Mass Shootings

[Ted Lange 16407]

 

[sugar 100]

45 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Same, except when hunting or shooting or on a ranch with neighbors doing the same.  Were you under the impression random gunfire is a common occurrence in Texas?

It's a common occurrence in America. I'd describe it as "epidemic". And for that, I despise the NRA and those people who so perversely worship guns, they disregard the well being of schoolchildren.

Edited May 18, 2018 by sugar

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

5 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Yet the CDC ran a study in 2013. The results weren't favorable to your side, if they were, I'm sure your side would just say something retarded like "the science is settled." The CDC has funding for another study, they can run one at any time they want.

For the record, I don't know what the solution to gun violence is but I tend to believe more stringent regulation on access to guns would be part of the solution and would definitely support more research so for argument's sake lets say I'm pro-gun control.

 

You are correct in that the inconclusive 2013 CDC wasn't favorable to my side. That's why I don't bring it up.

The same study isn't favorable for your side. It's inconclusive yet you do bring it up. My question is why are you bringing up a study that favors neither side?

 

It would follow that MORE not LESS research is needed following an inconclusive study. Instead, what has happened subsequent to the 2013 CDC study, as pointed out in my first link, is that the right has slashed CDC funds dedicated to gun violence research by 90 percent. For the record, that would be LESS research. So my second question to you is, do you support MORE research or LESS?

 

 

[Ted Lange 16407]

[HtownHorn 15230]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Link to study.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=

 

The TL;DR version

For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:

• Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
• Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
• Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
• The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.
• The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
• The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
  • “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.

Edited May 19, 2018 by HtownHorn

[Aqua Buddha 14804]

2 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Well, the church shooter and the Santa Fe shooter took him up on that.  

[EastTexan 672]

6 hours ago, Gengs1 said:

Is it time to arm the students?

next proposed solution?

are janitors next?

 

6 hours ago, sugar said:

And after the Dallas NRA hyper rally with Trump mocking London for its hospitals full of knife wound rivers of blood. "It's like Afghanistan!"

Afghanistan is as violent as America. Today, Texas proves it. #karma

 

Holy crap.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=
 
The TL;DR version
For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:

• Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
• Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
• Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
• The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.
• The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
• The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
  • “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.

It's like you copied and pasted your tldr version without attribution.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Needs a fanny pack and a nursing quilt to complete the transition 

[David Dennison 19521]

2 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

I call this look Christmas 1993.

[Degenerate Gardner 4158]

I'm against them.

[David Dennison 19521]

2 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=

 

The TL;DR version

For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:

• Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
• Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
• Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
• The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.
• The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
• The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
  • “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.

That last bullet point is the kicker.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

It's the dispassionate academic analysis that posterizes that uppitty nagger.

[atomheartbevo 90638]

3 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

The LGBT thread is elsewhere, unless you are making a statement that transgenders or lesbians need to arm themselves.

[bolverk 30320]

And here is where we find out if someone is either disingenuous or gullible.

The data clearly show that the Deep South plus MD, MO, IL, and NM have the highest homicide rates in the country. CA, NJ, & NY are far down on the list.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm

[atomheartbevo 90638]

4 hours ago, sugar said:

It's a common occurrence in America. I'd describe it as "epidemic". And for that, I despise the NRA and those people who so perversely worship guns, they disregard the well being of schoolchildren.

NRA is going to fuck themselves really hard over this stuff.  I said it on Shaggy after the church shooting and the Parkland shooting, and I'll say it again (and it's probably already been said in the thread): The Republicans should have passed some gun control legislation - any kind of legislation - limit on magazine sizes, perhaps raising the age limit, pushing through funding for more mental health-related issues, cleaning up and improving background checks (and tying those together), etc., etc., etc.

Those things may not have prevented many of the shootings, but at least the GOP could say they did something.  Instead, they stood firm with the NRA and told everybody else to go fuck themselves.

At some point in the near future, we are going to get a Democrat-controlled Congress, and they are going to go in dry on us.  And they could very well do it with Donald J. Trump in office, because we all know he's easily influenced by people he talks to.  All it takes is a bunch of kids begging him to do something, and him thinking he's their last hope and seeing a great photo opportunity to make himself out to be a hero (perhaps nudged on by Melania) and the next thing you know we have some really serious gun control.

