MASS SHOOTING THREAD - Society has reached somekind of inflection point

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

RE: Banning guns.

Not going to happen because it would require a constitutional amendment in the U.S. There is very, very little chance that, even if the amendment was supported by 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, that 3/4 of the states would then vote to ratify it. So, yeah, pretty much zero chance.

Exactly. My point was precisely that things will never change.

[mikeylikey]

Exactly. My point was precisely that things will never change.

Do you have any suggestions other than ban the guns? I agree with you that this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Is the only other option in your mind to sigh and say welp guess we just live with school shootings?

[mouse]

I was about to waltz back in here and ask for a detailed execution plan on how we 'ban the guns' (spoilers, it involves a lot less passing bills and lot more actual executions) but I think it already fizzled... oh well...

People always want the world to learn of their peaceful ways... by force.

[gtl]

Exactly. My point was precisely that things will never change.

Do you have any suggestions other than ban the guns? I agree with you that this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Is the only other option in your mind to sigh and say welp guess we just live with school shootings?

We should ban killing people

[mikeylikey]

Well, here is something I think may actually result in significantly fewer school shootings:

Opinion: Crumbley parents lose their appeal. Why that could be a game changer on school shootings

Somebody else will have to do the research but, based on trends I've identified from an aggregate of the stories I've seen on tv, a lot of school shooters are minors who only accessed a gun through the carelessness (or worse) of an adult.

I don't think we even really need a lot more laws for this. Proximate Cause is a thing courts know how to deal with already. If a previously well behaved kid breaks into your safe and steals your gun and shoots up the school, you're not responsible. If you buy a gun for your obviously troubled son and take no steps to secure it, you are liabile. There's some gray area in the middle. The upshot is holding parents responsible in the egregious cases probably leads people to err on the side of caution WRT gun storage in households with kids. I'm not sure what the downside is, and from where I sit, this paradigm could peacefully coexist with an expansive construction of the 2nd amendment.

Right about here, the 40+ crowd says "Well my daddy kept a shotgun over the front door and a loaded .45 in his sock drawer, and I knowed where they was at and I never shot up no school." Yeah well, they used to let babies sit on their laps in the front seat of cars with no ABS and decapitation-glass windshields. Sometimes progress is a good thing.

[5hout]

Well, here is something I think may actually result in significantly fewer school shootings:

Opinion: Crumbley parents lose their appeal. Why that could be a game changer on school shootings


I don't think we even really need a lot more laws for this. Proximate Cause is a thing courts know how to deal with already. If a previously well behaved kid breaks into your safe and steals your gun and shoots up the school, you're not responsible. If you buy a gun for your obviously troubled son and take no steps to secure it, you are liabile. There's some gray area in the middle. The upshot is holding parents responsible in the egregious cases probably leads people to err on the side of caution WRT gun storage in households with kids.

The problem here is that the media is congenitally incapable of reading court rulings, if they actually bothered to read them they'd have much less to write about. What the court said was that based on the pre-trial record it was not an abuse of discretion to allow this case to proceed forward.

What the court didn't say:

1. That on post-trial appeal a conviction can be tossed b/c as a matter of law the evidence presented at trial isn't sufficient to support the charges.
2. That the prosecutors legal theory won't be thrown out, after the full panoply of briefing/hearing/appeals.

What the court did say: In any case where the pre-trial record was less egregiously preposterous this would be thrown out.

However, I fully expect the Crumbley's to win on eventual appeal as a matter of law, even if convicted at trial. It's one thing to say "it's not an abuse of discretion to allow this case to be argued" (i.e. the actual court ruling based upon a very deferential standard of review), it's another thing entirely to extrapolate from a case about the design of a highway off-ramp to impose criminal liability for the acts of a child onto the parents.

Also, it is a general principle that if a court can kick a controversial issue down the road and deal with it later (while potentially letting it fix itself before hand) they usually will. This is certainly at play here.

[hector]

Exactly. My point was precisely that things will never change.

Do you have any suggestions other than ban the guns? I agree with you that this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Is the only other option in your mind to sigh and say welp guess we just live with school shootings?

Remove obstacles to ubiquitous mental health care and counseling?

Foster community?

I don’t know that there’s evidence to demonstrate these options will work. But there are obvious potential mechanisms. And even if they don’t cut back school shootings, the downsides are minimal, and all sorts of other good might come about.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Exactly. My point was precisely that things will never change.

Do you have any suggestions other than ban the guns? I agree with you that this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Is the only other option in your mind to sigh and say welp guess we just live with school shootings?

Unfortunately, I feel that school shootings (and more generally gun violence) are just a consequence of allowing people to own guns. It's pretty clear when comparing with similarly developed countries. The gun homicide rate is more than 10 times higher in the US than in similar countries, and gun ownership is 10 times higher than in similar countries.

