Florida High School Shooting

[DigDog]

wait, did you guys have another shooting?? it didn't even make the news here.

 

[mdram]

It did, but maybe not from this specific case--because the kid's legal parents are dead. Call it a technicality?

well he wasnt on ssi, ssd, or unable to pay his bills
which is all that exec order coverd

 

[UNCjigga]

So... the usual?

He was very careful not to mention the word "gun" once. NRA approves.

 

[zinfamous]

well he wasnt on ssi, ssd, or unable to pay his bills
which is all that exec order coverd

Already addressed that in my comment.

and so the GOP attempt to do something about this is...where?

 

[Commodus]

Yes, the typical lib response to these tragic mass shootings: coming up with stock responses that won't really solve the fundamental problem. Sure, I think there might be some sensible things to do on the gun end, but the sticky point is in identifying troubled / mentally ill people (or such) like this kid, Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook), the guy that killed the judge and wounded Gabby Giffords, and the Aurora, CO theater shooter to name a few. I've commented on this in the past in at least 1 mass shooting thread.

My heart goes out the the families of the victims. What a horrible tragedy.

The problem, as I see it, is that the gun fetishists try to claim that the only solution is to pinpoint would-be mass murderers early: whatever you do, you're not allowed to touch gun advocates' toys.

Their argument is also undermined by... well, their own political ideology. They point to tackling mental health at the same time as they support the Republicans, whose sacred mission is to destroy affordable health care (not to mention make it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns). It'd be funny if weren't so sad -- if they were sincere about wanting to reduce mass murders, they would have to always vote Democrat no matter what they believe the root cause to be.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The mother of one of the victims very emotional message to Trump.

 

[Puffnstuff]

wait, did you guys have another shooting?? it didn't even make the news here.

No but one was foiled because the shooters grandma turned him in.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school...dents-disturbing-writings-everett-washington/

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The "don't look at the gun" argument always falls flat to me because the US is the only country in the world where mass murders happen on a regular basis, and it's the only country which romanticizes and enshrines gun ownership to such a degree. Virtually every other developed country looks at the US and wonders why it perpetually refuses to implement the solutions that worked for them.

To clarify, I believe we romanticize and enshrine violence and the use of force for problem solving. The gun is one of a myriad of tools we've used throughout human history, and it's one of the myriad tools that shows up in our media that's used to solve problems. Yes, it's more efficient at dealing death, but it doesn't mean it's the source of the problem. That's purely cultural, imo.

And you think my ideas are unrealistic? There is no way we will rip even a penny from military spending.

Yeah I know, shunt it from corporate tax breaks, then.

The problem is that It would be expensive and even if we allocated enough money to do this it is not something we could do in 5 years. It is something we would have to keep on-going forever. We have to not only identify the reasons these things happen, we have to do something about them. That will require changes to our society. That will require advertising to educate people. It will require institutional changes to things like welfare. It will require us to tackle major sociological issues that are basically built into our society. And in the end we are still going to find that the guns are a part of the problem. They are one thing that encourages violent solutions.

We will have to do something about the people identified as needing help, many of who will require a lifetime of support. This will require major investment in the infrastructure to care for them. Money to pay for care for those that can't or won't pay. Money to pay to get people educated in the form of educational grants for mental health professions so we have people do to the jobs. Money to run the systems that ensure that the systems are working.

This is not something we can do in 5 years. This is something that will take decades to even put in place once we actually commit to doing it. What are the odds that Republicans won't decide that all this is to expensive, just like they did last time we did this?

Then let it go on forever. I'm sitting on a family household income in the 80-100k bracket. Double my taxes, I don't care. I'm willing to foot the bill as a matter of due course for the rest of my life, because the cost is less than the cost of the future of our country. A change in our culture and society is *exactly* what I'm talking about. I'm sure the Republicans will decry it as a waste of money, and they'll be hypocrites this time just as much as last time. They can kindly fuck off, while the rest of us move on and pull our country out of the quicksand.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It's more effective to ban all of them. But the answer is they'd have to find their shoes, put em on, and drive to the store to get the popcorn (M-4) so they eat the chips (AR-15). But each time you disappoint someone's fantasy is an opportunity for them to just give up the fantasy altogether. It's possible that extra measures to restrict M-4s has already prevented attacks. Every barrier, especially ones that are simply annoyances, increases efficacy. Some people will still use the wooden rifle, but some people won't do it at all. Also, maybe a large calibur handgun feels more dangerous than a semi-automatic wooden hunting rifle. Maybe they'd pick the less effective weapon and kill less people instead. I'm also not convinced the M-4 would be the preferred weapon because people may be more familiar with the AR-15 or it might be the scariest looking weapon they see at the gun store. Availability bias.

