Shootings

[malchior]

The headline isn't 100% accurate but it isn't too far from the morally bankrupt drivel this breathing turd is saying.

https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1529250672033644544

[Blackhawk]

GOP Sen. Thom Tillis warned Democrats against having a “reflexive reaction” in the wake of the Texas school shooting that left 15 people dead, by trying to pass laws that would impinge on Second Amendment rights, saying he is confident in the coming days it will be learned that there were “signs” the 18-year-old shooter was “at risk.”

Maybe if we destigmatized mental health, quit penalizing people with psychological problems, had some sort of healthcare that was... I don't know, universal, and provided enough money to education that teachers could have the time to get to know their students and see the issues, then 'signs' might be useful. It would also be useful if finding a gun didn't involve just looking under all the other guns.

And 'reflexive reaction?' It's been 23 years since Columbine. At what point does the reaction become considered and justified?

[RunningMn9]

He’s confident that we will find out that there will signs. And then he will make damn sure that we can’t use those signs to limit access to guns and body armor, because of so much freedoming.

[Daehawk]

Saw some stats..not sure the truth of them....but said 27 school shootings this year so far. 288 since 2009. Other countries were listed as 2.

[YellowKing]

I made the mistake of watching local coverage of this on YouTube where chat was enabled. During that time I saw:

- Biden's fault because he let immigrants in
- This wouldn't have happened if Trump had been allowed to build his wall
- School was to blame for not locking their doors (see "soft target" posts above)
- Biden's fault because if he was a legitimate president he would have stopped this (???)
- Misc racist comments against Mexicans

I'd say the above out numbered "we need sensible gun control comments" about 20:1.

[Unagi]

I made the mistake of watching local coverage of this on YouTube where chat was enabled. During that time I saw:

- Biden's fault because he let immigrants in
- This wouldn't have happened if Trump had been allowed to build his wall
- School was to blame for not locking their doors (see "soft target" posts above)
- Biden's fault because if he was a legitimate president he would have stopped this (???)
- Misc racist comments against Mexicans

I'd say the above out numbered "we need sensible gun control comments" about 20:1.

Well, just ask yourself why you didn't make the 'sensible gun control' comment on the chat (I'm making a guess there, that you didn't... ), and you probably understand some of that ratio.

But yes, the number of garbage people in this country is remarkable.

[Skinypupy]

But yes, the number of garbage people in this country is remarkable.

The number of garbage people - all of whom have been empowered, encouraged, and build their entire identity around how much they can out-garbage each other - is remarkable.

FTFY

[Daehawk]

Another child died. 19 kids and 2 adults killed. The shooter also killed his grandmother before going to the school.

[Kurth]

Cost of doing business in the U.S.A. under our Second Amendment. As long as the Second Amendment is in place, nothing is going to meaningfully change.

[YellowKing]

I think there's another factor at play, unfortunately, and it's that even moderate Republicans are voting for whackadoodle extremists. I know a ton of Republican, conservative friends who are not at all opposed to sensible gun control measures, and aren't racist, homophobic bigots. They don't believe the election was stolen, they don't hate everyone, they're not constantly railing against the left. They're not garbage people. They just vote for them because they have an R beside their name and that's who they've aways voted for.

I refuse to believe we are as actually polarized as our political system forces us to be, because I just don't see the evidence of it when you stop browsing the headlines and talk to actual people.

That doesn't mean the garbage people aren't out there. Ask my neighbor down the street who constantly struts around in his LET'S GO BRANDON shirt. But those folks are still the fringe.

When it comes down to it, the problem is more voter ignorance/apathy than anything else. The extreme right-wing has *really* taken advantage of those not paying attention, and now we're in a mess I don't know how we extract ourselves from.

[Little Raven]

Cost of doing business in the U.S.A. under our Second Amendment. As long as the Second Amendment is in place, nothing is going to meaningfully change.

[Carpet_pissr]

I think there's another factor at play, unfortunately, and it's that even moderate Republicans are voting for whackadoodle extremists. I know a ton of Republican, conservative friends who are not at all opposed to sensible gun control measures, and aren't racist, homophobic bigots. They don't believe the election was stolen, they don't hate everyone, they're not constantly railing against the left. They're not garbage people. They just vote for them because they have an R beside their name and that's who they've aways voted for.