For some reason (that I believe is political), people in the US seem to think that guns can be used safely, so much that you can buy a rifle at 18 but you have to wait to reach 21 to buy a can of beer. So essentially having a can of beer is less dangerous than walking around with a rifle. It's strange because ask people from any other country, and most of them seem to understand that it is safer to live in a place where regular people are not armed, but the US has a unique view on this.

[GlasgowJock]

I don't know the specific state and federal legislations surrounding access to fire arms in the US etc, though in the UK if you hold a fire arms certificate for a shotgun or rifle and e.g. you go to your GP citing adverse mental health the police will revoke your FAC and subsequent fire arms. There's also 'red flag' stuff where concerned subjects can highlight their concerns about individuals they know that possess fire arms to the police etc though understandably this is open to vexatious abuse.

Perhaps there needs to be more consistent liaison between various agencies in the US (school-peer-family-clinical-police) evidencing concerns about individuals demonstrating adverse mental health, though such things require $$$.

If a child demonstrates adverse mental health I'd probably revoke legitimate firearm access for the primary carers of that child too, though this leads on to my question regarding how many 'mass shooters' have used a firearm legally owned by their parent(s).

I'm aware 'school shootings' are a small % of total killings carried out by firearms each year and that folk upthread have highlighted legitimate arguments about how to go about dealing with the actual 94% (I think?) of issues.

[Hardartery]

I don't know the specific state and federal legislations surrounding access to fire arms in the US etc, though in the UK if you hold a fire arms certificate for a shotgun or rifle and e.g. you go to your GP citing adverse mental health the police will revoke your FAC and subsequent fire arms. There's also 'red flag' stuff where concerned subjects can highlight their concerns about individuals they know that possess fire arms to the police etc though understandably this is open to vexatious abuse.

Perhaps there needs to be more consistent liaison between various agencies in the US (school-peer-family-clinical-police) evidencing concerns about individuals demonstrating adverse mental health, though such things require $$$.

If a child demonstrates adverse mental health I'd probably revoke legitimate firearm access for the primary carers of that child too, though this leads on to my question regarding how many 'mass shooters' have used a firearm legally owned by their parent(s).

I'm aware 'school shootings' are a small % of total killings carried out by firearms each year and that folk upthread have highlighted legitimate arguments about how to go about dealing with the actual 94% (I think?) of issues.

I generally try to avoid this kind of thread, but maybe I can explain the US a little for you as a Canadian that moved to the US and ended up a dual citizen. There is no revoking the right to own a gun, and the idea is a fiery torture trap in the US. You have a constitutional right to bear arms, and I promise that no politician is at any point seriously trying to change that. You might say, "But what about felon? Don't they lose that right?". The answer is it depends and probably not, in spite of what you may have heard. No one particularly trusts doctors or other authorities to exercise judicious discretion, so no one really wants to leave it up to one of them to decide on curtailing a right. The only actual consideration is whether or not restrictions can be imposed on ownership of assault weapons, and there are some strong opinions on both sides but the general sentiment is any restriction on that IS probably an infringement on the second amendment. So the fight is, do we allow the government to intrude and curtail my rights? If we do, where does it stop? Is it a "Slippery slope"?
Keep in mind, you absolutely can buy and own firearms with no license whatsoever or background check. Private sales are unregulated and undocumented. I had a neighbour ask me if I wanted an SK (Chinese AK-47), he wanted one for his collection and the guy he bought it from had two and would only sell both as a package. They were $150 each. I could have purchased a Chinese AK for $150, totally undocumented and never registered anywhere in any way. I could get an AR-15 for $600 with a phone call, no checks no questions. Good luck controlling that.

[GlasgowJock]

FYI

Cheers for the info. Yea I totally get it mate; I'm on a Brit army forum and there's numerous US vets on it (all of whom are Republican/ conservative and fly-over state dwellers) and a lot of what you say echo's their sentiments on similar threads.

These examples just serve to further highlight the cultural chasm between the UK and US concerning gun ownership (and several other issues), it's usually why I avoid the topic as well as you're discussing a matter that is deeply ingrained in the psyche of this demographic of Americans.

[5hout]

It's the national creation myth. Imagine America without guns is like imaging modern Greek people without an obsession with Athens and the Classical age.

Every prior age of America has had guns as part of the legendary core of the national myth. The 18th century had plucky minute men with 20 rounds, 3 days of food and a rifle to hand while plowing the field defeating the Redcoats. Early 19th century had Perry's "Don't give up the ship!", Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett (who sat in the House of Representatives btw). Mid 19th Century was the Civil War*, which for those who didn't go to school in the USA compromises approx. 1/2 of all US history classes**, which in history class consist of frontier brothers fighting each other with their old muskets. Late 19th Century (to the extent it's mentioned at all) is Spanish American war (i.e. US kicking colonial power ASS on the back of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders). Right about here you could probably wedge in some Cowboy vs Indian/how the west was won as well if you wanted to.