At that point it will be decided by the Supreme Court, and that's the equivalent of letting yourself get down by several touchdowns in the first three quarters and then praying that your team can somehow pull it off towards the end of the fourth quarter.  And if you lose in the Supreme Court, that's it, there's no do-over, there's no "oh well, we'll be better next season".

[sugar 100]

Never forget. Guns are bad. Getting rid of guns, oil & religion will probably cure every man made ill on earth.

[sugar 100]

Wow. After I say this, it turns out that these are the very things which "elected" Donald Trump.

[HtownHorn 15230]

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

NRA is going to fuck themselves really hard over this stuff.  I said it on Shaggy after the church shooting and the Parkland shooting, and I'll say it again (and it's probably already been said in the thread): The Republicans should have passed some gun control legislation - any kind of legislation - limit on magazine sizes, perhaps raising the age limit, pushing through funding for more mental health-related issues, cleaning up and improving background checks (and tying those together), etc., etc., etc.

Those things may not have prevented many of the shootings, but at least the GOP could say they did something.  Instead, they stood firm with the NRA and told everybody else to go fuck themselves.

At some point in the near future, we are going to get a Democrat-controlled Congress, and they are going to go in dry on us.  And they could very well do it with Donald J. Trump in office, because we all know he's easily influenced by people he talks to.  All it takes is a bunch of kids begging him to do something, and him thinking he's their last hope and seeing a great photo opportunity to make himself out to be a hero (perhaps nudged on by Melania) and the next thing you know we have some really serious gun control.

At that point it will be decided by the Supreme Court, and that's the equivalent of letting yourself get down by several touchdowns in the first three quarters and then praying that your team can somehow pull it off towards the end of the fourth quarter.  And if you lose in the Supreme Court, that's it, there's no do-over, there's no "oh well, we'll be better next season".

Too bad the politicians care nothing about securing schools, which would be much easier to do, and after all it's about the kids, right.

Edited May 19, 2018 by HtownHorn

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

Too bad the politicians care nothing about securing schools, which would be much easier to do, and after all it's about the kids, right.

How would you secure all the schools? Metal detectors at every door? Bars on every window? 

Let’s break down those numbers real quick. 

According to the National Center for Education Studies, there were 98,817 public schools in 2009 in the US

a standard metal detector cost $4,000

So roughly 395 million for one metal decector per school? But there more than one door, right? So maybe that cost doubles or triples. 

That doesn’t factor In personnel to operate them. Who’s paying for all this?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

How about mandatory gun insurance?!

[DanRydell 799]

And here is where we find out if someone is either disingenuous or gullible.

The data clearly show that the Deep South plus MD, MO, IL, and NM have the highest homicide rates in the country. CA, NJ, & NY are far down on the list.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm

I would guess the “study” excluded gun homicides from those states plus DC but then divided by the national population.

[Post Oak 20555]

23 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Hes such an embarrassment.  

[bolverk 30320]

I would guess the “study” excluded gun homicides from those states plus DC but then divided by the national population.

You're an imbecile if you believe that.

[atomheartbevo 90638]

It makes perfect sense that Dannie Goeb thinks we should have fewer exits and entrances in school.  After all, the only place he's ever had to escape from was a mental health hospital.  Little does he know that school shooters would love for there to be far fewer exits for the victims.

[atomheartbevo 90638]

The Republicans and the NRA are playing a stupid fucking game of chicken that they will not win in the long run.

At some point in the near future - next week, next month, next year, two years from now, we are going to have a school shooting that is live-streamed on Facebook, Periscope/twitter, whatever, and we are going to see victims being killed in real-time.  We are going to see kids being executed live.

And then we will see the nation respond in a way that we have not before now.  Whatever happened at Parkland as far as awareness/social/political activity will be dwarfed by what comes out of a live-streamed shooting.

And the Dannie Goebs of the world are going to whine about schools having more than one door to get in, and probably whine about kids having access to cell phones.  And the Republicans are going to keep on taking NRA money and flipping the middle finger to everybody talking about gun control.

And Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are going to be quietly writing gun-control legislation, or rather pulling out legislation they've been thinking about for years.  And if Nancy and Schumer aren't in a position of power to push it through, they will be within an election or two.

And then the Republicans will whine and say "we want a seat at the table to discuss gun control since we like guns!"

And Nancy and Chuck are going to say "get out your fucking shine box and sit in the corner, because you had your chance after Sutherland Springs and Parkland and Santa Fe and all you did was voice your continued allegiance to the NRA and bitch that there were too many exits or entrances to schools."

And Nancy and Chuck are going to bend us over and run a train on all of us, whether it's those of us with a handful of rifles and shotguns, or the guys who think they live in the American suburbia version of the Korengal Valley.

And there is absolutely no guarantee that whoever is the President will side with us, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the Supreme Court will also side with us.

But there is an absolute guarantee that the NRA and Wayne LaPierreLafontaine are going to get a whole lot richer.

[Mo Horn 8937]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

Wow. Dan Patrick says the problem is abortion and video games. He appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to offer those nuggets and a litany of NRA talking points. 

[T-dog 202]

From my perspective, there are multiple steps that can be taken and ought to be taken to counter the problem especially of school shootings. I see three steps that should be taken, in the following order, based on enforceability and immediate impact that are primarily focused on gun violence in schools as we have a premier duty to protect the ones that cannot protect themselves accordingly. 

1) Regulation on gun storage: Every gun has to be stored accordingly if it is not carried by the owner. With stored accordingly I mean some kind of safe or locker. You have to limit accessibility to guns for prospective school shooters and since they can't buy the guns by themselves for the most part, family stocks are a main weapon source. Further, you have to penalize failures to comply with this regulation pretty seriously. Similar laws are already in place in other countries and are for my point of the view the best short-term action that also has a chance of making it through the legislative process.

2) Intensify mental health screenings: From my point of view, guns are not the main problem. School shootings are foremost a symptom of deeper problems, but access to guns is what creates a deadly combination. But for every school shooting, there is also a kid that has been lost along the way and that feels the urge to go out on a killing spree and eventually kill himself. For the poster that asked what the number of mentally ill school shooters is, I'd argue 100%, but not all of them have been diagnosed beforehand and that's where we have to get better. Most of those kids have a history of being outsiders, being bullied, or being loners, and we as a society have to make a better job of helping kids before they get fantasies of shooting up their school.

3) Gun control: Lastly, and this is by far the hardest point, which I do not feel like happening anytime soon, is that we enact stricter gun control. I don't think it is the premier measure that should be done, as there are already too many guns in circulation and you can either get guns illegally or use some other weapon (think knifes, explosives, cars, etc.). What I would like to see though, is tighter regulation on who is able to buy guns with a focus on a mental health screening/ psychological background checks. While I do not want to take the guns away from the rightful citizens, I fail to understand while we wouldn't want to check who might be unfit for a weapon of lethal force. You wouldn't hire some lunatic to be your pilot or physician or whatever, why would you give them a deadly weapon. That's something I cannot really comprehend. 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:57 PM, HtownHorn said:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=

 

The TL;DR version

For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:

• Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
• Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
• Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
• The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.
• The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
• The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
  • “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.

There is a lot to un-pack here, but it basically is a cherry-picked set of information from a "study" or "report" that was describing the overall body of information on the topic of gun violence of America. Note that this "study" or "report" did not conduct any science, it only reviewed the work of a vast range of folks - from gun proponents to academic researchers.  You have effectively pasted your information from a pro-gun website, who cherrypicked the information that from gun proponents.  https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

I recommend you actually read the report and not a pro-gun website.

As is often the case with pro-gun science, the level of honesty isn't always present.  Lets un-pack this one statement

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

Look at the range 500,000 to 3 million - wtf is that??  Second, this information was derived from a rate based on a small phone survey asking if people had defended themselves with a gun, and the rate of positives was similar to the rate that people are positive that they had been abducted by aliens.  This is bad science. The best way to weed out bad science is to look at the source.  The information comes from a 2001 book by Kleck titled "Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control."  Note that this is a BOOK and not a peer-reviewed academic journal. I could write a book lol.  