Do you feel like annoyances and disappointing fantasies would prevent someone from an act like this? I'm nothing more than an armchair psychologist so I'm in no way authoritative here, but I feel like someone committing themselves to an action like this is going to find a way to do it. They will 'put on their shoes' as you put it, rather than simply decide to do something else. Hell, when I was a kid, my peers and I just spray-painted toy guns, or wrapped them in electric tape, to make them 'cooler' (aka what we saw on TV, mostly). The barrier for entry into scary gun territory is pretty low... guns are scary enough as they are.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Does it really work like that though? I just wonder whether some don't develop a fascination, even a fetish, for firearms over a period of time, and then get increasingly itchy to use them. And in that respect it seems that the more military-looking weapons feed that drive to a greater extent than do those that look more like they are for shooting deer.

I'm not sure if that is the case, it's just a thought, but I think many people know the feeling of having some cool-looking toy but not not getting a chance to use it for 'real' (even if it's only a car, a bicycle, or a gaming PC). I'm actually puzzled why even I (with no experience of or great interest in guns) see some as more 'cool-looking' than others (i.e. metal = cooler than wood), even when I'm sure that functionally they are entirely equivalent for any individual shootist not concerned with military logistics or arms production. Where does that aesthetic judgement come from?

I don't personally know of anyone like that, even among the military groups I worked with for years, which included special forces folks. Having said that, I didn't spend any real time around any Marines, so they may be different, I have no idea. For the most part, anyone itchy to 'use' a firearm is going to where it's appropriate; at a range, or hunting. It takes a special kind of brain to decide 'i'm going to go shoot at people today because $reasons'. If there *are* people who feel that way, specifically because of being around guns, I'd wager they've got some very, very serious mental issues, likely manifesting themselves in other ways (hyper obsession, controlling behavior) which a very thorough mental evaluation program would likely tease out. I also suspect they're a vast, vast minority of gun owners.

 

[Meghan54]

This helps out a lot, too......

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks

President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Trump signed the bill into law without a photo op or fanfare. The president welcomed cameras into the oval office Tuesday for the signing of other executive orders and bills. News that the president signed the bill was tucked at the bottom of a White House email alerting press to other legislation signed by the president.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ng-obama-era-gun-checks/ar-BBJbAzg?li=BBnbfcQ

 

[WackyDan]

Which is why semi-auto firearms should probably be banned.

Yes... We should ban millions of semi auto hunting rifles that aren't even derived from a military model. /s

Semi autos have been around for well over 100 years. Technically a double action revolver is semi automatic.

 

[WackyDan]

Yes, banning AR-15's doesn't do anything by itself as there are plenty of other firearms that could achieve similar results. I agree with you that if you're looking for effective gun control to reduce mass casualty events like this we should be looking more into the aspects of these weapons that make them deadly. ie: clip/magazine sizes, things like that. Banning AR-15's specifically is probably counterproductive as it will give the impression something is being done when really it's just as easy as ever to shoot a bunch of people.

True.

That said gun policy alone isn't the only issue here. It's an issue of culture, social media, 24/7 news media, and I hate to say this... video games.

There... I opened that box.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

well he wasnt on ssi, ssd, or unable to pay his bills
which is all that exec order coverd

No, it didn't. The EO stated that information was required to be gathered for both SSI/SSA purposes, as well as submitted to NICS for gun ownership purposes. The gathering of that information is a separate channel, and under the EO was required to be reported by any federal agency who comes by the information.

 

[brycejones]

Yes... We should ban millions of semi auto hunting rifles that aren't even derived from a military model. /s

Semi autos have been around for well over 100 years. Technically a double action revolver is semi automatic.

We should, the AWB was a failure because it focused on cosmetic items addressing more basic functionality could be more effective.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well I didn’t know this. In Florida you have to be 21 and wait 3 days to buy a hand gun. No wait and 18f or the AR-15.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well I didn’t know this. In Florida you have to be 21 and wait 3 days to buy a hand gun. No wait and 18f or the AR-15.

That's almost a universality, except the wait timeframe anyhow. Long guns have always been like that, and there's no delineation between action types for long guns.

Want a better one? Ammunition is 21 for pistol, 18 for long guns as well. When I worked at Walmart, if they were purchasing ammunition that could be used for either (like say, 9mm centerfire) a little popup came up on the screen asking if the ammunition was for pistols or rifles. If they said rifles, purchasable at 18. Pistol, 21. Gotta love corporate liability CYA measures.