20th Century consists solely of 3 acts, and all have "a nation of Rifleman" as key parts. 1st act: US in WW1 "Iowa farmboys used to being sent out with 2 rounds and expected to bring back 3 squirrels save Europe". 2nd act: WW2 Farmboys again save world for democracy, come home and go to college, women run factories in meantime. 3rd act: US wins every battle in Vietnam on back of riflemen, but is treacherously betrayed by evil leadership that prevents them from winning the war or withdrawing and saving lives.

Plucky farmers/frontiersmen with guns ARE America. Beginning, middle and modern, guns are key.

*I'll be very interested to see how different Civil War ed is when my kids are in school. My memory (school in Michigan) is of programming dedicated to "South was misguided and wrong, but we are brothers and both sides fought bravely, Northern economic might and belief in abolition triumphed over Southern military prowess and heroism.". I'm assuming it will be somewhat different when my kids are in school.

**each year: Jamestown/roanoke, Rev war for a few weeks, then Civil War for most of the year, then an hour of trench warfare and "btw we were awesome at WW2, but then some weird stuff happened in Korea/'Nam so don't be too excited".

[aurelius]

Also, it is a general principle that if a court can kick a controversial issue down the road and deal with it later (while potentially letting it fix itself before hand) they usually will. This is certainly at play here.

Appeals courts are loathe to overturn jury decisions.

For example: Fox News really needed the judge to throw the Dominion case out. The judge determined that the pre-trial 'malicious' evidentiary standard was met (lower than the trial evidentiary standard) and a jury will need to decide if Fox News met the malicious standard. If the jury finds that Fox News acted maliciously, that is ball game.

[5hout]

Also, it is a general principle that if a court can kick a controversial issue down the road and deal with it later (while potentially letting it fix itself before hand) they usually will. This is certainly at play here.

Appeals courts are loathe to overturn jury decisions.

For example: Fox News really needed the judge to throw the Dominion case out. The judge determined that the pre-trial 'malicious' evidentiary standard was met (lower than the trial evidentiary standard) and a jury will need to decide if Fox News met the malicious standard. If the jury finds that Fox News acted maliciously, that is ball game.

Agree, but I'm thinking it is more likely they (once the record is fully developed) revisit the idea of these charges as a matter of law (which the jury does not opine on) OR as a matter a of law decide the evidence presented to the jury could not meet the legal requirements. Both of which are end runs around the extremely strong deference to juries as fact finders.

[Hanley]

all of whom are Republican/ conservative and fly-over state dwellers

*hugs*

[JonA]

Also, it is a general principle that if a court can kick a controversial issue down the road and deal with it later (while potentially letting it fix itself before hand) they usually will. This is certainly at play here.

Appeals courts are loathe to overturn jury decisions.

For example: Fox News really needed the judge to throw the Dominion case out. The judge determined that the pre-trial 'malicious' evidentiary standard was met (lower than the trial evidentiary standard) and a jury will need to decide if Fox News met the malicious standard. If the jury finds that Fox News acted maliciously, that is ball game.

Maybe. In the Palin v. New York Times case, while the jury was still deliberating., the judge ruled that the malicious standard had not been met and that he would dismiss the case, regardless of what the jury decided.

[mikeylikey]

Keep in mind, you absolutely can buy and own firearms with no license whatsoever or background check. Private sales are unregulated and undocumented. I had a neighbour ask me if I wanted an SK (Chinese AK-47), he wanted one for his collection and the guy he bought it from had two and would only sell both as a package. They were $150 each. I could have purchased a Chinese AK for $150, totally undocumented and never registered anywhere in any way. I could get an AR-15 for $600 with a phone call, no checks no questions. Good luck controlling that.

While it is nominally true that private sales are unregulated in many states, I think you are overstating the case here a little bit.

If you are a gun guy and you know other gun guys, it is neither surprising nor especially worrying that you can buy and sell guns within that circle without a background check every time. But you sort of have to already have guns and be known to other gun people to have that kind of easy access. Someone with no history in that community looking to buy his first gun can't just walk into the local shooting club and go "greetings fellow kids, anyone interested in selling me an AR for cash with no paperwork?"

Yes straw purchases are a thing and there are criminals who do so as a business, but even then, a black market gun seller has exactly zero interest in providing a gun to a high profile mass shooter. Bad for business. Better to stick with providing guns to gangs.

And also, like, straw purchases are a thing. Most guns used in crime are already getting to the end user in an extra-legal chain of custody.

I think the Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode on this did a pretty good job.

