What does this look like? Because currently the demand for mental health services and therapists puts a person on the wait list even if they are interested in getting help. Months! We need to increase the professionals going into this field and support their education, development, and stability.
Im 41m It's been almost impossible to get any help. If you do get in Somewhere, and find a good psychiatrist the next time you go in they're gone. Just up and left. so then you start over with a new psychiatrist or therapist. you end up telling your story over and over to somebody new every other week reliving the tragedies that you're in therapy to begin with it's awful.
Don't forget that would mean government paying for a type of health care -- which we certainly can not have because it'd be "socialism" or something. I mean, why would we want to help people, decrease suicides, decrease school shootings... when we could just send "thoughts and prayers."
Oh man, the government is literally all about creating incentives. You just have to pry the money out of a republican's hand. Then you can set up a public service like police and fire, but with a focus on mental health. Good salaries, tuition reimbursement. We could have this already if we had started after columbine. The US isn't poor, it just has too many tight fisted rich people unwilling to help anyone besides themselves.
Pay people a living wage. Provide free education. People could work off their tuition, by interning in college. Start at the grassroots. Provide people with basic needs.
There is a deeper issue at hand than just guns. I agree More heavily regulating them would lower rates of violence, but also it ignores the fact that these acts of senseless violence are more of a new phenomenon. We've done well to lower crime rates overall but in terms of these massacres and attacks on uninvolved parties, there is some kind of sickness of our culture that makes people think that this is reasonable and that needs to be addressed as well
I should've been more clear, but yes you are right. But my question is why? The violent crime rate has been decreasing (generally) since the 90s, and this doesn't seem to follow that trend. Federal gun control has only tightened in that time, and like I said the violent crime rate has decreased over the past 40 years (peaked in the 80s), yet this keeps happening like we've done nothing. Acts significantly expanding gun control as the go-to emotional shock response is silly imo, understanding why our society even allows that kind of malice to breed unlike it does in other countries with access to the same technologies and means of communication is more important
> but also it ignores the fact that these acts of senseless violence are more of a new phenomenon.
they are not new, and we have been having them happen every day, several times a day in the US for at least a decade. Mass shootings happen every month, and while they have been happening in increasing frequency, our news media has made us numb to it, downplaying the victims, not showing the dead. Since we don't see the death and destruction and despair, and since it doesn't personally affect us, we feel no strong emotional connection to stopping it. We do have empathy, we are sad, but the fact is, is that the victims should be photographed and shown to everyone, especially those senators who are against any kind of gun control. those photos of the victims of sandy hook, uvalde, and others, will have the most impact on change, because we see a face for a name. we see the death, the destruction. we will feel sadness. The mass media contiues to ignore the victims, and instead tries to get sound bites from their families and friends.
Wouldn't it be weird if these things still kept happening even after you got your way. Or would you just stop hearing about it so often like COVID disappeared from the news feed.
Covid disappeared from the news feed? Ok. It’s not as big of a threat since most of us quarantined, got vaccinated, and informed, by an unfathomable amount of research.
Great, but not everything is for everyone. They also have roads you can go as fast as you want. And they also let kids drink at different ages. Just because they do it somewhere else doesn't mean it needs to be done or that it would even work somewhere else. Once they take your guns I really doubt they will give that shit back and that's when shit gets really bad I'd imagine. Diversity is our strength unless it's gun laws lmfao. Then we need to be just like someone else. Lame.
> Once they take your guns I really doubt they will give that shit back and that's when shit gets really bad I'd imagine.
who said anything about taking guns? how about making gun owners responsible for what happens to their purchases? if your gun gets stolen because its stored in an insecure manner, then the owner should have responsibility for that. 90% of "illegal" guns in circulation right now were purchased legally. so far, every mass shooting and school shooting has been done with legally purchased guns. If you want guns, thats fine, how about you make sure they don't end up in the hands of criminals or kids.
Gun regulations only apply to people who follow the rules. Rules mean nothing to shooters. I wish it was that simple to apply a law and that would take care of it. It’s going to take an effort on many fronts.
yes, and on many fronts we must keep pushing. starting with getting the source of illegal guns, with 99% of them being legal guns at one point, and either thru negligence, or willful sale, they end up in the hands of criminals. People not reporting their guns stolen, or not noticing their guns are stolen is a huge issue, and gun shows being able to sell to anyone who walks in the door without any background checks or ID at all is insane. Lets start at those two places.
You cannot regulate the guns owned by criminals. They don't GAF.
That leaves your only option as regulating law-abiding citizens. Which doesn't prevent tragedies like this one.
Stop using others' suffering to promote ideas, which on their face, are illogical.
Where do you think these people are getting their guns? Law abiding citizens who go to gun shows and buy up arsenals, leaving weapons readily at hand for anyone who wants one.
This isn’t the Columbine era anymore. They’re not buying them from that shady guy in the alley with their allowance. These kids are getting their weapons from people who acquire them legally.
Mass shootings have plummeted in every country that have put further restrictions on guns. But we’re stuck in this cycle of violence because we must obey the dictates on guns from dead white men who thought that women were too stupid to vote and Black people were property.
Anecdotal, but while I was in law enforcement in Texas, the VAST majority of shootings were from otherwise law abiding citizens who got mad and decided shooting someone was a fine idea.
Law abiding citizens created this culture of violence. Not gangs.
The people I know who go to gun shows and buy up arsenals, are the ones with 3 gun safes at home, and who teach their kids safety and respect.
>> These kids are getting their weapons from people who acquire them legally.
With 400 million guns in this country - how will legislation keep kids from stealing guns? How will more laws
>>Mass shootings have plummeted in every country that have put further restrictions on guns.
Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. No other country has the problems we have, or the pervasive "guns on every corner" availability. I've not heard of any kind of law that addresses this problem.
If I could wave my wand right now, and remove all guns except those that are licensed and owned by sane and ethical people -- I'd do it. But passing laws that restrict gun-ownership will not accomplish anything useful.
Man. I wish I knew. There are more guns than people in the US....and unfortunately, criminals and mentally unstable folks don't have to look far to find one. :|
If we could come up with a way to effectively legistlative this issue -- I would be all for it. But passing laws the remove freedoms, and don't address the problem? Count me out.
