How long until it happens to us?  And where is the line between the emotional affects of the security measures on the atmosphere versus the taxpayer cost versus the probability of it happening?  It's sad to think of it that way, but who foots the bill for every school in the nation to have a security force, metal detectors, a staff of security agents checking backpacks and pockets, and how effective will it actually be?  Again, they're humans who can be lulled into a false sense of security.  When the security guard sees their neighbor's little Chloe come in with her flowered backpack and sunny disposition, will Chloe get the same scrutiny as all the other kids?  Will they spend 6 years at their job never finding anything more than a pocket knife and start to question why they even need to check?

I think we keep suggesting solutions that target the symptom.  We have school shootings, so we think we should add security.  As an interim help I think that would work, but I don't see it as a solution.  Long term we need to fix the reason why people want to engage in this specific brand of violence.

93EXCivic said:

Arming teachers is such a bad idea. For one we already have a problem having enough teachers. Expecting them to be trained to use a gun in an active shooter situation as well is just ridiculous given that they are already massively overworked. Two you are expecting teachers to go from caring for kids to suddenly possibly shooting one. Three is having firearms in the classroom really a good idea? I mean a kid could so easily get their hands on it and that can go bad so quickly.

I am so sick of this all. We don't change firearm laws despite being as far as I can tell one of the few developed nations to have this level of mass casualty events. I hear politicians say we need a better mental health system but then constantly do nothing to provide cheap or free mental health services widely. I hear politicians say it is because of single parent homes or divorce but take away a women's right to choose and do nothing to improve the financial situation of the normal people (when finances are on of the top reasons for divorce).

In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :

I was very careful to not name call. 

Here in America we are really good at glorifying violence, fetishizing guns, and marginalizing people that dont fit in. That's why most of these happen. And we arent willing to change any of that because accepting change means admitting that we have been doing something wrong, which isn't acceptable to our massive egos. That's my $.02.

Curtis man, you are the conscience of this board. Your perspective is so valuable. 

For anyone who would like to try to meaningfully address the issue utilizing objective data and careful analysis, here are a couple of useful links from Rand for starters:

Rand Gun Policy in America Project

Essay on Mass Shootings in the US

For those who don't know my background in firearms is that I was raised by an anti-gun mother in the 1970's.   But I got the obligatory BB guns, first a red ryder style lever gun that might sting a bit at 100' and then a pump up air rifle that could kill  a bird or squirrel at 200'.   I learned what was ok to shoot and what wasn't.   I was punished when I misused it and learned to value any life.

In the army I was proficient and got extra training in the care and feeding of small arms.  So I'm fairly well versed in the subject of guns in general.   
 

I think a significant issue is improper storage.   Something like 50% of the school shootings involve a "family gun" that the kid got hold of.  A large push to educate people about this and start charging the family members who left a gun unsecured and is then used in a shooting with accessory to murder.  

What I don't think I hear enough of in the media (or in this thread) is logically breaking down the causes of gun deaths to 'divide and conquer'. I just spent a few minutes looking up data, and picked 2007 as an example year since the data happened to be easy to find. Source 1, Source 2

Here's the results:

1. Suicide is the largest cause of firearm deaths: 17,352 total, 13,986 are white and male. 
2. Homicide is next: 12,632 total, 6,281 are black and male, 4,240 are white and male. (This is the one where "White and Male" is not the staggering majority of deaths)
3. Then Accidental: 613 total, 406 are white and male
4. And Undetermined: 276 total
5. School (and "mass") shootings - which I assume fall into the homicide and suicide numbers: 32h + 1s (Virginia Tech) is the big one, but about 55 deaths total. 

