11 School Shootings in 24 Days

W.T.F. ?

--- and the gun convention is being held near the site of the Nevada concert massacre.

--- and schools were closed for 8 of the 24 days.

it's the price our country pays for the right to own guns.  It's never going to change.  Just hope you or your loved ones aren't there when someone decides to open fire.

for anyone who disagrees with me, think of this -- Congress has already tried to make carrying guns easier everywhere.  They want to pass a law that will essentially nullify the gun control laws in states like NJ by mandating that all states recognize other states gun laws. So if you have a carry permit in PA, you can come right over to NJ with your gun, and it's not prohibited.

we'll have single payer universal health care before we have meaningful gun control.  And I think we're at least a decade to decades away from single payer.

Once we did nothing when 7 year olds were massacred I knew we would never do anything.  I don't know how to change it.

I just wish that gun owners would argue these points honestly. I've argued with people on MOL who continue to insist that the rate of gun ownership is unrelated to the rate of gun violence.  But epidemiological studies by state in the U.S. and by country internationally unequivocally show more guns=more gun deaths.  More gun homicides (intentional and accidental), and more gun suicides. I am not trying to argue that people don't have the right to gun ownership in the U.S.  They clearly do. The courts have settled this.  So why can't gun owners just admit that the evidence is clear -- more guns lead to more gun deaths.  And then admit that it's a price we pay for the right to have guns.  

At least be honest about it, and don't try to deny a mountain of evidence.

FilmCarp said:

Once we did nothing when 7 year olds were massacred I knew we would never do anything.  I don't know how to change it.

Sadly this says it all...

ml1 said:

for anyone who disagrees with me, think of this -- Congress has already tried to make carrying guns easier everywhere.  They want to pass a law that will essentially nullify the gun control laws in states like NJ by mandating that all states recognize other states gun laws. So if you have a carry permit in PA, you can come right over to NJ with your gun, and it's not prohibited.

we'll have single payer universal health care before we have meaningful gun control.  And I think we're at least a decade to decades away from single payer.

So much for states' rights. And didn't gun rights proliferate under the name of states' rights?

Tom_Reingold said:

ml1 said:

for anyone who disagrees with me, think of this -- Congress has already tried to make carrying guns easier everywhere.  They want to pass a law that will essentially nullify the gun control laws in states like NJ by mandating that all states recognize other states gun laws. So if you have a carry permit in PA, you can come right over to NJ with your gun, and it's not prohibited.

we'll have single payer universal health care before we have meaningful gun control.  And I think we're at least a decade to decades away from single payer.

So much for states' rights. And didn't gun rights proliferate under the name of states' rights?

I'm not quite getting your point.

Initially, I would note that the most recent Supreme Court decisions with regard to this matter, focused upon the right of the individual citizen. (I'm thinking about Illinois and D.C.).

Finally, I seem to recall something about our "Constitution... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."

So, I'm pretty much missing your State's Rights thing.

Please elaborate.

TomR

I believe Ml1 is pointing out the hypocrisy of the libertarians/conservative shifts in positions when the topic changes.

Gun rights, abortion, right to sell a cake to whoever you don't want to --individual and state's rights.

Marijuana, right to regulate oil drilling off the coast, who gets to vote, who gets to stay -- them's gub'mint rights.

that wasn't my point, it was Mr. Reingold's point.

My point is that the momentum in Congress is not toward more restriction of firearms, but instead to weaken restrictions in states with stricter laws.  Fortunately the idea I referred to has stalled for the moment, it's still noteworthy that such a bill was even considered.  Imagine someone trying to pass a law in Congress that required all states to recognize Colorado's marijuana laws, and allow people to travel legally across state lines with weed bought in CO.  It would never, ever happen.  But change the word "marijuana" to "guns" and some Congress people fall all over themselves to make it easier to transport anywhere in the country.

Maybe trump will fix it. How about you ask him nicely. 

The difference between marijuana and firearms, is that the several States have pretty much ceded the regulation of drugs to the federal government. Firearms? I think the Second Amendment pretty much leaves that as a matter of individual Rights.

TomR

FilmCarp said:

Once we did nothing when 7 year olds were massacred I knew we would never do anything.  I don't know how to change it.

Yup.  If that didn’t do it, nothing will. 

The states’ rights issue is that a number of states (including NJ) have relatively strict gun control laws which ARE constitutional (or at least have not been declared unconstitutional.) But now there is legislation making its way through Congress which would nullify some of those laws for visitors from other states with less restrictive laws.  THAT is a violation of the rights of those states with the more restrictive laws.

NOW, it's 18 school shootings since the beginning of this year. 

it would be eye-opening to keep updating this thread title all year.

There have been 18 school.shootings since 1/1/2018.

**** the NRA and gun culture perpetuated by movie and video game industry. 

It’s pathetically sad that Washington is so immoral to do nothing about this 

it's beyond sad. It should be criminal.

peteglider said:

**** the NRA and gun culture perpetuated by movie and video game industry. 

It’s pathetically sad that Washington is so immoral to do nothing about this 

Actually, they do something about it. Where they work, in the halls of Congress or the White House, be assured there is rigid and very strict gun control.

