Gun Control Debate #2

[kittythehare]

BBM

"Semi-automatic rifles" is the most accurate way of referring to them.

Thank you.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Was everyone afraid of violating Cruz’s second amendment rights?

Honest question.

Snip
In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he “planned to shoot up the school”

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/ne...etails-his-homicidal-intentions-mo/365975002/

Snip
About two months later, an unidentified caller told police that Cruz had been collecting guns and knives.

Snip
A second cousin asked police to take away Cruz's guns after his mom died on November 1.

Snip
After the February 2016 call, a deputy forwarded the information to the Stoneman Douglas School Resource Officer, Deputy Scot Peterson.

:bump:

 

[rsd1200]

It's not just teenagers.
adults use them too..
Terrorists use them
Anti-govs use them.
There's a helluva lot of them out there.
(white house is on lockdown reports nbc, cnn reckon a vehicle struck a security barrier
probably a thing of nothing)

I'm talking specifically about school shooters. School shooters are typically in the 13-18 y/o range. Most 19 y/o are out by then, and raising the age to 21 might help with those disgruntled 18 -20 y/os. If folks have children in the home, their firearms should be locked up. There are easy access safes you can put beside your bed for home protection. I don't care if my kid is 18 or 80, my home, my rules.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Solid suggestions, rose. I've never heard of the disorienting flashlight. I want one of those.

A can of Raid might be more effective, more affordible, more "right now" solution, than the time it will take to debate arming teachers...

Incapacitating flashlight- disorients the perp and makes them vomit.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408360/the-incapacitating-flashlight/

 

[Blef]

and not a word about ar15's.. I know there are very many gun types that fall into the category.. can we decide what we are calling them? I cannot call them dangerous guns... What word can I use?

I have been calling them either military grade or assault weapons. I don't know what else to call them

 

[Tillicum]

:bump:

IMO no. The school and the sheriff were more concerned about lowering arrests of the students.

 

[kittythehare]

I have been calling them either military grade or assault weapons. I don't know what else to call them

Are they all long guns or have the small guns this capacity too and are they widely available?

 

[Blef]

I'm talking specifically about school shooters. School shooters are typically in the 13-18 y/o range. Most 19 y/o are out by then, and raising the age to 21 might help with those disgruntled 18 -20 y/os. If folks have children in the home, their firearms should be locked up. There are easy access safes you can put beside your bed for home protection. I don't care if my kid is 18 or 80, my home, my rules.

Exactly, lock up the guns. Separate them from the ammo. Make sure that no matter what, a teenage child cannot access these without you. Make parents liable for their children accessing the guns in the home. Current regulations are not strict enough and not working.

 

[Blef]

Are they all long guns or have the small guns this capacity too and are they widely available?

In my case I am referring to guns like AR15's and similar. And the novelty items such as bump stocks shouldn't be available to people. They aren't arms and so I can't see how they would fall under any 2nd amendment rights. The problem is that these weapons and novelty items are out there. People aren't going to give them up. So control over who has access to them, and how they are stored needs to be a priority.

 

[human]

And if NC had been properly referred for criminal investigation and charges even a few of the many infractions at school, or the 30+ domestic violence calls to the home, then he WOULD HAVE had a criminal record that would have prevented him from legally purchasing his rifle.

That said, I'm fine with raising the age to purchase all guns to 21. I'm fine with banning the rare and not readily available "bump stocks".

Neither of those things will prevent mass shootings, or school shootings. But they are easily agreed on by both sides, so will likely pass into law soon.

But developing a mechanism to permanently remove disturbed kids from mainstream general education? Developing criteria to remove disturbed kids permanently from public schools? Developing a functional residential treatment center network for disturbed adolescents? Increasing outpatient commitments for disturbed youth? These are the strategies we need to be focusing on to make real, effective, long term progress with these disturbed youth. But I don't see any real focus on these things as priorities. It's just so much easier to whip up a frenzy over more gun restrictions.

We will continue to have more school shootings, IMO, until we get serious about getting these disturbed kids properly identified and diagnosed EARLY, into mandatory treatment (including removal from their homes into residential treatment when necessary), processed thru the criminal justice system when they commit violent crimes, threats, and weapons infractions, and permanently removed from general education settings.

I feel reading PL 94-142 which is the law for children with disabilities as well as the history of that law would be a good idea.

It tells the rights and steps that are to be followed for children with special needs. It is a Federal Law.