To me, trying to treat all 5 cases with the same solution seems silly. Also, it seems that we could probably make some progress on each of those 5 independently, with any reduction seen as a benefit. If we can keep this breakdown in mind when suggesting solutions, it might be helpful to see why the "other side" can easily and logically show that "common" solutions are suggestions that are unlikely to have any major effect on the numbers. For example: "ban assault rifles" is unlikely to solve the suicide problem, and "arm the teachers (if it would fix the problem, which I think is questionable) is a giant spend of money and time to solve a particularly horrifying but also small-by-numbers problem.

EDIT: looks like I misread the mass shootings data slightly incorrectly. VT was not the only 2007 mass shooting, just the biggest. Total deaths in that column updated from 33 to 55. 

You can lock a school down like fort knox, but there are still plenty of other mass shootings in grocery stores, concerts, etc. so the focus on school security seems very narrow minded.

For a little comedy on the subject:

Here are some no nonsense solutions - related to each major cause:

1. Push to assist suicide prevention services. Maybe even include a document with suicide prevention information with the sale of every firearm. 
2. Homicide is a problem with a zillion causes. But I would think that gun-buyback type charities may be able to help here. 
3. Accidental and undetermined. Harder to know but maybe more training on safe storage, specifically aimed at people who have both guns and children in the house. 
4. School shootings. Maybe push to increase access to mental health services. 

Note that I haven't suggested anything that seems to be being discussed, yet I believe major focus on any one of these things would probably have a bigger impact than any "solution" that is currently mainstream. 

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

The media and organizations that track crime did this on purpose to conflate any gun crime with "mass shootings".

Depending on who you ask, a mass shooting is anything with a few as 3 victims (which will include an intense amount of situations that have nothing to do with schools) and up.

I am amazed to login this morning and see this thread! I did not think this was a topic that would be allowed. I'm encouraged to see 10 pages of discussion and what seems to be a generally civil tone on an incredibly contentious issue.

While I have strong opinions on particular policies, what I find more concerning is how this issue highlights a disfunctional "winner-take-all" approach to politics and policies in our nation. Perhaps it has always been this way, but it seems to have grown worse in the last decade. When we face major challenges like mass shootings, why is it that we seem to always approach solutions in an “either/or” fashion? Some are saying that the solution is to finally pass universal background checks and longer waiting periods (e.g. Steve Kerr’s press conf). Others believe we need to increase security in schools with metal detectors or police. And others say this is a mental health crisis and we need to increase resources to mental health care. Why can’t we pursue all of these in some reasonable form or fashion, study the results, and adjust accordingly? Approach it like an engineering problem rather than a contentious political problem. Put all reasonable approaches on the table and let go of political presuppositions (even if it means angering certain special interests and lobbies). All sides compromise (sacrifice) and all sides support one another. As far as I can see, the only other solution is to scream at one another and accomplish nothing. All that to say, I am an engineer, not a politician. I’m sure there’s much I don’t understand. But I sure hope something can change for the good. I suppose if I was ever to run for office I would have to found a new political party in the middle. I think I would call it ‘the party of common sense’ :-)

In reply to TheRev :

Guns, like covid are for some reason a way to define ones political leanings. And the thought to someone on one side of being suspected of belonging to the other side is so abhorrent that the individual moves as far from the center as possible to prevent any suspicion. The only way I see any change is if there is a new party that can play the middle ground. Has not happened yet but the more polarization there is, the more room in the middle for a game changer.

TheRev said:

While I have strong opinions on particular policies, what I find more concerning is how this issue highlights a disfunctional "winner-take-all" approach to politics and policies in our nation...  Why can’t we pursue all of these in some reasonable form or fashion, study the results, and adjust accordingly?

For one side, doing ANY of the things you mention would be a great victory.  For the other side, doing ANY of the things you mention would be a great defeat.  Winner take all?  One side would take anything, and the other side will accept nothing.  'both sides' indeed.

In reply to grpb :

Ironically, your reply highlights exactly what he is referring to.

(i.e. I think your reply may not be a terribly objective observation)

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

According to the FBI's research 74% of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Catch and Release programs in urban areas don't work. If you take that 12,632 homicides and take out even 60% being repeat violent felons, that drops homicides 7500+ by keeping those violent felons locked away. 