I refuse to believe we are as actually polarized as our political system forces us to be, because I just don't see the evidence of it when you stop browsing the headlines and talk to actual people.

That doesn't mean the garbage people aren't out there. Ask my neighbor down the street who constantly struts around in his LET'S GO BRANDON shirt. But those folks are still the fringe.

When it comes down to it, the problem is more voter ignorance/apathy than anything else. The extreme right-wing has *really* taken advantage of those not paying attention, and now we're in a mess I don't know how we extract ourselves from.

They may not be garbage people, but by voting R especially in the current environment, their world view (IMO obviously) is absolute garbage. But they would probably say the same about someone voting D, so…,

[Kraken]

Cost of doing business in the U.S.A. under our Second Amendment. As long as the Second Amendment is in place, nothing is going to meaningfully change.

The 2A seeds the problem, but SCOTUS's interpretation of it is the real source. 2A didn't convey a right for individuals to own guns until SCOTUS said it does in 2008. We'll never repeal 2A, but a friendly SCOTUS could revisit that opinion if liberals ever achieve a solid majority, especially in the wake of the current SCOTUS's disregard for precedent.

Our gun violence epidemic stems from a 5-4 SCOTUS decision 14 years ago. Maybe in another generation we'll get a one-vote majority in the other direction.

[El Guapo]

Cost of doing business in the U.S.A. under our Second Amendment. As long as the Second Amendment is in place, nothing is going to meaningfully change.

The 2A seeds the problem, but SCOTUS's interpretation of it is the real source. 2A didn't convey a right for individuals to own guns until SCOTUS said it does in 2008. We'll never repeal 2A, but a friendly SCOTUS could revisit that opinion if liberals ever achieve a solid majority, especially in the wake of the current SCOTUS's disregard for precedent.

Our gun violence epidemic stems from a 5-4 SCOTUS decision 14 years ago. Maybe in another generation we'll get a one-vote majority in the other direction.

There is some cruel irony in the court's coming insistence that they just want to make sure that the people's representatives can address abortion in the public sphere, while they at the same time gut the ability of the people's representatives to address guns in the public sphere. To the point where there's a decent chance that SCOTUS comes after concealed carry restrictions in blue states soon.

[Kurth]

Cost of doing business in the U.S.A. under our Second Amendment. As long as the Second Amendment is in place, nothing is going to meaningfully change.

The 2A seeds the problem, but SCOTUS's interpretation of it is the real source. 2A didn't convey a right for individuals to own guns until SCOTUS said it does in 2008. We'll never repeal 2A, but a friendly SCOTUS could revisit that opinion if liberals ever achieve a solid majority, especially in the wake of the current SCOTUS's disregard for precedent.

Our gun violence epidemic stems from a 5-4 SCOTUS decision 14 years ago. Maybe in another generation we'll get a one-vote majority in the other direction.

There is some cruel irony in the court's coming insistence that they just want to make sure that the people's representatives can address abortion in the public sphere, while they at the same time gut the ability of the people's representatives to address guns in the public sphere. To the point where there's a decent chance that SCOTUS comes after concealed carry restrictions in blue states soon.

I get what you’re getting at, but the distinction between the two is stark. Gun nuts and their Federalist Society judges have the Second Amendment to hang their hat on. What do the pro-choice folks have? The implicit right to privacy of the 14th Amendment? Just not the same, unfortunately.

[gbasden]

I think there's another factor at play, unfortunately, and it's that even moderate Republicans are voting for whackadoodle extremists. I know a ton of Republican, conservative friends who are not at all opposed to sensible gun control measures, and aren't racist, homophobic bigots. They don't believe the election was stolen, they don't hate everyone, they're not constantly railing against the left. They're not garbage people. They just vote for them because they have an R beside their name and that's who they've aways voted for.

I get what you are saying, but I agree with CP on this. If you are consistently voting for people that refuse to consider the slightest gun control measure and actively spew racist and homophobic rhetoric and actively work towards dismantling democracy, then you are kind of by definition a garbage person.

[malchior]

I think there's another factor at play, unfortunately, and it's that even moderate Republicans are voting for whackadoodle extremists. I know a ton of Republican, conservative friends who are not at all opposed to sensible gun control measures, and aren't racist, homophobic bigots. They don't believe the election was stolen, they don't hate everyone, they're not constantly railing against the left. They're not garbage people. They just vote for them because they have an R beside their name and that's who they've aways voted for.

