Routine Shootings at US Schools and Universities Megathread.

[Admiral Yi]

Some places do have volunteer sheriff's deputies.

I think Shaq is one in LA County.

[DGuller]

I don't know how applicable it is, but Beslan school siege ended in part because the armed civilians descended on the school.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/21/us-senators-gun-violence-bill-bipartisan-support

US Senators announce gun violence bill with bipartisan support

The breakthrough in a 29-year stalemate on gun reform comes after two devastating mass shootings in Texas and New York

US senators have announced an agreement on a bipartisan gun violence bill, marking a small but notable breakthrough on gun control in the wake of recent mass shootings.

Nine days after Senate bargainers agreed to a framework proposal – and 29 years after Congress last enacted major firearms curbs – senators Chris Murphy, a Democrat and John Cornyn, a Republican, told reporters on Tuesday that a final accord on the proposal's details had been reached.

The legislation would toughen background checks for the youngest firearms buyers, require more sellers to conduct background checks and beef up penalties on gun traffickers. It would also disburse money to states and communities aimed at improving school safety and mental health initiatives.

The bill also contains provisions to curb domestic violence, including prohibiting romantic partners convicted of domestic violence and not married to their victim from getting firearms. And it would provide money to the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have "red flag" laws that make it easier to temporarily take firearms from people adjudged dangerous, and to other states that have violence prevention programs.

Lawmakers released the 80-page bill Tuesday evening. The measure is estimated to cost around $15bn, which Murphy said would be fully paid for.

The legislation lacks the far more potent proposals that Joe Biden supports and Democrats have pushed for years without success, such as banning assault-type weapons or raising the minimum age for buying them, prohibiting high-capacity magazines and requiring background checks for virtually all gun sales. Those measures were derailed by Republican opponents in an evenly divided Senate.

But the bill, if enacted, will still represent a modest but telling shift on an issue that has defied compromise since Bill Clinton was president. Congress prohibited assault-type firearms in 1993 in a ban that expired after a decade, lawmakers' last sweeping legislation addressing gun violence.

Senators have seized on the momentum in the wake of devastating killings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York. Murphy said that after Buffalo and Uvalde: "I saw a level of fear on the faces of the parents and the children that I spoke to that I've never seen before." He said his colleagues also encountered anxiety and fear among voters "not just for the safety of their children, but also a fear about the ability of government to rise to this moment and do something, and do something meaningful."

This bill, Murphy said, was a partisan breakthrough that would "save thousands of lives." Before entering the Senate, his House district included Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six staff members perished in a 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school.

"Some think it goes too far, others think it doesn't go far enough. And I get it. It's the nature of compromise," Cornyn said.

But he added, "I believe that the same people who are telling us to do something are sending us a clear message, to do what we can to keep our children and communities safe. I'm confident this legislation moves us in a positive direction."

The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said his chamber would begin debating the measure right away and move to final passage "as quickly as possible".

And in a positive sign about its fate, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell voiced his support, calling it "a commonsense package of popular steps that will help make these horrifying incidents less likely while fully upholding the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."

The National Rifle Association, which has spent decades derailing gun control legislation, said it opposed the measure. "It falls short at every level. It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners," the gun lobby group said.

...

[Tonitrus]

Thought I'd slip this in here, since I am not sure which of the shootings/terrorism/crime threads would be a better fit...

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/what-were-they-waiting-for-woman-inside-saanich-bank-amid-shootout-describes-calm-gunmen-1.5968446

Seems a little reminiscent of that famous LA bank robbery from some time ago.

[Jacob]

Yeah it's pretty wild.

[Jacob]

So those two Vancouver shooters were apparently hard into anti-government, "Fuck Trudeau" right wing bs. They also were triplets, leaving a sister behind =/

[Jacob]

In other news, apparently California passed a law allowing victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers.

How's that going to play out, I wonder?

[Eddie Teach]

Struck down by the courts, I'd guess.

[Jacob]

Struck down by the courts, I'd guess.

You mean the US Supreme Court?

[Admiral Yi]

In other news, apparently California passed a law allowing victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers.

How's that going to play out, I wonder?

A shitshow.

Unless some very imaginative lawyer manages to convince a jury or judge that a certain trigger design compelled the owner to shoot people.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-avgbyKt8xU

CCTV footage from inside Uvalde school.

[Jacob]

A shitshow.

Unless some very imaginative lawyer manages to convince a jury or judge that a certain trigger design compelled the owner to shoot people.

I dunno... how different is it from suing tobacco companies for selling products that are dangerous to people? That worked out okayish, I think. Though it didn't hit right smack in a culture-war fault line.

[Valmy]

In other news, apparently California passed a law allowing victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers.

How's that going to play out, I wonder?

A shitshow.

Unless some very imaginative lawyer manages to convince a jury or judge that a certain trigger design compelled the owner to shoot people.

I mean you can technically sure anybody for anything. I guess I would have to read the law to understand what the basis is for suing the law is establishing.

And that sounds boring.

[Admiral Yi]

I dunno... how different is it from suing tobacco companies for selling products that are dangerous to people? That worked out okayish, I think. Though it didn't hit right smack in a culture-war fault line.

It's different in that firearms manufacturers aren't telling the public their products are safer (or less addictive) than they are.

It strikes me as an act of legislative cowardice.  If firearms are so dangerous the threat of liability can be used to frighten manufacturers to not sell in Canada, then just ban firearms.

[Valmy]

I dunno... how different is it from suing tobacco companies for selling products that are dangerous to people? That worked out okayish, I think. Though it didn't hit right smack in a culture-war fault line.

It's different in that firearms manufacturers aren't telling the public their products are safer (or less addictive) than they are.

It strikes me as an act of legislative cowardice.  If firearms are so dangerous the threat of liability can be used to frighten manufacturers to not sell in Canada, then just ban firearms.

It is California and I am pretty sure they cannot Constitutionally ban firearms.

Canada just makes getting a gun a pain in the ass.