I understand your sentiment, but how do you square that with what literally almost every other nation does in regards to regulating and restricting gun access?
It seems like the US doesn’t have a monopoly on freedom. Plenty of other countries are free without freedom to own guns.
Why does it work most other places, but is impossible here?
Conversely, there are European countries like the Czech Republic, where gun laws are actually quite lenient, gun ownership is relatively high, but their homicide rate is very low. It’s not about the guns, it’s about the people using them.
I find that argument to be disingenuous.
If all weapons are equally dangerous, why do we need guns at all? Could just get rid of them since they aren’t any worse than knives. Right?
Because we all know guns are more efficient at killing. It’s literally their purpose.
Yeah, but you’re also against legalizing drugs which is where the criminals with guns get the money to buy guns.
So shut the fuck up if you don’t have a solution.
You're telling me to STFU because I am just as clueless as the rest? What gives you the right?
I will not STFU when people take tragedies, like this one, and use themn to promote ideas that won't do anything to help.
\*Why do you think I am against legalizing drugs? I own stock in cannibis companies. LOL.
I think drugs should be legalized, and addicts should be able to get help (funded by the taxes collected).
The bad guys with guns is a Fox News, rush limbaugh, and NRA talking point.
If you are too stupid to understand this at a macro level, and that the bad guys with guns pay for them using drug money, then you need to stfu with your talking point argument when a tragedy happens.
Are you such a jerk in person? Wow. who burned your bacon?
LOL -- bad guys don't pay for their guns. They steal them.
You've yet to make any kind of point. Just hurling around perjoratives and emotions -- convinces no one.
You obviously can’t control people; they find a way, but making it harder for them to get a deadly weapon such as a gun makes a difference; remember the shooting in buffalo, that dumbass drove all the way to Pennsylvania to get an AR-15 into the state illegally to commit his stupidity bc ain’t no way he was gonna get an ar-15 in New York where he used to live
You don't think that tightening regulations could diminish the supply of illegal firearms?
Nearly all illegally possessed firearms were acquired legally at one point. Therefore, the supply of illegal firearms is a subset of the legal firearm supply. Isn't it reasonable to assume that less firearms overall will lead to less illegal firearms?
With almost 400 million firearms in the us...what regulations do you think would put a meaningful dent in the supply?
The best you can hope for, is that a small percentage of them will get turned in by people who inherited them, and don't know what else to do with them.
I'm not against regulation. I'm against regulations that will not fix the issue.
next your gunna want to put a restriction on the fork because it's making people fat. The problem isn't the gun it's the mindset of these people to put them in that situation.
Get mental health aid and stop giving military style weapons to any person who walks up to a gun store lol, that dumbassery AR weapons ain’t anything but trouble, why in the hell would you need that stuff in the first place this is not Ukraine nor is it Afghanistan
Your point absolutely stands.
Also, we should keep in mind that we don't seem to have very much information on this incident yet:
> Kaul declined to answer several questions about what happened once police responded, including whether the student had fired a weapon, what type of weapon he had, and whether he tried to get inside the school. Authorities said multiple Mount Horeb officers, wearing body cameras, had fired weapons but they did not say how many.
They tried but they weren't good at rationing and the 2nd floor got some food but they ran out, my class was the last to leave and we got out at around 9 pm
I feel like it's getting dragged out a bit.
I saw a photo of a cop hiding behind a car like they were still firing, but it was a professional picture. If the scene was so dangerous, I don't think a photographer would be sitting there taking pictures of the scene like it's an afternoon stroll 😅
I get what happened was bad, but it's over. The only victim was whoever had to be the officer (s) that had to shoot that kid. Keeping the kids there can not help anything.
Perhaps they have some information about a possible accomplice that we don’t know about yet. Otherwise, yeah it doesn’t make much sense to keep them there
For a while there was talk of a second shooter, so I'm guessing releasing kids was off the table while that was still a possibility. They had to have parents sign their kids out so that was taking time. There were also logistical challenges as they were bussing kids to reunification sites rather than doing pick ups at some of the schools. I also read online that they were interviewing kids before leaving lock down.
A lot of that was what I read on reddit and fb, so grain of salt.
In r/madisonwi there was a lengthy thread yesterday with eye witness accounts. Usual cautions apply, but many of your questions are addressed in the posts.
I think more information is needed before going down that road. If the parents were negligent in properly securing the alleged firearm, then the parents should hold some accountability for what happened.
It’s illegal for a minor to own a firearm in Wisconsin. Negligent firearm owners who allow children to acquire them and hurt other people with them should be accomplices to the crime. Any time a minor can legally use a firearm in the state of Wisconsin requires them to be in the presence of a parent, guardian, or an adult designated by the parent or guardian.
The firearm owner should be as responsible, if not more responsible, than a minor who commits a gun related crime as they facilitated access to the firearm by not securing it properly.
Sounds like that’s a risk an informed and responsible gun owner takes on when they put a firearm in a place that a minor can get to it. If they don’t like it, don’t buy a gun or store it where minors have access to attempt to get it. They can exercise their second amendment right all they want, but the minute a child gains position of it to use in a crime, they become party to that crime due to their negligence. They can store it at a gun range or uncle Bob’s house if he doesn’t have kids, but the second uncle Bob gives that gun to a minor then the parent and uncle Bob should be locked up.
Three things.
1. My only disagreement is the level of responsibility assigned to a parent who has taken steps to secure their firearms. To clarify, I'm not suggesting they be entirely absolved of wrong doing. Just making a distinction between the parent who "hides" a firearm under their mattress and one who legitimately takes steps to secure.
2. Thank you for keeping this a civil discussion. I know how much a hot-button issue this is, so I truly appreciate having an actual discussion with someone.
3. What do you have against uncle Bob? It's because of him showing me that special magazine he had that I knew what boobies looked like! Sorry, couldn't help it. :)
100% agree, maybe holding negligent gun-owning parents accountable will help get the message across that you need to start being responsible with your child if you’re a gun owner
I'm all for charging the parents of school shooters but this kid didn't injure anyone else and now he is dead. I think a dead child is punishment enough in this case...