"Arm the teachers" is another one of these intentional mis-labeling's to get people fired up. I am sure there are some poeple that want to make every teacher carry, but the vast majority if proposals I have seen is to remove the limitations that restrict law abiding teachers and parents from carrying legally on school property. That may mean no one does, or it may mean that many do. But since the police have no duty to provide safety and security for the common person restricting a citizen from protecting themselves is also criminal. 

This is as far as I can go on this topic.

bobzilla said:

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

According to the FBI's research 74% of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Catch and Release programs in urban areas don't work. If you take that 12,632 homicides and take out even 60% being repeat violent felons, that drops homicides 7500+ by keeping those violent felons locked away. 

"Arm the teachers" is another one of these intentional mis-labeling's to get people fired up. I am sure there are some poeple that want to make every teacher carry, but the vast majority if proposals I have seen is to remove the limitations that restrict law abiding teachers and parents from carrying legally on school property. That may mean no one does, or it may mean that many do. But since the police have no duty to provide safety and security for the common person restricting a citizen from protecting themselves is also criminal. 

This is as far as I can go on this topic.

Yes "arm the teachers" is a simplification, just like "ban assault rifles". 

But are you saying that you disagree with any of the actual proposals I suggested? It sounds like you added another proposal that may have merit. 

Unfortunately I feel like you instead felt attacked when I mentioned a common solution that many agree with and many disagree with, but my point was that those solutions seem to cause a lot of grief because they are the political weapons of current. And both "solutions" to me seem like much ado about not much solutioning. 

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

I know plenty of left leaning people who believe that one has a right (and in some cases duty) to have a firearm and be proficient with it.  The lie that it is a political divide is engineered to be a wedge issue.

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

It's not you, it's me and this topic. I fail to have the ability to confer my thoughts on this in a meaningful way that doesn't come across as... inflammatory as it likely will. Ignorance on the topic is no excuse for making up numbers, statistics or making rules that will have zero impact on any of these things (and I'm not calling you ignorant, just the general public). I've watched the anti's erode our freedoms for 30 years now and I am almost to the point of "not one more inch" because the vast majority of these proposals have zero effect on the problems they supposedly want to fix.

Your proposals are fine I'm sure. But until we get prosecutors that actually do their job, judges that will properly sentence violent offenders, develop some mental health care that helps our populace and keep the damn doors locked in our schools, I am personally not willing to even discuss more gun control measures. How many of these "mass shooters" (aka cowardly pieces of E36 M3) were "known to authorities"? The Fed Ex shooter here in Indy would have never had the opportunity had the marion county prosecutor filed the friggin paperwork a year before. Literally just filed the case with the courts. Then has the audacity to blame the "lack of laws" in a news conference. 

IMO, we have about 2 dozen things that need to be worked on and at least attempt to be fixed before we once again go after the law abiding owners in this country.

Bob, your frustration is entirely understandable. 

As I am sure many have mentioned here, it is a complex topic, and you see that and are just trying to take a realistic / objective view of it.  That of course is a good thing.

There is very much a tendency for people and especially politicians to come up simple solutions to many problems (and / or see problems as far simpler than they really are). Those solutions can be very unrealistic in perspective.  Sadly many of those simplistic solutions can actually act to make the situation they claim to cure, worse.

In reply to aircooled :

In reply to grpb :

Ironically, your reply highlights exactly what he is referring to.