A post on Democratic Underground linked the Tweets from the representatives and senators who proceeded to solve the problem with their thoughts and prayers. Someone then trolled those tweets with the amount of $$$ those law makers received from N.R.A. --- millions over the years.

I'll just keep pulling this one out.  No need to write anything new.

ml1 said:

it's the price our country pays for the right to own guns.  It's never going to change.  Just hope you or your loved ones aren't there when someone decides to open fire.

I am shocked at the paucity of conversation about how we are FAILING, as a society, to address the rising incidence of mental health issues in our country. As someone who has had to try to access help from the system for dealing with the mental illness of loved ones, I can tell you that supports are incredibly short-lived, and therefore ineffective. And obtaining treatment for the longer term is impossibly EXPENSIVE. For perspective, an upper middle class would struggle (and likely buckle) under the cost of maintaining treatment for a loved one, so what hope is there for an average family? 

When are we going to recognize that mental health issues are a SOCIETAL problem and not an individual or family one??? All of these school shooters showed clear signs of mental illness, and people ask “Where was the mother? Why didn’t she do something?” From what I’ve read, they tried, but weren’t able to manage it on their own with the pathetically scarce resources that were available. As a society, we didn’t care enough to help these families help their kids. And then we are shocked and outraged when their children’s illnesses lead them to take innocent lives. And we blame the guns instead of owning up to the fact that there was an individual who was sick and struggling, and we as a society turned our backs and said “Not my problem.” Well, obviously it IS our problem. 

Trump is addressing the nation on the shooting, at 11:00. I don't know whether to listen, or just start banging my head on the desk now. 

Sounds like you are arguing for state's rights in this instance (namely, NJ's right to not recognize concealed carry permits issued to non-resident visitors to NJ from other states).  I have not made my mind up on this issue yet.  

sac said:

The states’ rights issue is that a number of states (including NJ) have relatively strict gun control laws which ARE constitutional (or at least have not been declared unconstitutional.) But now there is legislation making its way through Congress which would nullify some of those laws for visitors from other states with less restrictive laws.  THAT is a violation of the rights of those states with the more restrictive laws.

since the 1999 Columbine shooting in Colorado, more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 schools have experienced campus shootings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/15/im-not-really-shocked-florida-high-school-prepared-for-the-worst-then-it-happened/

RealityForAll said:

Sounds like you are arguing for state's rights in this instance (namely, NJ's right to not recognize concealed carry permits issued to non-resident visitors to NJ from other states).  

that's not the issue.  The issue is that people from other states are currently required to adhere to the laws of the state of NJ when they are here.  

Congress wants to make it so that our gun ownership laws within our own state don't apply to people from other states.  Frankly, it's an insane idea.  What other laws should people be allowed to ignore when they go to other states?  Should Coloradans be allowed to go to Texas and legally smoke weed?  Almost half of Mississippi's counties are dry.  Should someone with a NJ liquor license be allowed to bring cases of whiskey there and sell it out of the trunk of their car?  Of course not.  

alterego said:


When are we going to recognize that mental health issues are a SOCIETAL problem and not an individual or family one??? All of these school shooters showed clear signs of mental illness, and people ask “Where was the mother? Why didn’t she do something?” From what I’ve read, they tried, but weren’t able to manage it on their own with the pathetically scarce resources that were available. As a society, we didn’t care enough to help these families help their kids. And then we are shocked and outraged when their children’s illnesses lead them to take innocent lives. And we blame the guns instead of owning up to the fact that there was an individual who was sick and struggling, and we as a society turned our backs and said “Not my problem.” Well, obviously it IS our problem. 

Other societies have recognized:

There’s also another crucial difference with the United States: extensive, mandatory health insurance, which allows schools to have direct and immediate access to psychologists and intervention teams.
...
Other countries, including Germany, have attempted to set up government-led national networks dedicated to spot potential attackers and to stop them before they can pursue their plans.

In a first step, funding for in-school psychologists was increased exponentially. Teachers at every school are now being trained to act as “trusted personnel,” as a first point of contact either for students who want to seek psychological support themselves or for others who want to raise alarm over the behavior of an individual. Psychologists are then called in to examine each case further.

Psychological tests are also standard practice for Germans younger than 25 who want to purchase firearms. Age restrictions were tightened and a national registry of all weapons was created in 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/15/europe-had-school-shootings-too-then-they-did-something-about-it/

Here to second what alterego said about access to mental health care.  First, insurance companies were permitted to exclude or radically limit covered care, then when the ACA came into effect requiring parity for mental and physical treatments, the demand for mental health services was (at least for a while) way more than the existing personnel/systems could manage.  Medication prices can be monstrous and vary a LOT from pharmacy to pharmacy, and these are literally life-saving medications for many.

All that said, easy access to ridiculous firearms is paramount, imo, and mustn't be swept away by saying, oh it's the families, oh crazy people, oh the evil in humankind.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could make a reasonable argument for allowing the mentally ill to have guns. Can we all at least agree to that?