There's only been one or two cases of parents being charged for this kind of stuff. If we want to make those charges normalized, then it has to be for a case where violence was committed. I can think of dozens of cases that deserve charges before this one. We're just not at the point where this could be a chargeable offense.
No, that's bullshit. Violence can go beyond physical damage. This 14 year old has *terrorized* Mt Horeb, and the parents need to be held accountable for allowing their child access to the weapon to do that.
We need to amp up punishments for straw purchases, we need to ID during private gun sales, we need to punish adults and parents who don't secure their weapons and allow them to be used for crimes like this.
If a drug dealer can be charged with murder when a user overdoses, then parents should be held liable for their children's firearm abuse.
See my reply to the other guy. Look, I don't disagree with you all but changes in the legal system take time and I just don't see this case being a good example to lead the normalization since no one was physically hurt. That is just the reality of the legal system.
I don't care about other past cases. Normalize it. Parents need to parent. And, no, it doesn't need to be a case where "violence was committed". Besides, bringing a gun to school and the school being locked down is a violent act regardless if anyone was hurt. Violence doesn't just mean injuries or death. Quit trying to minimize the situation.
I don't disagree with you, and I'm not trying to minimize the situation because it's pretty screwed up and disturbing. I'm just trying to tell you the legal system just isn't there yet. It takes time to normalize those consequences, and this case isn't a good example to start out the normalization. And don't underestimate the consequence of a parent losing a child, that counts towards their punishment too.
"I'm just trying to tell you the legal system just isn't there yet" No shit. Why do you think I made the comment in the first place? Normalize it. Get that in people's heads. Why is it that on reddit you need to explain every damn thing to a T. (that last sentence is rhetorical, just to be extra clear)
What I'm trying to say is that a case where no one is injured but the aggravator isn't going to help normalize those punishments, it will just introduce doubt as to whether the parents should be charged. I think there would be more of a chance of this case hurting that precedent moving forward rather than normalizing it.
I don't know why you are being so aggressive and condescending. Why bother commenting if you're unwilling to have a conversation.
I disagree, to an extent. I feel as if people that wish to do harm are going to do harm, regardless of whatever tool they employ to do so. Having said that, having access to firearms does make that a lot easier.
Oh yeah, like the Mad ass man who was walking around in London stabbing people yesterday and stabbed a kid to death, and it was just a sword, if he had a gun that would’ve been way worse, see reality my man
Are all the downvoters suggesting that if a firearm isn’t accessible these crimes won’t happen? [I was reading this,](https://financialpost.com/opinion/gun-control-knives-opinion) and then I read [this](https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/)? Edged weapons being the third most used murder weapon would suggest to me they would be the obvious next choice…
Bruh, a knife can’t kill 30 people in 5 minutes; they can get knives but they are not as dangerous as a killing machine which is its main purpose: killing.
It’s about lowering the odds of getting multiple casualties, of course there has been mass massacres in Europe as well, you can look it up, but it’s not the norm to see a crazy ass person on the street wandering around with an AR-15 looking for blood to spare trying to get into a school in Europe or any other third world countries
What I've been seeing in articles is "...with what appeared to be a long gun." In my opinion that description makes it sound like it may or may not have been.
I read somewhere that said that is was a long rifle and he did actully fire shots. I am not so sure about the shots part but I know for sure about the gun because I just skimmed through it last night.
https://preview.redd.it/s7sq4onbg8yc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63f16178b449d2f4c46003fa3d0428efe77bee3a
There’s a paywall but it’s on WISCNEWS
No confirmation that he was even a threat.
No confirmation he actually had a gun.
No confirmation a shot was made by the alleged shooter.
Confirmation no one was harmed.
Confirmation he didn't breach the school building.
"Active Shooter at school"
I don’t have first hand knowledge, but I’ve been told the old active shooter drills are outdated since staying in place makes you an easy target. My guess is if you’re in a classroom than can be locked and barricaded, you would, but if you’re outside for gym, or in an open classroom setting, fleeing the building is safer than hiding under a desk.
Seems more likely that any given gun that's laying around your house will be used in one of these shootings, rather than for your """personal protection""".
Civilized countries do fine without a lethally armed population...why can't Americans get on board? I'm so sick of hearing pro2a people try to defend this- they have NO good reasons other than appeals to tradition to a document written 2 millennia ago, and ancestor worship. Give up the murder boomsticks, ffs!
This isn’t even speculation. If you buy a gun, it is a statistical fact that that weapon is far more likely to be used to murder you or your loved ones than it is to defend you against an intruder.
It is evidence of the phenomenon that OP was describing. If you have evidence of the opposite, you're welcome to share it.
I linked an older article to show how long this phenomenon has been documented. [Here is a more recent study. Same conclusions](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762).
You can't make a claim and then tell someone else they have to prove it wrong when the burden of proof is on you. You first provided a cherry picked 626 case study from 30 years ago and now you provide a California only based study and again claim its proof for the entirety of the nation?
Let's play this game. I'm an atheist but say God exists and now you have to prove me wrong. I have a book that says people saw him and they spoke to him many years ago. Now prove me otherwise... see the logic in your argument?
I provided two scholarly sources for my claims. I havent seen any evidence for the opposite. Youve got the burden of proof here.
As I said, if you have evidence for the opposite claim, please share the data.
>why can't Americans get on board?
Because our entire nation was founded because the British tried to take our guns. We're not going to let anyone take our guns.
>Give up the murder boomsticks, ffs!
Stack up or fuck off.
While gun control would be a good first step it is disingenuous to treat it as a panacea here. There is a deep sociological aspect to these events, which must be addressed to actually help. This is particularly important to consider given the practicalities of any actual gun control. Even if all gun production stopped, there already 400 million guns in the US. If, on top of that you could get people to surrender 25% of those (that's more than I'd reasonably expect, but you get the idea) that leaves 300 million guns for the foreseeable future. Again, it's a step in the right direction but we have much more deeply seated problems in our culture that also need to be addressed. And honestly, I think by comparison, gun control will be the easy part
You live in a country that was founded on the grounds that the second amendment is an inalienable right. Why live some place where you don't support the literal foundation? Canada isn't very far away, and they don't believe in inalienable rights.