I get what you are saying, but I agree with CP on this. If you are consistently voting for people that refuse to consider the slightest gun control measure and actively spew racist and homophobic rhetoric and actively work towards dismantling democracy, then you are kind of by definition a garbage person.

Of course they are garbage people. The right-wing talking point this morning is that schools should be fortified like airports. I mean really? They are worried about reflexively reaching for their guns while they build an authoritarian dystopia for our children? We have to face it. We are all in the end garbage people because we are all hip deep in the garbage.

[malchior]

More sobering statistics - it's not your imagination the problem is getting worse.

The F.B.I. released alarming data showing a rapidly escalating pattern of public shootings in the United States on Monday, one day before the massacre in Uvalde, Texas.

The bureau identified 61 “active shooter” attacks in 2021 that killed 103 people and injured 130 others. That was the highest annual total since 2017 when 143 people were killed, and hundreds more were wounded, numbers inflated by the sniper attack on the Las Vegas Strip in October of that year.

The 2021 total represented a 52 percent increase from the tally of such shootings in 2020, and a 97 percent increase from 2017, according to the F.B.I.’s Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2021 report.

[Unagi]

I think there's another factor at play, unfortunately, and it's that even moderate Republicans are voting for whackadoodle extremists. I know a ton of Republican, conservative friends who are not at all opposed to sensible gun control measures, and aren't racist, homophobic bigots. They don't believe the election was stolen, they don't hate everyone, they're not constantly railing against the left. They're not garbage people. They just vote for them because they have an R beside their name and that's who they've aways voted for.

I refuse to believe we are as actually polarized as our political system forces us to be, because I just don't see the evidence of it when you stop browsing the headlines and talk to actual people.

That doesn't mean the garbage people aren't out there. Ask my neighbor down the street who constantly struts around in his LET'S GO BRANDON shirt. But those folks are still the fringe.

When it comes down to it, the problem is more voter ignorance/apathy than anything else. The extreme right-wing has *really* taken advantage of those not paying attention, and now we're in a mess I don't know how we extract ourselves from.

Honestly. YK, if they are blindly voting ‘R’, after everything we’ve seen over the last 5 years (and heavily escalating), I’m really not sure what to call them. They are a massive fucking problem, and if you call these people friends you owe it to them to educate them or properly label them.

I’m betting you are (understandably) afraid to try and ‘educate them’ (cure that voter’s ignorance) because you don’t want to hear back from them how polarized they truly are.

[malchior]

<snip> don’t want to hear back from them how polarized they truly are.

As an aside I'm getting aggravated by this term. Not directed at anyone here but I mean this is the go-to phrase to describe the course of events. The political scientists call it polarization but it is tepid stuff. I also argue it limits our abilities to talk about the problem. The tendency to frame the solutions as an us vs. them viewpoint on solutions only leans into the dysfunction.

Instead, the discussion we need to be having is that we have a massive problem in that a segment of our population has embraced radical notions of what society should look like - including the continual murder of children. it is evidence that they live in a self-reinforcing nihilistic alternative reality. They think about any change as an attack that leads to the inevitable destruction of a right. It's beyond crazy. It's more than a problem. It is the stuff that can destroys societies.

Basic security is one of cornerstones of a society. It's in the preamble to our Constitution. And I'm seeing a lot of reaction that tells me people are far beyond having reached their limits on this. You can see it when you listen to Chris Coons' speech in the Senate last night. Or Steve Kerr making comments last night. People are literally pounding on desks and screaming red faced at cameras about this. If this continues, how long do we think this continues? I don't have an answer but every time it happens the fabric of a nation unravels a little bit more. Just one of many pressures that threatens to blow apart at the seams here.

[Dogstar]

John Scalzi's "Thoughts and Prayers" written six years ago. Sadly, still very relevant today, and it's well worth the read.

A man goes into an immigration services center in Binghamton New York, blocks the exit in the back with his car, goes through the front door with handguns, body armor and ammunition. He shoots the receptionists and opens fire on a citizenship class. He murders thirteen. This is horrific. I offer my thoughts and prayers.