Lets go ahead read the rest of the paragraph in the CDC report:

"On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys."

The CDC is indicating that more research is needed. That is all. 

 

 

 

 

 

[burntorangebongos 10826]

Very reasonable. We have to remember that the NRA in it's history was an organization that advocated for gun control, and ownership to be in the hands of responsible citizens. That it deviated from it's original mission and became what it is today is a precursor of what is happening to the Republican party today.

The 3 steps above is about responsible citizens TAKING action in a thoughtful manner to end the violence that is allowed because the Gun lobbyists and manufacturers have purchased our legislators and prevented reasonable laws and enforcement responses.

I don't want to see an over-correction on gun control and that can only be prevented if the gun rights folks take a hard look at these three steps and agree to some changes in law and enforcement. Use your voice now for good, and also make sure your elected representative isn't sucking on the NRA teat so hard that they won't hear you without consequence.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

On 5/18/2018 at 9:12 PM, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

On 5/18/2018 at 7:57 PM, HtownHorn said:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=
 
The TL;DR version
For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:

• Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
• Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
• Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
• The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.
• The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
• The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
  • “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.

It's like you copied and pasted your tldr version without attribution.

I'll give you a hint where he copied it from.  Look at my post above.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

On 5/18/2018 at 6:31 PM, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

You are correct in that the inconclusive 2013 CDC wasn't favorable to my side. That's why I don't bring it up.

 

The 2013 CDC study is not favorable to the pro-gun side. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.a2d0707f8747

[Buzzrock 15136]

How would you secure all the schools? Metal detectors at every door? Bars on every window? 
Let’s break down those numbers real quick. 
According to the National Center for Education Studies, there were 98,817 public schools in 2009 in the US
a standard metal detector cost $4,000
So roughly 395 million for one metal decector per school? But there more than one door, right? So maybe that cost doubles or triples. 
That doesn’t factor In personnel to operate them. Who’s paying for all this?

Absolutely. Write the check. Fences, security staff, cameras, metal detectors. I’m 100% in favor of taxes going to fund this. Create a new professional class of public school security workers. Trump could pat himself on the back for the jobs program.

Securing the schools is the only option that could be enacted immediately and would actually work. Anything else is unrealistic or lip service. You can’t collect all the guns, you can’t round up everyone with mental issues, and we’re not going to get a 2/3 vote or have a constitutional convention. And I’m not sure we want one, because then everything might end up on the table including the 1a.

Secure the schools and then experiment with whatever other “common sense” legislation you can pass.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

No thanks, I don’t want my son to be educated in a prison.

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

Dan Patrick doing a bang up job of making Texas leadership look like backwards thinking simpletons. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

40 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

 

Absolutely. Write the check. Fences, security staff, cameras, metal detectors. I’m 100% in favor of taxes going to fund this. Create a new professional class of public school security workers. Trump could pat himself on the back for the jobs program.

Securing the schools is the only option that could be enacted immediately and would actually work. Anything else is unrealistic or lip service. You can’t collect all the guns, you can’t round up everyone with mental issues, and we’re not going to get a 2/3 vote or have a constitutional convention. And I’m not sure we want one, because then everything might end up on the table including the 1a.

Secure the schools and then experiment with whatever other “common sense” legislation you can pass.

 

 

I would vote and pay for anything that helps protect the kids. So I would support it. But considering there are probably more than double digit number of doors at any particular school, the cost will just be astronomical. I guess you could lock all the doors except one or two with the metal detectors. I’m sure the old Fire Marshall might not like that. Or the bars on the windows. Cameras should def be in all schools. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Seems like the solution is in stopping the maniacs from becoming homicidal maniacs. 

Instead of investing in metal detectors and security, invest in mental health professionals and make mental health education a required course like P.E. in middle school and high school.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

I mean, it's not hard to make existing doors fire exits that can't be opened from the outside. The hard part would be school campuses with several buildings that can only be accessed from outside. Even then you just put up a gate and once you are in the school compound you can travel freely between buildings. But of course the question is whether or not we want our kids to be going to school in a prison?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

On 5/18/2018 at 10:54 PM, atomheartbevo said:

NRA is going to fuck themselves really hard over this stuff.  I said it on Shaggy after the church shooting and the Parkland shooting, and I'll say it again (and it's probably already been said in the thread): The Republicans should have passed some gun control legislation - any kind of legislation - limit on magazine sizes, perhaps raising the age limit, pushing through funding for more mental health-related issues, cleaning up and improving background checks (and tying those together), etc., etc., etc.