[Hardartery]

Keep in mind, you absolutely can buy and own firearms with no license whatsoever or background check. Private sales are unregulated and undocumented. I had a neighbour ask me if I wanted an SK (Chinese AK-47), he wanted one for his collection and the guy he bought it from had two and would only sell both as a package. They were $150 each. I could have purchased a Chinese AK for $150, totally undocumented and never registered anywhere in any way. I could get an AR-15 for $600 with a phone call, no checks no questions. Good luck controlling that.

While it is nominally true that private sales are unregulated in many states, I think you are overstating the case here a little bit.

If you are a gun guy and you know other gun guys, it is neither surprising nor especially worrying that you can buy and sell guns within that circle without a background check every time. But you sort of have to already have guns and be known to other gun people to have that kind of easy access. Someone with no history in that community looking to buy his first gun can't just walk into the local shooting club and go "greetings fellow kids, anyone interested in selling me an AR for cash with no paperwork?"

Yes straw purchases are a thing and there are criminals who do so as a business, but even then, a black market gun seller has exactly zero interest in providing a gun to a high profile mass shooter. Bad for business. Better to stick with providing guns to gangs.

And also, like, straw purchases are a thing. Most guns used in crime are already getting to the end user in an extra-legal chain of custody.

I think the Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode on this did a pretty good job.

I have never set foot in a shooting club, and I don't know anyone (Outside of maybe some guys on this forum in the way you internet know people)that is in a shooting club, and I have easy access if I want it. I legitimately know very few people with firearms and those that I do know are almost exclusively gun owners for hunting purposes and own weapons for hunting. I know less than 5 people with assault weapons. I have been offered plenty of second hand weapons off the books, and not one single time was anyone thinking of criminal activity being in any way involved it was a simple as someone needed to sell a gun because they needed extra money or something. Maybe in NY or California it's a quieter scene, but in most states guns are open and easy in the used market and again - almost nobody involved is in any way thinking of or associated with criminal activity. I think the bigger problem is gun security, given that it at least seems like most of the school shootings have been performed by someone using a gun that actually belongs to a relative and was "Borrowed" without permission.
The separate issue of regulating assault weapons is maybe not ridiculous, but the government would never propose a reasonable regulation and neither would they include enough stipulated limits to that regulation to get anything passed. And that is also part of the issue. The two sides are too polarized which results in nothing happening because no one wants to do the reasonable adult thing.

[gtl]

Keep in mind, you absolutely can buy and own firearms with no license whatsoever or background check. Private sales are unregulated and undocumented. I had a neighbour ask me if I wanted an SK (Chinese AK-47), he wanted one for his collection and the guy he bought it from had two and would only sell both as a package. They were $150 each. I could have purchased a Chinese AK for $150, totally undocumented and never registered anywhere in any way. I could get an AR-15 for $600 with a phone call, no checks no questions. Good luck controlling that.

While it is nominally true that private sales are unregulated in many states, I think you are overstating the case here a little bit.

If you are a gun guy and you know other gun guys, it is neither surprising nor especially worrying that you can buy and sell guns within that circle without a background check every time. But you sort of have to already have guns and be known to other gun people to have that kind of easy access. Someone with no history in that community looking to buy his first gun can't just walk into the local shooting club and go "greetings fellow kids, anyone interested in selling me an AR for cash with no paperwork?"

Yes straw purchases are a thing and there are criminals who do so as a business, but even then, a black market gun seller has exactly zero interest in providing a gun to a high profile mass shooter. Bad for business. Better to stick with providing guns to gangs.

And also, like, straw purchases are a thing. Most guns used in crime are already getting to the end user in an extra-legal chain of custody.

I think the Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode on this did a pretty good job.

I generally agree with you. But, there are sites like armslist that make it a bit easier to access a private sale. However, when I sold a gun on armslist, I did ask to see their LTCH and met in a police station parking lot. That was more for my conscience and safety.

[mikeylikey]

Do you have any suggestions other than ban the guns? I agree with you that this isn't likely to happen any time soon. Is the only other option in your mind to sigh and say welp guess we just live with school shootings?

Unfortunately, I feel that school shootings (and more generally gun violence) are just a consequence of allowing people to own guns. It's pretty clear when comparing with similarly developed countries. The gun homicide rate is more than 10 times higher in the US than in similar countries, and gun ownership is 10 times higher than in similar countries.

Should we even try? I mean really.

One could be internally consistent and argue that we literally should do nothing about gun violence that besides banning guns, because the additional deaths in the near term will sway public opinion, get guns banned sooner, and save more lives in the long term. That is pretty ghastly but it's at least defensible from a numerical standpoint depending on how you set up the problem.

Maybe I am unconsciously caricaturing but it sure feels as though something pretty close to the above is being argued by a not small number of people.