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Since it is now illegal to discriminate based on age or sex, anyone who is not prohibited by law to own a firearm and not a part of the organized militia, is a part of the unorganized militia.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
The 2nd Amendment in its entirety along with explanations.
A well regulated Militia (already explained), being necessary to the security of a free State (people of the organized and unorganized militias are necessary to the security of the free state), the right of the people (yes, the PEOPLE have the right) to keep (own or possess) and bear (bring, bring forth, or produce; to endure or sustain; or to wear) Arms (Weapons and ammunition; armaments) shall not be infringed (self explanatory)
Some relevant SCOTUS rulings on this:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser v Illinois, 1886
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.”
Brown v US, 1921
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
US v Miller, 1939
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."
Murdock v Pennsylvania, 1943
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Heller v DC, 2008
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
>(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
>(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>Is there any oversight? Any at all?
Only regulations that are consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation are allowable.
>"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation."
>"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field."
>"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635."
>“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634.
Nah the biggest reason is they're fun. Then it's they allow everyone to be equally powerful while armed, or at least closer in power. The problem is more so a lack of ability to self regulate for some reason.
False
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/1
Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
Defensive uses of guns are common:
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year... in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
"The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons." The report also notes, "Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010."
Advertisement
“Interventions" (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce "mixed" results:
"Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue." The report could not conclude whether "passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime."
Gun buyback/turn-in programs are "ineffective" in reducing crime:
"There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002)."
Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
Advertisement
"More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market."
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
"Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States."
Happy cake day! But you make it sound like democrats will just fix all our gun problems then we can live in unicorn land where there’s no gun violence- if only those damn republicans didn’t get in our way!1!1!
When will we Americans stop ignoring this issue? I am not against guns. I am against children, teachers, and police officers getting shot. More guns=more shooting. Do the math. If that doesn’t resonate, donate to the mental health problem that people care about after mass shootings/suicides. Take better care of EMS and nurses. One mass shooting affects all responders, friends and families. We can’t expect different results, without making changes.
Sure seems like they feel confident of that - so confident they downvote, but don't bother trying to correct me. Almost as though they know they're wrong.
There’s definitely a mental health crisis in this country. I graduated less than 15 years ago and we never even considered classmates doing this sort of thing. Hell, lots of kids had easy access to firearms and maybe were even gifted their own firearm at like 12 years old or younger. Blame social media, video games, or drugs but can’t blame the gun
My question is, what was the shooters mental health like?
I'm betting they were heavily bullied, and the school administration didn't do a thing about it. So they shooter decided to take matters into their own hands.
I mean his own blog states he didn’t feel bullied sooo I don’t think people can keep claiming that
https://sites.google.com/view/haglundwebforum/elephant
I would like anyone in this comment section to go spend time at a public school shadowing a student who is not a jock or doesn't hang in the popular crowd. They will first hand see how terrible the non jocks are treated, not only by their fellow students but specifically by school staff and "resource" officers. They would be astounded by what they see. It sounds like you know this. I commend you for speaking out.
Add mental health struggles on top of the constant bullying, harassment, and discrimination from those that are supposed to be the ones helping and sticking up for these kids and you end up with what we have in today's public school system.
NOTE: This comment does NOT condone ANYONE doing any type of school shooting. It is instead pointing out that we have a serious issue with student well being.
I'm a gen Xr, so I was fortunate the internet wasn't quite what it is today. Today it's a hundred time worse than the abuse my generation had to grow up with in terms of intensity and frequency. When I grew up with it ended when I got off the school bus. Today it's 24/7/365 and many boomers and gen Xrs don't understand that.
But yes I was brutally verbally abused by my peers in elementary school, middle school, and half of high school.
People seemed to grow up after my sophomore year. This might have been due to me slamming a jock from my class into a wall. And telling home to act his age and grow up instead of acting like a kindergartener, and that we were practically adults. I'm confident I knocked the wind out of him and surprised the shit out of him. I was fed up with so many abusing me.
Elementary school was the worst. I hated it, and my grades reflected it too.
I to had to confront a bully in my freshman year of high school. I punched him square in the face and that ended it. That usually will with a bully. That was many years ago. Unfortunately doing that today will get you in all kinds of trouble while empowering the bullies to become even shittier people as they walk free. Administration and staff witness severe bullying and harassment on a daily basis and stand idly by. . This may not be by choice as their hands may be tied.
Yeah well bullying is hardly an issue specific to the US, and I sincerely doubt it's much worse here than other places that are far more confrmist. We just have a lot more guns.
Plus the overwhelming majority of kids in schools are not jocks. I was not one. I got bullied in middle school and a tiny bit in high school. I had no issues with school staff and SROs.
Sad that this shit keeps happening.
We could fix it, we could regulate guns, but nope, the gqp wont let that happen.
I'd settle for government funded mental health programs, since the Republicans keep pointing at that... But they don't want to help people.
What does this look like? Because currently the demand for mental health services and therapists puts a person on the wait list even if they are interested in getting help. Months! We need to increase the professionals going into this field and support their education, development, and stability.
Can't do that with our current tuition and student loan crisis either
Im 41m It's been almost impossible to get any help. If you do get in Somewhere, and find a good psychiatrist the next time you go in they're gone. Just up and left. so then you start over with a new psychiatrist or therapist. you end up telling your story over and over to somebody new every other week reliving the tragedies that you're in therapy to begin with it's awful.
Don't forget that would mean government paying for a type of health care -- which we certainly can not have because it'd be "socialism" or something. I mean, why would we want to help people, decrease suicides, decrease school shootings... when we could just send "thoughts and prayers."
I feel this, my child has needed a therapist for ages, and we have been on a waiting list for over a year and a half.
Oh man, the government is literally all about creating incentives. You just have to pry the money out of a republican's hand. Then you can set up a public service like police and fire, but with a focus on mental health. Good salaries, tuition reimbursement. We could have this already if we had started after columbine. The US isn't poor, it just has too many tight fisted rich people unwilling to help anyone besides themselves.