Those things may not have prevented many of the shootings, but at least the GOP could say they did something.  Instead, they stood firm with the NRA and told everybody else to go fuck themselves.

At some point in the near future, we are going to get a Democrat-controlled Congress, and they are going to go in dry on us.  And they could very well do it with Donald J. Trump in office, because we all know he's easily influenced by people he talks to.  All it takes is a bunch of kids begging him to do something, and him thinking he's their last hope and seeing a great photo opportunity to make himself out to be a hero (perhaps nudged on by Melania) and the next thing you know we have some really serious gun control.

At that point it will be decided by the Supreme Court, and that's the equivalent of letting yourself get down by several touchdowns in the first three quarters and then praying that your team can somehow pull it off towards the end of the fourth quarter.  And if you lose in the Supreme Court, that's it, there's no do-over, there's no "oh well, we'll be better next season".

You do realize that the Republicans and Democrats passed the Fix the NICS bill as part of their budget omnibus that Trump signed into law, right?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seems like the solution is in stopping the maniacs from becoming homicidal maniacs. 

Instead of investing in metal detectors and security, invest in mental health professionals and make mental health education a required course like P.E. in middle school and high school.

This is how mass shootings are curtailed. A strong mental health safety net. We have gutted ours. The costs for housing mentally disturbed people would bankrupt states, families.

As the cure/band aid for many of the mental diseases out there is usually drugs, it can never be cured (for the most part).

 

[cactusflinthead 27627]

Can't pass gun legislation of any kind because that will piss off the R base. They need them afraid that the ebil DNC is going to come confiscate their guns. Deflect, obstruct and obfuscate are the go-to plays. They are going to keep running those plays until they can't any more. Same as it ever was. Oh and as far as the SCOTUS is concerned I haven't seen them exactly back off on trying to regulate abortion out of existence. 

and for your perusal I present once again Stonekettle

http://www.stonekettle.com/2018/05/bang-bang-crazy-part-14-cowardice-of.html

[T-dog 202]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is how mass shootings are curtailed. A strong mental health safety net. We have gutted ours. The costs for housing mentally disturbed people would bankrupt states, families.

As the cure/band aid for many of the mental diseases out there is usually drugs, it can never be cured (for the most part).

 

The cure is not always drugs. Gotta fix the roots of the underlying problem instead of drugging kids for the rest of their lives.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13725]

If dan Patrick is right, then censoring video games/movies, fewer entrances to schools and armed teachers must be the answer.  Eye roll.  As far stopping Santa Fe, I’m not sure any of these would have made a difference.  Even armed teachers is questionable because the shooter got into a gunfight with an Ex-HPD cop turned school resource officer, and the officer is the one who came out wounded not the killer.  

It’s fair that dans topics should be discussed but then access to weapons also needs to be discussed.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

40 minutes ago, T-dog said:

The cure is not always drugs. Gotta fix the roots of the underlying problem instead of drugging kids for the rest of their lives.

No I agree,  Some problems are created in the home for sure.  I'm talking more about things like schizophrenia that may not show up till puberty and other physical issues that manifest as mental disorders..  Not sure how you deal with those issues created by fucked up parents or bullying.

[Message Board User 12405]

 

[David Dennison 19521]

22 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Yes, because only Murican kids are on the Ritalin.

[Degenerate Gardner 4158]

2 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Dan Patrick doing a bang up job of making Texas leadership look like backwards thinking simpletons. 

That's actually a win for Patrick.  The simpleton look obscures something much worse: that the current TX political leadership is so utterly corrupted, it will choose $ over students.  Every.  Single.  Time.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes, because only Murican kids are on the Ritalin.

And they have the easiest access to guns in the world.  Couple drugs with kids who are already a bundle of raging hormones, and access to guns and it's a problem.

[T-dog 202]

43 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Correlation doesnt equal causation