Since I am from Minnesota and was a teacher at the time the law was instituted, I can inform that in the beginning, Minnesota had 10% of children in special needs education,

The Feds said, “No no no!”” The Bell curve had to be followed with only 3% allowed in special education.

Eventually, the term Least Restrictive Environment came to be as parents sued that their kids were being warehoused in special ed.

That is why kids are moved out of more intense environments. Plus, that kind of education is expensive. It is an unfunded mandate.

In wealthy school districts, kids get away with more as parents can afford lawyers. Administrators would be in court the whole year everyday.

Orono in MN just had some kind of threat where the kid was removed in handcuffs, I doubt if there are any poor kids in Orono.

Which brings up the issue that it seems like most school shooters come from white affluent families.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

What you're calling them is pretty dang accurate. The AR-15 is the non-semi version of the M16 (link posted upthread), which was designed for jungle warfare in Vietnam. So yes, that was their intended purpose. And looks to be a similar ethos to how mass shooters choose to use them in the US today. They are not fully automatic, but easily modified to become the "next best thing" — some say the Vegas shooter squeezed out hundreds of rounds per minute.

The less-political term, maybe (?), is high-power semiautomatic rife. They also are compatible with large-capacity ammunition magazines (generally considered 10 or more rounds). IMO

I'm no expert, though.

Links upthread (and posted at least a couple times in the first thread).

A can of Raid might be more effective, more affordible, more "right now" solution, than the time it will take to debate arming teachers...

I have been calling them either military grade or assault weapons. I don't know what else to call them

 

[human]

Let us not forget the semi auto pistol as well.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

repeated post

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

IMO no. The school and the sheriff were more concerned about lowering arrests of the students.

Respectfully, Cruz attended six schools in three years, and was kicked out of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2015, I believe.

He hadn't been a student in quite some time. That doesn't mean the school and sheriff weren't worried about limiting arrests back in 2015, but they expelled him. They didn't exactly ignore his problem behavior. They got rid of him. IMO

 

[K_Z]

Guns of all kinds have existed for centuries.

Handguns, hunting guns, and all sorts of guns have been a part of American life for 200+ years.

But only in the past 20 years or so have mass shootings, and school shootings, become commonplace. I think it's necessary to explore WHY that is.

The guns have always been available. It's the PEOPLE who have changed, IMO. Our common values and goals as a society have disintegrated.

Some broad brush, pessimistic observations contribute to that, IMO.

Families have disintegrated on a large scale. Social mores and norms have been obliterated. Children are conceived irresponsibly, and they get older, but are not nurtured, supervised, guided, and raised. Violence, murder, guns, and killing is considered a fun spectator sport and entertainment for even small children, in the form of movies and video games. Kids are completely desensitized to killing and gun violence on TV, in movies, and video games. Kids have fewer attachments to adults, and have less respect for adults than ever before. Education is not valued, and has been watered down. The ethic of hard work is disappearing, and being replaced with entitlement mentality. Youth have no idea how to work hard and consistently at anything, or what it means to have integrity, responsibility, and accountability. Extremist religious, social, racial, and political ideologies proliferate on social media and the internet, gathering new recruits far easier than ever before, and urging violence and destruction. Mental illness and poor coping abilities are commonplace. A rapid influx of people from many areas of the world have not assimilated to common goals and core values, but remain in their tribal enclaves, becoming ever more disaffected. Diversity is killing us, not making us stronger.

Definitely pessimistic, but these are trends in the U.S. I see every day. So then you add easily available guns to the mix of vast social problems and disturbed individuals we have, and these mass killings, suicides, and domestic gun rages are understandable from a sociological perspective.

We need to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. We all agree on that. But to do that, we have to clearly identify what behaviors and conditions/ diagnoses constitutes the "wrong" person. We have to have easier mechanisms to COMPEL disturbed people to get diagnosis, and compel treatment. And we can't even get to that point. IMO, we have essentially no functional mental health system in the U.S., which was a direct and intentional result of de-institutionalization. Why? Because effective mental health care is extremely costly and labor intensive, and oftentimes is a lifelong need. Nobody wants to pay for it.

After many of these mass shootings, there have been piles of obvious red flags, reports not followed up on, massively disturbed people. Preventing mass shootings is NOT just about restricting gun access.

 

[Blef]

Guns of all kinds have existed for centuries.

Handguns, hunting guns, and all sorts of guns have been a part of American life for 200+ years.

But only in the past 20 years or so have mass shootings, and school shootings, become commonplace. I think it's necessary to explore WHY that is.

