Elementary school shooting gun control pissing contest

[Queequeg]

I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.

I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.

My most frequent nightmare since Columbine is a school shooting nightmare.  I agree that nothing is lost by rationale and calm reflection, but it is hard to resist absurd reactions like GF's "Extensive. Gun. Control." that started the discussion.

I am convinced that these things don't come out of the blue.  Columbine didn't, Virginia Tech didn't, and I'd bet this one didn't.  The problem is the disconnect between people recognizing a threat and anyone taking meaningful action on it.  The presumption currently is that Joe Shmoe has the right to carry incredibly lethal firepower until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't.  That assumption has no basis in the second amendment or anywhere else, IMO.  The state has a reasonable power to restrict the ability of its citizens to inflict grievous bodily harm on each other when it has a reasonable suspicion that said citizen may have the desire to do so.  It has to be on an individual level to pass constitutional muster, but the suspicion is going to be individual  pretty much by definition.

While I agree with everything in the second part of the post, this seems like a difference in tone simply because what you are talking about would be substantially more extensive gun control.  We're arguing degrees of action rather than action and inaction, and thus I don't understand why reactions like GF's and presumably my own are "absurd". 

Grumbler, from everything I've ever read on this board or heard about you outside of it you seem eminently sensible, sane, and off of Languish extremely mild mannered.  I cannot envision an ideal, equitable firearms legislation that would not allow you ownership of most varieties of guns currently available to similarly disposed civilians.  The question is how lax we are about freely selling these weapons, when they so often end up in the hands of crazed murderers and Mexican cartels. 

[viper37]

Outlaw and aggressive enforcement is the only way. What do "you" want to give up?

"Me"?  Not sure what you mean here but I support the Bill of Rights.  I was just discussing it as a practical matter.

If you can get rid of guns it does dramatically reduce murders and gun violence.  But that would be practically impossible here, and besides the Supreme Court already ruled against Gun Control.

if the sale of new guns is regulated, as well as the legal resale of actual guns (say, assault rifle typically used for these kind of murders), over a long period of time, you will see a decrease in the number of guns circulating through the US.

But I know, that requires a Constitutional Amendment with 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States.  Not gonna happen.

[11B4V]

You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.

[The Brain]

Royal?

[Queequeg]

So no, you didn't - and still don't - have enough information to start screaming for policy changes when you don't know what the fuck happened.

Well, I'm going to guess that one of two scenarios happened. 
1) He bought the guns legally.
2) He bought the guns illegally, but these guns were at some point legally sold in the United States.

If he made his own guns out of a blacksmithy he'd made in his backyard, or if he'd imported the guns from Canada or Mexico, I'll condece that my original understanding of the situation was substantially flawed enough for my criticism of policy to be rash.  But that's these are the only scenarios in which this isn't a legitimate policy question, and the near impossibility of these scenarios means you have no right to play this bullshit moral upper ground. 

[viper37]

Much more effective, IMO, would be to put serious resources into mental health issues, and to overhaul the laws relating to the mentally ill. I dunno about the US, but in Ontario at least it is very difficult (really, impossible) to legally and sensibly deal with someone who is crazy and appears to be dangerous - I've seen that first hand. 

Easy gun access + mental diseases = explosive combo.

Unfortunately, no easy way to deal with the issue.  In socialized medicine, you have to deal with the lack of offer for a nearly unlimited demand.  Just about everyone feeling "depressed" will want to see a shrink if it's free or nearly free.

If you need to pay for these services, than it's likely that the people really needing it won't get access to it.

And then you have the issue of individual liberty.  Where do you draw the line between someone "a little bit weird" and a total psychopath, before he acts?  Luka Rocco Magnota might have seemed a little bit weird to people who knew him, but it's only once he killed his first human victim that he was considered a psychopath.  By then, it's too late.

Some people are able to act normally under the influence of their meds, but how can you make sure they do take it?  It's often up to the family to watch this, but it's not like it's easy to supervise an adult.  Either he lives outside of your house and you have no real control, or he lives in his own private quarter and you don't really intrude on him.

My uncle was always a little bit weird, but up 'til the moment he picked the gun and shot himself, no one thought he was really sick.  And it's not something family easily discuss with neighbours, friends and even family: "oh my son, he's kinda nuts, you know, but I think he's ok, I don't think he's gonna shoot anyone with my hunting rifles, you know".

[viper37]

You can regulate the guns all you want. They are not the variable in the equation. We are.

they are a variable in the equation, just as the human beings committing these crimes.

Unless you find a way to regulate human beings, you'll have to tackle the other issue at some point: easy access to guns for anyone is problematic.  At least some form of psychic eval before you get a license to own and/or carry a gun.  Especially semi automatic rifle.  Severe laws about gun handling too.  Don't tell me it's normal to leave guns when kids have easy access to.

[mongers]

Here's a better example of an asswipe using the tragedy to push for their own agenda:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-schools-place-of-carnage-because-we-systematically

Wow, if that reporting is accurate, then that's some asshattery.