As an added bonus, I couldn't sell rifle/shotgun ammunition to 17yo military members. You can shoot people for the US Govt, just not ducks. Get out of here kid.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well I didn’t know this. In Florida you have to be 21 and wait 3 days to buy a hand gun. No wait and 18f or the AR-15.

Because the waiting period is supposed to give the buyer an opportunity to cool off if their purpose is suicide. Suicides are almost always done with hand guns, not rifles.

 

[Jaskalas]

The FBI was alerted last fall about a person named Nikolas Cruz who vowed online to become a professional school shooter.

Well there was nothing ambiguous about his intentions back then. But not even the FBI had the authority to act before he pulled the trigger inside a school. America.txt.

 

[WackyDan]

But what are you okay doing with that screening? Does Delusional disorder constitute a reason to take away their guns? Any Delusion? Does depression? How about Borderline Personality Disorder? Which disorders do we target? Because almost no one is diagnosed as a danger to themselves and others until after they have already done something to warrant it, and then it is to late.



At one time we had decent mental health reform. The Republicans under Ronald Reagan dismantled it.

It's dismantling started long before and was only accelerated by Reagan. The country is still littered with the remaining hulks of state run mental institutions shut down before, during and after Reagan's term. Some have been torn down, some are converted to condos and some still await their fate.

We can blame budgetary issues for that as much as we can blame the rapid growth of pharmaceuticals to treat mental illness. Suddenly it seemed viable that a person could be modulated with some dialed in medication and they were fine to live within society, shifted to care within their families or you could argue contributed to the fast rise of homelessness in the U.S.

Of course, said person has to have a family that gives a shit, has to actually take their meds, has to be on meds that actually work, and has to have access to meds meaning insurance coverage they can afford.

Good times.

 

[interchange]

Do you feel like annoyances and disappointing fantasies would prevent someone from an act like this? I'm nothing more than an armchair psychologist so I'm in no way authoritative here, but I feel like someone committing themselves to an action like this is going to find a way to do it. They will 'put on their shoes' as you put it, rather than simply decide to do something else. Hell, when I was a kid, my peers and I just spray-painted toy guns, or wrapped them in electric tape, to make them 'cooler' (aka what we saw on TV, mostly). The barrier for entry into scary gun territory is pretty low... guns are scary enough as they are.

I do. Works for suicide. There won't ever be enough evidence to really study this and prove anything, though. Still, there's evidence that this guy fantasized about doing this for like a year.

 

[woolfe9998]

Do you feel like annoyances and disappointing fantasies would prevent someone from an act like this?

Interchange is well qualified to answer this, but I'll go ahead say I think the answer is yes and that he's correct. People who commit mass shootings are working off something they fantasized about for a long time. Those fantasies are usually quite particular but one thing the vast majority of mass shooters have in common is their extreme narcissistic need for attention. They want to come across as a badass, and they want to be remembered for killing lots and lots of people. The choice on weaponry is therefore not an unimportant detail.

At the same time, there are obviously downsides to committing mass murder aside from any moral qualms which the ones who go through with it obviously don't have - like dying or getting caught, either of which happen in basically every mass shooting. That means the perp has to be satisfied that his fantasy will be fulfilled or he might not do it. Think of it like a potential rapist who can't find a vulnerable victim that matches his preferred type.

 

[WackyDan]

To make my point, please tell me which one of those proposals the GOP would support.

There are a dozen plus more.

If the GOP wants to survive they have to accept a middle ground. If the left wants some controls they also have to accept middle ground. I honestly see no way around it. This whole thing hasn't been dealt with already exactly because of partisan politics and both sides keeping their heels dug in. If we flushed both parties we's have a better chance of addressing it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I do. Works for suicide. There won't ever be enough evidence to really study this and prove anything, though. Still, there's evidence that this guy fantasized about doing this for like a year.

Now here's more of a philosophical question (and possibly irrelevant). Do you feel it's better for someone to be merely subdued from the notion of something like mass-murder, or would it be better for such a thing to be identified (through whatever that would look like) and dealt with directly. I guess I mean, is it better to have active mitigation measures (such as regular, direct evaluation) or passives ones (such as waiting periods for gun purchases).

 

[Puffnstuff]

The sad truth is that we should expect to see more and more of these types of incidents. The GOP won't do anything that damages their relationship with the money they depend on so no they won't do anything except offer finely crafted speeches that carry little weight.