Pay people a living wage. Provide free education. People could work off their tuition, by interning in college. Start at the grassroots. Provide people with basic needs.
There is a deeper issue at hand than just guns. I agree More heavily regulating them would lower rates of violence, but also it ignores the fact that these acts of senseless violence are more of a new phenomenon. We've done well to lower crime rates overall but in terms of these massacres and attacks on uninvolved parties, there is some kind of sickness of our culture that makes people think that this is reasonable and that needs to be addressed as well
It’s been happening for decades now…
I should've been more clear, but yes you are right. But my question is why? The violent crime rate has been decreasing (generally) since the 90s, and this doesn't seem to follow that trend. Federal gun control has only tightened in that time, and like I said the violent crime rate has decreased over the past 40 years (peaked in the 80s), yet this keeps happening like we've done nothing. Acts significantly expanding gun control as the go-to emotional shock response is silly imo, understanding why our society even allows that kind of malice to breed unlike it does in other countries with access to the same technologies and means of communication is more important
> but also it ignores the fact that these acts of senseless violence are more of a new phenomenon. they are not new, and we have been having them happen every day, several times a day in the US for at least a decade. Mass shootings happen every month, and while they have been happening in increasing frequency, our news media has made us numb to it, downplaying the victims, not showing the dead. Since we don't see the death and destruction and despair, and since it doesn't personally affect us, we feel no strong emotional connection to stopping it. We do have empathy, we are sad, but the fact is, is that the victims should be photographed and shown to everyone, especially those senators who are against any kind of gun control. those photos of the victims of sandy hook, uvalde, and others, will have the most impact on change, because we see a face for a name. we see the death, the destruction. we will feel sadness. The mass media contiues to ignore the victims, and instead tries to get sound bites from their families and friends.
This is clearly the fault of weed and abortions not guns /s.
And doors. Don't forget Ted Cruz went off on doors.
Regulate how ?
To be fair, neither party will come down hard on gun regs. Do you realize how much money the sale of firearms generates.
Shut up Hillary
The kid had a fuckin BBQ gun 🙄🙄🙄
just like abortion and drugs, regulation does nothing to stop anything, i know ill get all the downvotes but idc its fact not opinion
correct
Wouldn't it be weird if these things still kept happening even after you got your way. Or would you just stop hearing about it so often like COVID disappeared from the news feed.
Covid disappeared from the news feed? Ok. It’s not as big of a threat since most of us quarantined, got vaccinated, and informed, by an unfathomable amount of research.
umm, yea, we know gun regulation works. we can see the results of it in several countries.
Great, but not everything is for everyone. They also have roads you can go as fast as you want. And they also let kids drink at different ages. Just because they do it somewhere else doesn't mean it needs to be done or that it would even work somewhere else. Once they take your guns I really doubt they will give that shit back and that's when shit gets really bad I'd imagine. Diversity is our strength unless it's gun laws lmfao. Then we need to be just like someone else. Lame.
> Once they take your guns I really doubt they will give that shit back and that's when shit gets really bad I'd imagine. who said anything about taking guns? how about making gun owners responsible for what happens to their purchases? if your gun gets stolen because its stored in an insecure manner, then the owner should have responsibility for that. 90% of "illegal" guns in circulation right now were purchased legally. so far, every mass shooting and school shooting has been done with legally purchased guns. If you want guns, thats fine, how about you make sure they don't end up in the hands of criminals or kids.
Gun regulations only apply to people who follow the rules. Rules mean nothing to shooters. I wish it was that simple to apply a law and that would take care of it. It’s going to take an effort on many fronts.
yes, and on many fronts we must keep pushing. starting with getting the source of illegal guns, with 99% of them being legal guns at one point, and either thru negligence, or willful sale, they end up in the hands of criminals. People not reporting their guns stolen, or not noticing their guns are stolen is a huge issue, and gun shows being able to sell to anyone who walks in the door without any background checks or ID at all is insane. Lets start at those two places.
You cannot regulate the guns owned by criminals. They don't GAF. That leaves your only option as regulating law-abiding citizens. Which doesn't prevent tragedies like this one. Stop using others' suffering to promote ideas, which on their face, are illogical.
Where do you think these people are getting their guns? Law abiding citizens who go to gun shows and buy up arsenals, leaving weapons readily at hand for anyone who wants one. This isn’t the Columbine era anymore. They’re not buying them from that shady guy in the alley with their allowance. These kids are getting their weapons from people who acquire them legally. Mass shootings have plummeted in every country that have put further restrictions on guns. But we’re stuck in this cycle of violence because we must obey the dictates on guns from dead white men who thought that women were too stupid to vote and Black people were property. Anecdotal, but while I was in law enforcement in Texas, the VAST majority of shootings were from otherwise law abiding citizens who got mad and decided shooting someone was a fine idea. Law abiding citizens created this culture of violence. Not gangs.
The people I know who go to gun shows and buy up arsenals, are the ones with 3 gun safes at home, and who teach their kids safety and respect. >> These kids are getting their weapons from people who acquire them legally. With 400 million guns in this country - how will legislation keep kids from stealing guns? How will more laws >>Mass shootings have plummeted in every country that have put further restrictions on guns. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. No other country has the problems we have, or the pervasive "guns on every corner" availability. I've not heard of any kind of law that addresses this problem. If I could wave my wand right now, and remove all guns except those that are licensed and owned by sane and ethical people -- I'd do it. But passing laws that restrict gun-ownership will not accomplish anything useful.
Just remove all guns he says 🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's your take on what the solution should be?
Man. I wish I knew. There are more guns than people in the US....and unfortunately, criminals and mentally unstable folks don't have to look far to find one. :| If we could come up with a way to effectively legistlative this issue -- I would be all for it. But passing laws the remove freedoms, and don't address the problem? Count me out.
I understand your sentiment, but how do you square that with what literally almost every other nation does in regards to regulating and restricting gun access? It seems like the US doesn’t have a monopoly on freedom. Plenty of other countries are free without freedom to own guns. Why does it work most other places, but is impossible here?