A psychiatrist trained to help others with the stress of combat goes to Ft. Hood, the army base at which he is stationed, and opens fire on his fellow soldiers and some civilians, too. Another thirteen people are murdered there. Three are killed charging the shooter. Words cannot express my sorrow. I offer my thoughts and prayers.

...

[LawBeefaroni]

Cost of doing business in the U.S.A. under our Second Amendment. As long as the Second Amendment is in place, nothing is going to meaningfully change.

I disagree that there is no chance for change short of eliminating the Second Amendment. Sure, that may be a solution. But it can't be the only solution. It's the highest level of difficulty and defeatism about not being able to repeal it just leads to inaction. There are ways to restrict gun ownership and gun use that don't rely on a constitutional amendment.

[Smoove_B]

HR-8 (a bill on background checks) was passed last year in the House. Stalled in the Senate.

HR-1446 (another bill on background checks, increasing time) was passed in March by the House. Stalled in the Senate.

Oh hey look - it's the filibuster. Again.

[Octavious]

It's actually harder to buy ciggs and booze in Texas than it is an AR-15. Apparently the kid legally bought the stuff the day he turned 18. What could go wrong?

[Unagi]

a segment of our population has embraced radical notions of what society should look like - including the continual murder of children.

One side will think you are talking about our gun problem.
One side will think you are talking about our abortion problem.

[malchior]

Passing those bills would be mostly symbolic. It'd mostly be an indicator we could even discuss controls because they probably wouldn't do much to stem the tide. The NYT/Nicholas Kristoff republished his 2017 piece about how to reduce gun violence in a non-"gun control" frame. It relies on a public health approach. It sounds like a fine approach on paper but after the pandemic...I'm pretty skeptical. I'm for trying a different approach because the current one is at a dead end in our dysfunctional failed nation. If we are to heal, we need bold action. Unfortunately to go back to a constant theme we have the same useless leaders who got us into this mess in the first place.

Worse as El Guapo noted we face a radical Supreme Court who may be unlocking another level of violence in our cities and blue states. I am not a fan of the dysfunction of how concealed carry licenses work but I'll take that any day as a trade off against spreading this endless mayhem.

[Little Raven]

There are ways to restrict gun ownership and gun use that don't rely on a constitutional amendment.

Sure. But for me, changing the Second Amendment will be the signal that American culture on guns has changed, which I think is the real thing that will be necessary to see meaningful action on the ground. I've asked every single one of my gun owning friends a simple question over the last 24 hours.

"One word answer: Has the tragedy in Uvalde caused you to reconsider how you would vote on gun related issues going forward?"

I've received the same answer from every single one of them. You can probably guess what it is.

[Smoove_B]

Passing those bills would be mostly symbolic. It'd mostly be an indicator we could even discuss controls because they probably wouldn't do much to stem the tide. The NYT/Nicholas Kristoff republished his 2017 piece about how to reduce gun violence in a non-"gun control" frame. It relies on a public health approach.

Considering that the CDC was finally permitted to treat gun violence like a public health problem (funding, research, publishing reports) in 2021 (after ~25 years of being strictly cut off), it's going to take some time to build momentum.

"Federal money for gun research all but disappeared after Congress in 1996 enacted the so-called Dickey Amendment, which barred the C.D.C. from spending money to “advocate or promote gun control.” It was named for Jay Dickey, a former Republican House member from Arkansas, who proudly proclaimed himself the National Rifle Association’s “point man” in Washington.

We've had this problem for a long, long time.

[malchior]

There are ways to restrict gun ownership and gun use that don't rely on a constitutional amendment.

Sure. But for me, changing the Second Amendment will be the signal that American culture on guns has changed, which I think is the real thing that will be necessary to see meaningful action on the ground. I've asked every single one of my gun owning friends a simple question over the last 24 hours.

"One word answer: Has the tragedy in Uvalde caused you to reconsider how you would vote on gun related issues going forward?"

I've received the same answer from every single one of them. You can probably guess what it is.

Of course not. It's collective madness at this point. They believe that guns are an essential component to their identity and it's a self-reinforcing delusion. That's also why we're seeing violence escalating in intensity like this. We're facing a tide of toxic loneliness with easy access to guns.