(i.e. I think your reply may not be a terribly objective observation)

It's also very inaccurate, but understandable because that's what we are told by the politicians and media. The truth is that this is a subject where the American people are not nearly as divided as we are told that we are. Large numbers of people on both "sides" are gun owners. Large numbers on both " sides" are okay with reasonable restrictions that actually show a benefit relative to the cost. But the media and politicians portray a deep divide, often with all or nothing mentality. In reality, over the last few decades there have been a steady increase in gun restrictions. That wouldn't be if there was not cooperation from both sides. Sure, it's not smooth, with some laws that some consider overreach, and some challenged and reversed in the courts. But to say this is a simple two sided issue is just plain wrong. I understand the desire for more restrictions, and I understand the pushback as well. The vast majority of people would agree that no restrictions is not realistic, or a good idea. But it doesn't help when many of the most vocal calling for restrictions have an almost complete ignorance of guns and the current restrictions. They lose the people who would have been on their side had they taken the time to understand what they are talking about before demanding action. Yesterday a prominent politician spoke on the subject. I won't mention who said it or link it since it can be considered political. Who said it doesn't matter, it's just an obvious example of calling for legislation on a subject before it's understood. You won't have any trouble finding it for yourself if you choose. The politician called for banning "high caliber" guns...

a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in a lung and we could probably get it out, may be able to get it and save the life, [but] a 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body."

"The idea of these high-caliber weapon, there's simply no rational basis for it, in terms of whether this be about self-protection, hunting,

To someone who is looking to protect their 2nd amendment rights, statements like this show not only the lack of understanding, but that there is not even the desire to understand. And I'm not just talking about guns, but the basic concepts involved in defending oneself. It makes it really hard to find a common ground and come to a reasonable compromise. This isn't unique, it could have been any number of politicians or gun restriction advocates. And to be fair, it goes both ways. I'm sure someone probably said they need an M2 for hunting.

In reply to aircooled :

This is a topic I can't really discuss in the open. If I'm not instantly called a nut or baby killer it will turn into other things that I just don't want to get into. I was/am a boy scout and the motto of always be prepared has stuck with me through my entire life. Personal responsibility for not only your actions but your well being is paramount. I've lived rural 98% of my life where police are 15+ minutes away. Being aware in crowded places and staying out of questionable circumstances is just what you do. 

I understand others come from a different background. One where they are taught to be dependant on others for safety and security among other things. I'm not saying either way is wrong or right, but I prefer to live my life my way where I don't depend on others for as many things as I can. This latest is case in point where the police cannot or will not help at all times. I'd prefer to not be in the position of helplessness. 

It seems that this issue has moved firmly into the territory of the old engineering maxim: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is cheap, simple, and wrong." But even if the misperception of simple solutions can be overcome, any actual workable solution has to be soundly based on data. If you haven't already, please look at the Rand pages I linked above. There's a ton of data-based, non-partisan material there on what is known to work, what is known to not work, and what is not known to work, as well as policy recommendations and discussions of their political viability. As long as this discussion is driven by emotions the implementation of any sort of meaningful policy changes will remain a pipe dream, and any policies that are enacted will very likely do nothing to address the actual issue.

In reply to 02Pilot :

As long as the same political hacks pop out on camera with the gleam in their eye for any tragedy and make it an emotional, partisan power grab as they love to do, it will always be emotion driven and will never actually solve the problem. Like I said before, we have about 2 dozen issues to work on first and one of those is finding elected officials that don't suck, if that's even possible.

In reply to bobzilla :

Bob how do you feel about universal background checks? Right now the background check is Federal only in 37 states (+territories) and state-only in 13 states, and has a 3-day "proceed to sale" clause, and finally only applies to licensed dealers. A universal background check would apply equally in all 50 states (plus territories) and consist of Federal and all-50-states check (that check is solely to see if there is a felony conviction or other legal framework denying 2A rights in both Federal and State courts) along with a mental health check (not "depression means you can't have a gun", a mental health hold is when someone legally loses their rights to self-guardianship, think severe cognitive delay, involuntary psychiatric inpatients, and voluntary cessation of rights) and a closure of the proceed to sale clause and would apply to all gun transactions. This is a step to reduce the amount of firearms inadvertently ending up in the hands of the criminals you are referencing and would have no impact on the law-abiding gun owners.