[mongers]

Being an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do.

Those first few responding LEO's today, were their local cops. Can you imagine the absolute helplessness hearing that dispatched over the radio. You are automatically reactive.

Yeah, sad and an unenviable position to be in.

Say if all schools had the equivalent of a sky marshal, one teacher/member of staff allowed to be permanently armed and ready to reach within the school buildings, leaving aside any entry guards the school might have, would that be any better  or would it just offer the opportunity for an additional once a decade tragedy  to be committed by that individual.

[merithyn]

But that's these are the only scenarios in which this isn't a legitimate policy question, and the near impossibility of these scenarios means you have no right to play this bullshit moral upper ground.

It isn't about a moral high ground. It's about having a relatively rational and informed discussion about a serious issue here in the states. People like you are as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. The worst part is that neither of you see yourselves as the problem.

[Jacob]

It isn't about a moral high ground. It's about having a relatively rational and informed discussion about a serious issue here in the states. People like you are as much the reason why nothing gets done as the NRA nutjobs. The worst part is that neither of you see yourselves as the problem.

People who want gun control in response to a mass shooting are as much part of the reason nothing gets done about gun control as the people who want nothing done about gun control?

I'm sorry Meri, but that's absurd.

[Malthus]

Much more effective, IMO, would be to put serious resources into mental health issues, and to overhaul the laws relating to the mentally ill. I dunno about the US, but in Ontario at least it is very difficult (really, impossible) to legally and sensibly deal with someone who is crazy and appears to be dangerous - I've seen that first hand. 

Easy gun access + mental diseases = explosive combo.

Unfortunately, no easy way to deal with the issue.  In socialized medicine, you have to deal with the lack of offer for a nearly unlimited demand.  Just about everyone feeling "depressed" will want to see a shrink if it's free or nearly free.

If you need to pay for these services, than it's likely that the people really needing it won't get access to it.

And then you have the issue of individual liberty.  Where do you draw the line between someone "a little bit weird" and a total psychopath, before he acts?  Luka Rocco Magnota might have seemed a little bit weird to people who knew him, but it's only once he killed his first human victim that he was considered a psychopath.  By then, it's too late.

Some people are able to act normally under the influence of their meds, but how can you make sure they do take it?  It's often up to the family to watch this, but it's not like it's easy to supervise an adult.  Either he lives outside of your house and you have no real control, or he lives in his own private quarter and you don't really intrude on him.

My uncle was always a little bit weird, but up 'til the moment he picked the gun and shot himself, no one thought he was really sick.  And it's not something family easily discuss with neighbours, friends and even family: "oh my son, he's kinda nuts, you know, but I think he's ok, I don't think he's gonna shoot anyone with my hunting rifles, you know".

From my limited experience, the main problem seems to be that some mentally ill people do not *want* treatment, and there is effectively no legal mechanism for dealing with that.

Of course there is a balance of issues here. My impression is that, in the past, the balance was weighed heavily in favour of harsh intervention and incarceration of the mentally ill. Then, laws were reformed to redress the abuses this generated - but the pendulum swung too far in the other direction: now it is very difficult if not impossible to deal with the mentally ill who do not wish to be treated. The families of those who are mentally ill are effectively left to cope with it as best they can (or not, as the case may be).

I've seen several unfortunate examples of this in "real life".   

[Malthus]

Here's a better example of an asswipe using the tragedy to push for their own agenda:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-schools-place-of-carnage-because-we-systematically

Wow, if that reporting is accurate, then that's some asshattery.

Yup. What a tool. Assuming of course it is accurate.

[crazy canuck]

Outlaw and aggressive enforcement is the only way. What do "you" want to give up?

"Me"?  Not sure what you mean here but I support the Bill of Rights.  I was just discussing it as a practical matter.

If you can get rid of guns it does dramatically reduce murders and gun violence.  But that would be practically impossible here, and besides the Supreme Court already ruled against Gun Control.

if the sale of new guns is regulated, as well as the legal resale of actual guns (say, assault rifle typically used for these kind of murders), over a long period of time, you will see a decrease in the number of guns circulating through the US.

I dont think so.  I agree with Malthus' point that the reason we have fewer guns in Canada is cultural not legal.  Even if gun laws in the US were tightened people who want them could get them.  In this case I think the law has to follow not lead.

Although I think Grumbler's point is well taken that there has to be a mechanism to better screen people who wish to obtain firearms. 

[Maximus]

Yeah, sad and an unenviable position to be in.

Say if all schools had the equivalent of a sky marshal, one teacher/member of staff allowed to be permanently armed and ready to reach within the school buildings, leaving aside any entry guards the school might have, would that be any better  or would it just offer the opportunity for an additional once a decade tragedy  to be committed by that individual.

The schools here have a uniformed police officer on duty. I think it's just one for the entire district though. I seem to recall a story about one of the kids going for his gun once. I don't think they carry them in the school anymore.