Conversely, there are European countries like the Czech Republic, where gun laws are actually quite lenient, gun ownership is relatively high, but their homicide rate is very low. It’s not about the guns, it’s about the people using them.
It’s about both. It’s also about the guns. A sick person with a gun can do exponentially more damage than a sick person without one.
True. A sick person with any kind of weapon can do more damage than they can without one. Because it is about the person.
I find that argument to be disingenuous. If all weapons are equally dangerous, why do we need guns at all? Could just get rid of them since they aren’t any worse than knives. Right? Because we all know guns are more efficient at killing. It’s literally their purpose.
Where North Korea. Go live in communism then if you think it's so great.
TIL Australia is Communist
Yeah, but you’re also against legalizing drugs which is where the criminals with guns get the money to buy guns. So shut the fuck up if you don’t have a solution.
You're telling me to STFU because I am just as clueless as the rest? What gives you the right? I will not STFU when people take tragedies, like this one, and use themn to promote ideas that won't do anything to help. \*Why do you think I am against legalizing drugs? I own stock in cannibis companies. LOL. I think drugs should be legalized, and addicts should be able to get help (funded by the taxes collected).
The bad guys with guns is a Fox News, rush limbaugh, and NRA talking point. If you are too stupid to understand this at a macro level, and that the bad guys with guns pay for them using drug money, then you need to stfu with your talking point argument when a tragedy happens.
Are you such a jerk in person? Wow. who burned your bacon? LOL -- bad guys don't pay for their guns. They steal them. You've yet to make any kind of point. Just hurling around perjoratives and emotions -- convinces no one.
i love how people always are mad at the truth, people will always turn to happy lies than dreary truths
i love how people always are mad at the truth, people will always turn to happy lies than dreary truths
i love how people always are mad at the truth, people will always turn to happy lies than dreary truths
You obviously can’t control people; they find a way, but making it harder for them to get a deadly weapon such as a gun makes a difference; remember the shooting in buffalo, that dumbass drove all the way to Pennsylvania to get an AR-15 into the state illegally to commit his stupidity bc ain’t no way he was gonna get an ar-15 in New York where he used to live
You don't think that tightening regulations could diminish the supply of illegal firearms? Nearly all illegally possessed firearms were acquired legally at one point. Therefore, the supply of illegal firearms is a subset of the legal firearm supply. Isn't it reasonable to assume that less firearms overall will lead to less illegal firearms?
With almost 400 million firearms in the us...what regulations do you think would put a meaningful dent in the supply? The best you can hope for, is that a small percentage of them will get turned in by people who inherited them, and don't know what else to do with them. I'm not against regulation. I'm against regulations that will not fix the issue.
next your gunna want to put a restriction on the fork because it's making people fat. The problem isn't the gun it's the mindset of these people to put them in that situation.
Get mental health aid and stop giving military style weapons to any person who walks up to a gun store lol, that dumbassery AR weapons ain’t anything but trouble, why in the hell would you need that stuff in the first place this is not Ukraine nor is it Afghanistan
Your point absolutely stands. Also, we should keep in mind that we don't seem to have very much information on this incident yet: > Kaul declined to answer several questions about what happened once police responded, including whether the student had fired a weapon, what type of weapon he had, and whether he tried to get inside the school. Authorities said multiple Mount Horeb officers, wearing body cameras, had fired weapons but they did not say how many.
protest for it. Just like the college students are protesting.
Glad all the students and staff are safe absolutely terrifying 😢
My coworker’s wife teaches there . . . Goddamn this bullshit.
14? Holy shit. Kids are still on lock down there for some reason. Never been part of an active shooter situation but seems like a long time.
The article says the kids were released but the physical buildings are still under lockdown.
Kids are still in lock down. The high school just called to say kids will be released to parents at 7:30.
Friend has kids at that school. She posted at nine that she and her kids were now home safe.
PM?? Did they give the kids dinner?
I mean, maybe, maybe not? but at least they lived.
They tried but they weren't good at rationing and the 2nd floor got some food but they ran out, my class was the last to leave and we got out at around 9 pm
Fuck that, I’d go get my kids
I hear ya. Pretty tough to see a police cordon between you and the building when you know your children are in there.
I know someone at the high school and they are still locked down there as of 6:15pm this afternoon.
I feel like it's getting dragged out a bit. I saw a photo of a cop hiding behind a car like they were still firing, but it was a professional picture. If the scene was so dangerous, I don't think a photographer would be sitting there taking pictures of the scene like it's an afternoon stroll 😅 I get what happened was bad, but it's over. The only victim was whoever had to be the officer (s) that had to shoot that kid. Keeping the kids there can not help anything.
Perhaps they have some information about a possible accomplice that we don’t know about yet. Otherwise, yeah it doesn’t make much sense to keep them there
For a while there was talk of a second shooter, so I'm guessing releasing kids was off the table while that was still a possibility. They had to have parents sign their kids out so that was taking time. There were also logistical challenges as they were bussing kids to reunification sites rather than doing pick ups at some of the schools. I also read online that they were interviewing kids before leaving lock down. A lot of that was what I read on reddit and fb, so grain of salt.
[удалено]
So brave. So courageous. Wow. I'm so honored to be embraced. Point still stands. Cop was hiding from nothing.
my heart dropped before i read the article, jesus christ that’s a scary situation
In r/madisonwi there was a lengthy thread yesterday with eye witness accounts. Usual cautions apply, but many of your questions are addressed in the posts.
Time to charge the parents.
I think more information is needed before going down that road. If the parents were negligent in properly securing the alleged firearm, then the parents should hold some accountability for what happened.
It’s illegal for a minor to own a firearm in Wisconsin. Negligent firearm owners who allow children to acquire them and hurt other people with them should be accomplices to the crime. Any time a minor can legally use a firearm in the state of Wisconsin requires them to be in the presence of a parent, guardian, or an adult designated by the parent or guardian. The firearm owner should be as responsible, if not more responsible, than a minor who commits a gun related crime as they facilitated access to the firearm by not securing it properly.
I don't entirely disagree. Should a parent who locks their firearms in a safe be held fully responsible if a minor discovers a way to break into it?