It is why we see them focusing on talking about anything but the actual problem. They try blame anyone but the root cause. The object of his fixation is being hounded by a mob of would-be next shooters. It's absolutely a culture issue and there appears to be no peaceful way out of this mess.

https://twitter.com/MilesKlee/status/15 ... 6287524864

[malchior]

Passing those bills would be mostly symbolic. It'd mostly be an indicator we could even discuss controls because they probably wouldn't do much to stem the tide. The NYT/Nicholas Kristoff republished his 2017 piece about how to reduce gun violence in a non-"gun control" frame. It relies on a public health approach.

Considering that the CDC was finally permitted to treat gun violence like a public health problem (funding, research, publishing reports) in 2021 (after ~25 years of being strictly cut off), it's going to take some time to build momentum.

My question is do we think this policy shift will survive a GOP takeover of Congress? I can't imagine it will.

[Smoove_B]

My question is do we think this policy shift will survive a GOP takeover of Congress? I can't imagine it will.

Oh lord no. I'm sure they're going to financially strangle the CDC in ways I can't even imagine, probably among some of the first things they do after the takeover occurs.

[LordMortis]

I shouldn't be surprised but Fox is doing a lot of heavy lifting for evil tonight. These schools are "soft targets". Are you kidding me?

It's on point for Abbott who says this only increases the need to push legislation to arm teachers according to the news last night.


Or wait they did that already

https://apnews.com/article/6adbebfa9a74 ... 55cf551239

[malchior]

I shouldn't be surprised but Fox is doing a lot of heavy lifting for evil tonight. These schools are "soft targets". Are you kidding me?

It's on point for Abbott who says this only increases the need to push legislation to arm teachers according to the news last night.


Or wait they did that already

https://apnews.com/article/6adbebfa9a74 ... 55cf551239

What problem isn't solved with more guns? The most heavily armed populace on earth just needs more guns to balance out the more guns. When that doesn't work it is clear that we didn't add enough so just add more guns. It's basic logic.

[LawBeefaroni]

There are ways to restrict gun ownership and gun use that don't rely on a constitutional amendment.

Sure. But for me, changing the Second Amendment will be the signal that American culture on guns has changed, which I think is the real thing that will be necessary to see meaningful action on the ground. I've asked every single one of my gun owning friends a simple question over the last 24 hours.

"One word answer: Has the tragedy in Uvalde caused you to reconsider how you would vote on gun related issues going forward?"

I've received the same answer from every single one of them. You can probably guess what it is.

That's because they're selfish. They hear "gun laws" and think about how it would affect them personally. They're also unable to see the wider picture. Things like these mass murders aren't acceptable collateral damage of "freedom." They're direct attacks on life and liberty.

If it were a foreign national setting off a bomb, they'd be strapping on their US Gravy Seal outfits and be ready to fight to the death. If it were protestors destroying commerical property, they'd send in kids with AR15s. But dead kids? Not willing willing to wait 72 hours for an impulse buy of rifle #10.

[Little Raven]

That's because they're selfish. They hear "gun laws" and think about how it would affect them personally. They're also unable to see the wider picture.

I don't think any of this is true. My friends aren't particularly selfish, and frankly, on gun issues, they're generally much MORE informed than much of the Left. They know the statistics. Sure, I suppose we could say that they suffer from flawed risk analysis, but that's true for virtually everyone.

If it were a foreign national setting off a bomb, they'd be strapping on their US Gray Seal outfits and be ready to fight to the death. If it were protestors destroying commerical property, they'd send in kids with AR15s. But dead kids? Not willing willing to wait 72 hours for an impulse buy of rifle #10.

Again, this is all terrible stereotyping. None of my friends are militia types, and virtually all of them thought that the Rittenhouse incident was a culmination of MANY bad ideas. They are all reasonable people - convince them that a waiting period of 72 hours is going to stop the next Salvador Ramos and I think I could get several of them on board. But I can't make that argument - can you?

[El Guapo]

Cost of doing business in the U.S.A. under our Second Amendment. As long as the Second Amendment is in place, nothing is going to meaningfully change.

The 2A seeds the problem, but SCOTUS's interpretation of it is the real source. 2A didn't convey a right for individuals to own guns until SCOTUS said it does in 2008. We'll never repeal 2A, but a friendly SCOTUS could revisit that opinion if liberals ever achieve a solid majority, especially in the wake of the current SCOTUS's disregard for precedent.