The guns have always been available. It's the PEOPLE who have changed, IMO. Our common values and goals as a society have disintegrated.

Some broad brush, pessimistic observations contribute to that, IMO.

Families have disintegrated on a large scale. Social mores and norms have been obliterated. Children are conceived irresponsibly, and they get older, but are not nurtured, supervised, guided, and raised. Violence, murder, guns, and killing is considered a fun spectator sport and entertainment for even small children, in the form of movies and video games. Kids are completely desensitized to killing and gun violence on TV, in movies, and video games. Kids have fewer attachments to adults, and have less respect for adults than ever before. Education is not valued, and has been watered down. The ethic of hard work is disappearing, and being replaced with entitlement mentality. Youth have no idea how to work hard and consistently at anything, or what it means to have integrity, responsibility, and accountability. Extremist religious, social, racial, and political ideologies proliferate on social media and the internet, gathering new recruits far easier than ever before, and urging violence and destruction. Mental illness and poor coping abilities are commonplace. A rapid influx of people from many areas of the world have not assimilated to common goals and core values, but remain in their tribal enclaves, becoming ever more disaffected. Diversity is killing us, not making us stronger.

Definitely pessimistic, but these are trends in the U.S. I see every day. So then you add easily available guns to the mix of vast social problems and disturbed individuals we have, and these mass killings, suicides, and domestic gun rages are understandable from a sociological perspective.

We need to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. We all agree on that. But to do that, we have to clearly identify what behaviors and conditions/ diagnoses constitutes the "wrong" person. We have to have easier mechanisms to COMPEL disturbed people to get diagnosis, and compel treatment. And we can't even get to that point. IMO, we have essentially no functional mental health system in the U.S., which was a direct and intentional result of de-institutionalization. Why? Because effective mental health care is extremely costly and labor intensive, and oftentimes is a lifelong need. Nobody wants to pay for it.

After many of these mass shootings, there have been piles of obvious red flags, reports not followed up on, massively disturbed people. Preventing mass shootings is NOT just about restricting gun access.

RBBM. The guns available now are higher powered and can handle much more ammunition than ever before. Dealing with a shooter who had a pistol or a hunting rifle would definitely be easier than handling someone with a military grade weapon that has a huge magazine, and that can be basically upgraded to an automatic.

I believe that in part it is to do with disaffected young men, but the availability of the types of weapons around now can't be ignored.

 

[KaaBoom]

I'm talking specifically about school shooters. School shooters are typically in the 13-18 y/o range. Most 19 y/o are out by then, and raising the age to 21 might help with those disgruntled 18 -20 y/os. If folks have children in the home, their firearms should be locked up. There are easy access safes you can put beside your bed for home protection. I don't care if my kid is 18 or 80, my home, my rules.

FYI 44% of school shooters are over 18. Many are over 21. 46% use a gun they got outside the home. So parents locking their guns up would probably reduce the number by about 50%. Maybe not even that much. A lot of school shooters kill their parents first, and then take their guns.

Analysis of School Shootings

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Great post, and I agree with you. When anyone says these types of high-capacity, high-power weapons have always been available, they're misspeaking. It's demonstrably false.

RBBM. The guns available now are higher powered and can handle much more ammunition than ever before. Dealing with a shooter who had a pistol or a hunting rifle would definitely be easier than handling someone with a military grade weapon that has a huge magazine, and that can be basically upgraded to an automatic.

I believe that in part it is to do with disaffected young men, but the availability of the types of weapons around now can't be ignored.

 

[Blef]

FYI 44% of school shooters are over 18. Many are over 21. 46% use a gun they got outside the home. So parents locking their guns up would probably reduce the number by about 50%. Maybe not even that much. A lot of school shooters kill their parents first, and then take their guns.

Analysis of School Shootings

Even 50% of shootings stopped would mean that 7,000 people who died in 2017 would still be alive in that case.

 

[Tillicum]

Respectfully, Cruz attended six schools in three years, and was kicked out of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2015, I believe.

He hadn't been a student in quite some time. That doesn't mean the school and sheriff weren't worried about limiting arrests back in 2015, but they expelled him. They didn't exactly ignore his problem behavior. They got rid of him. IMO

From your link -

Records show the behaviors continued at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, which he attended in 2016 and 2017 before being transferred, with discipline being dispensed for fighting, profanity, and an “assault.” It appears the Jan. 19, 2017 assault resulted in a referral for a “threat assessment.” A few months later, Cruz landed at an Off Campus Learning Center, where he remained for only about five months.