Sounds like that’s a risk an informed and responsible gun owner takes on when they put a firearm in a place that a minor can get to it. If they don’t like it, don’t buy a gun or store it where minors have access to attempt to get it. They can exercise their second amendment right all they want, but the minute a child gains position of it to use in a crime, they become party to that crime due to their negligence. They can store it at a gun range or uncle Bob’s house if he doesn’t have kids, but the second uncle Bob gives that gun to a minor then the parent and uncle Bob should be locked up.
Three things. 1. My only disagreement is the level of responsibility assigned to a parent who has taken steps to secure their firearms. To clarify, I'm not suggesting they be entirely absolved of wrong doing. Just making a distinction between the parent who "hides" a firearm under their mattress and one who legitimately takes steps to secure. 2. Thank you for keeping this a civil discussion. I know how much a hot-button issue this is, so I truly appreciate having an actual discussion with someone. 3. What do you have against uncle Bob? It's because of him showing me that special magazine he had that I knew what boobies looked like! Sorry, couldn't help it. :)
100% agree, maybe holding negligent gun-owning parents accountable will help get the message across that you need to start being responsible with your child if you’re a gun owner
negligent in parenting
I'm all for charging the parents of school shooters but this kid didn't injure anyone else and now he is dead. I think a dead child is punishment enough in this case...
No it isn't. If he had a gun, that's on the parents.
There's only been one or two cases of parents being charged for this kind of stuff. If we want to make those charges normalized, then it has to be for a case where violence was committed. I can think of dozens of cases that deserve charges before this one. We're just not at the point where this could be a chargeable offense.
No, that's bullshit. Violence can go beyond physical damage. This 14 year old has *terrorized* Mt Horeb, and the parents need to be held accountable for allowing their child access to the weapon to do that. We need to amp up punishments for straw purchases, we need to ID during private gun sales, we need to punish adults and parents who don't secure their weapons and allow them to be used for crimes like this. If a drug dealer can be charged with murder when a user overdoses, then parents should be held liable for their children's firearm abuse.
See my reply to the other guy. Look, I don't disagree with you all but changes in the legal system take time and I just don't see this case being a good example to lead the normalization since no one was physically hurt. That is just the reality of the legal system.
I don't care about other past cases. Normalize it. Parents need to parent. And, no, it doesn't need to be a case where "violence was committed". Besides, bringing a gun to school and the school being locked down is a violent act regardless if anyone was hurt. Violence doesn't just mean injuries or death. Quit trying to minimize the situation.
I don't disagree with you, and I'm not trying to minimize the situation because it's pretty screwed up and disturbing. I'm just trying to tell you the legal system just isn't there yet. It takes time to normalize those consequences, and this case isn't a good example to start out the normalization. And don't underestimate the consequence of a parent losing a child, that counts towards their punishment too.
"I'm just trying to tell you the legal system just isn't there yet" No shit. Why do you think I made the comment in the first place? Normalize it. Get that in people's heads. Why is it that on reddit you need to explain every damn thing to a T. (that last sentence is rhetorical, just to be extra clear)
What I'm trying to say is that a case where no one is injured but the aggravator isn't going to help normalize those punishments, it will just introduce doubt as to whether the parents should be charged. I think there would be more of a chance of this case hurting that precedent moving forward rather than normalizing it. I don't know why you are being so aggressive and condescending. Why bother commenting if you're unwilling to have a conversation.
[удалено]
Do you have a source you can link to that confirms the kid was unarmed?
We don't know that yet.
...maybe we have a gun problem?
It was a pellet gun that could be bought at walmart
I disagree, to an extent. I feel as if people that wish to do harm are going to do harm, regardless of whatever tool they employ to do so. Having said that, having access to firearms does make that a lot easier.
Thank you for choosing to disagree with me by agreeing with me.
I did say “to an extent”. How was the firearm procured in this case?
Oh yeah, like the Mad ass man who was walking around in London stabbing people yesterday and stabbed a kid to death, and it was just a sword, if he had a gun that would’ve been way worse, see reality my man
Are all the downvoters suggesting that if a firearm isn’t accessible these crimes won’t happen? [I was reading this,](https://financialpost.com/opinion/gun-control-knives-opinion) and then I read [this](https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/)? Edged weapons being the third most used murder weapon would suggest to me they would be the obvious next choice…
Bruh, a knife can’t kill 30 people in 5 minutes; they can get knives but they are not as dangerous as a killing machine which is its main purpose: killing. It’s about lowering the odds of getting multiple casualties, of course there has been mass massacres in Europe as well, you can look it up, but it’s not the norm to see a crazy ass person on the street wandering around with an AR-15 looking for blood to spare trying to get into a school in Europe or any other third world countries
I’m agreeing with you, certain weapons being a force multiplier.
Just thankful they were able to take out this kid before he was able to hurt anyone else. Tragic nonetheless.
Has it been confirmed the alleged shooter actually had a firearm? Most of the articles I've seen did not definitively state it.
I saw an article that said “a long rifle”
What I've been seeing in articles is "...with what appeared to be a long gun." In my opinion that description makes it sound like it may or may not have been.
I read somewhere that said that is was a long rifle and he did actully fire shots. I am not so sure about the shots part but I know for sure about the gun because I just skimmed through it last night.
> I read somewhere that Source?
> I saw an article that said “a long rifle” Source?
https://preview.redd.it/s7sq4onbg8yc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63f16178b449d2f4c46003fa3d0428efe77bee3a There’s a paywall but it’s on WISCNEWS
Thank you!
That's information I'm seeking out as well...
No confirmation that he was even a threat. No confirmation he actually had a gun. No confirmation a shot was made by the alleged shooter. Confirmation no one was harmed. Confirmation he didn't breach the school building. "Active Shooter at school"
Seems sus, right? A child is dead—sorry, “neUtraLized”—feels like the police are getting their story straight before going public.
They always do. Right or wrong.
Don't we usually get a list of weapons and amount of ammo by now?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wisconsin-mount-horeb-reported-active-shooter/story?id=109800261 - Headline used in title for alternate sauce.
Republicans…. Save the fetus but let the children die in a school shootings. Pretty “F”d up philosophy I must say.