Our gun violence epidemic stems from a 5-4 SCOTUS decision 14 years ago. Maybe in another generation we'll get a one-vote majority in the other direction.

There is some cruel irony in the court's coming insistence that they just want to make sure that the people's representatives can address abortion in the public sphere, while they at the same time gut the ability of the people's representatives to address guns in the public sphere. To the point where there's a decent chance that SCOTUS comes after concealed carry restrictions in blue states soon.

I get what you’re getting at, but the distinction between the two is stark. Gun nuts and their Federalist Society judges have the Second Amendment to hang their hat on. What do the pro-choice folks have? The implicit right to privacy of the 14th Amendment? Just not the same, unfortunately.

Oh, I agree that the constitutional law of the respective rights is very different. However, my point is that the abortion language among conservative judges tends to have lots of paeans about legislatures as the tribunes of the people, about how they're indifferent about abortion as judges, but it's just critical that the people's representatives get to debate the issue and pass whatever laws they deem appropriate, etc.

That language is very different (absent) from second amendment type decisions. At a minimum if that consideration is really important, it at least counsels some modesty when ruling on state-level gun restrictions that are not outright gun bans.

[malchior]

<snip> The usual bullshit rationalizations...

This is why we're stuck and the pressure of a society changing fracture continue. It isn't just bad risk management. This whole rationalization is in a long-line of fundamentally illogical at best or dishonest at worst ways to deflect that we need to make meaningful change in our society on this issue. The idea that any change needs to address the latest particular atrocity exactly is an impossible goal. It is also fundamentally divorced from how problems are solved...when we actually try to solve problems. If a reform fails to work, we can always try to learn from it and adjust. Instead we just say it'll never work and consequently never learn anything. It's a closed loop of illogic/bad faith argumentation.

[Little Raven]

It's a closed loop of illogic/bad faith argumentation.

Yeah, telling them THAT will definitely change their minds.

[Dogstar]

Again, this is all terrible stereotyping. None of my friends are militia types, and virtually all of them thought that the Rittenhouse incident was a culmination of MANY bad ideas. They are all reasonable people - convince them that a waiting period of 72 hours is going to stop the next Salvador Ramos and I think I could get several of them on board. But I can't make that argument - can you?

Because it can't be just one thing. It can't be just a 72-hour waiting period. It can't be be solely mental health system improvements. It can't be just red flag laws, or a deep background check. It can't be simply better permitting of guns (or permitting at all). It can't be just be mandatory firearms training. And it can't be improved firearms safety devices, from safes to trigger locks.

There isn't one magic solution. And especially in a country like America, in comparison with other Western nations where guns aren't so... central in the nation's culture, we're not going to eliminate it all. But we have to take steps across the board -- try other suggestions/solutions I haven't mentioned -- in order to tackle this problem. We can't hold the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct, shrug, and say that's the cost of living in America. If people are willing to do that, especially in light of the mass shootings of the past twenty years or so and the annual 15k citizens a year lost to malicious gun violence...

There's no doubt that because of the fetishization of guns in America and the Second Amendment that we need to do a much better job in convincing the other side. It's an incredibly hard task barring one mass shooting that somehow tops them all. We have to be reasonable, well-educated and yet implacably determined. There are no simple solutions that are politically feasible. But if we don't try... we're going to be posting in this thread in 2050 with the same sentiments, and we're only going to have ourselves to blame.

Edit: I say this in full recognition that I haven't been doing my part. I've posted comments, made donations, and voted for politicians hoping that things will get better. It's not remotely enough. I've avoided engaging with friends and other people when they've talked about the same justifications I'm sure LR's friends have, because it's easier to go along and get along. Nobody likes fostering "drama," and caring about this issue even 40% of the time with little improvement is exhausting. But that ends for me with today, because when the next shooting happens, whether in a week from now or three months from now, I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and honestly tell myself I'm doing my part.

[malchior]

It's a closed loop of illogic/bad faith argumentation.

Yeah, telling them THAT will definitely change their minds.

I agree. I'm just calling out the usual bullshit we hear every time this happens in the only place it regularly happens to tell us why it is inevitable.