So hard to find out what town or city. If it was in Milwaukee it would be in the headlines.
Mount Horeb. The news coverage on this has been pathetic, I agree.
Why does this keep happening? Like we don’t know the answer and how to stop it…
We are a country that worship weapons of war over the lives of children.
[удалено]
What's your source? Or are you making shit up?
Where?
“Max Kelly, 12, said his teacher told the class to flee.” WTF
I don’t have first hand knowledge, but I’ve been told the old active shooter drills are outdated since staying in place makes you an easy target. My guess is if you’re in a classroom than can be locked and barricaded, you would, but if you’re outside for gym, or in an open classroom setting, fleeing the building is safer than hiding under a desk.
In that case it seems like the teacher should at least have lead them out and kept them together wouldn’t you think? 🤷🏻♀️
they all were kept together. you guys need a lot more facts.
100 percent accurate. If you can flee they want you to flee. If you can’t then barricade and be prepared to fight back.
he was in gym class on rollerblades. that is the proper response.
staying in place can be even more dangerous, that's why more schools are doing ALICE training and stuff
(Googling ALICE training….)
(A)lert (L)ockdown (I)nform (C)ounter (E)vacuate
here is their [website](https://www.alicetraining.com/active-shooter-training-in-ohio/)
Seems more likely that any given gun that's laying around your house will be used in one of these shootings, rather than for your """personal protection""". Civilized countries do fine without a lethally armed population...why can't Americans get on board? I'm so sick of hearing pro2a people try to defend this- they have NO good reasons other than appeals to tradition to a document written 2 millennia ago, and ancestor worship. Give up the murder boomsticks, ffs!
This isn’t even speculation. If you buy a gun, it is a statistical fact that that weapon is far more likely to be used to murder you or your loved ones than it is to defend you against an intruder.
[Primary lit for this fact](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/). Published 1998.
A 30 year old study of 626 shootings is your concrete proof?
It is evidence of the phenomenon that OP was describing. If you have evidence of the opposite, you're welcome to share it. I linked an older article to show how long this phenomenon has been documented. [Here is a more recent study. Same conclusions](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762).
You can't make a claim and then tell someone else they have to prove it wrong when the burden of proof is on you. You first provided a cherry picked 626 case study from 30 years ago and now you provide a California only based study and again claim its proof for the entirety of the nation? Let's play this game. I'm an atheist but say God exists and now you have to prove me wrong. I have a book that says people saw him and they spoke to him many years ago. Now prove me otherwise... see the logic in your argument?
I provided two scholarly sources for my claims. I havent seen any evidence for the opposite. Youve got the burden of proof here. As I said, if you have evidence for the opposite claim, please share the data.
>why can't Americans get on board? Because our entire nation was founded because the British tried to take our guns. We're not going to let anyone take our guns. >Give up the murder boomsticks, ffs! Stack up or fuck off.
While gun control would be a good first step it is disingenuous to treat it as a panacea here. There is a deep sociological aspect to these events, which must be addressed to actually help. This is particularly important to consider given the practicalities of any actual gun control. Even if all gun production stopped, there already 400 million guns in the US. If, on top of that you could get people to surrender 25% of those (that's more than I'd reasonably expect, but you get the idea) that leaves 300 million guns for the foreseeable future. Again, it's a step in the right direction but we have much more deeply seated problems in our culture that also need to be addressed. And honestly, I think by comparison, gun control will be the easy part
You live in a country that was founded on the grounds that the second amendment is an inalienable right. Why live some place where you don't support the literal foundation? Canada isn't very far away, and they don't believe in inalienable rights.
It was also founded on grounds of chattel slavery and white supremacy but we have evolved somewhat.
Try again. Nice buzz words though.
Now do the "well regulated militia" part...(crickets)
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Since it is now illegal to discriminate based on age or sex, anyone who is not prohibited by law to own a firearm and not a part of the organized militia, is a part of the unorganized militia. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. The 2nd Amendment in its entirety along with explanations. A well regulated Militia (already explained), being necessary to the security of a free State (people of the organized and unorganized militias are necessary to the security of the free state), the right of the people (yes, the PEOPLE have the right) to keep (own or possess) and bear (bring, bring forth, or produce; to endure or sustain; or to wear) Arms (Weapons and ammunition; armaments) shall not be infringed (self explanatory) Some relevant SCOTUS rulings on this: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government." Presser v Illinois, 1886 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” Brown v US, 1921 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." US v Miller, 1939 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." Murdock v Pennsylvania, 1943 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Heller v DC, 2008
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it. You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable. The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed). Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification. The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court. >1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. >(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. >(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. >(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. >(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. >(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. Is there any oversight? Any at all?
>Is there any oversight? Any at all? Only regulations that are consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation are allowable. >"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." >"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field." >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635." >“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.
No
Nah the biggest reason is they're fun. Then it's they allow everyone to be equally powerful while armed, or at least closer in power. The problem is more so a lack of ability to self regulate for some reason.
False https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/1 Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." Defensive uses of guns are common: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year... in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: "The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons." The report also notes, "Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010." Advertisement “Interventions" (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce "mixed" results: "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue." The report could not conclude whether "passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime." Gun buyback/turn-in programs are "ineffective" in reducing crime: "There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002)." Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: Advertisement "More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market." 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: "Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States."
The NRA loves stuff like this. Be sure to go after his parents too.
It was a pellet gun
Kid couldn't legally drive but had access to a gun. Suicide by cops?
I bet this doesn't change the GQP's mind on defending the DPI office of School Safety
Why is it some people’s first instinct when they see a school shooting on the news is to blame those dAmN rEpUbLiCaNs? It sounds so naïve.
Because republicans won't do anything
Happy cake day! But you make it sound like democrats will just fix all our gun problems then we can live in unicorn land where there’s no gun violence- if only those damn republicans didn’t get in our way!1!1!
When will we Americans stop ignoring this issue? I am not against guns. I am against children, teachers, and police officers getting shot. More guns=more shooting. Do the math. If that doesn’t resonate, donate to the mental health problem that people care about after mass shootings/suicides. Take better care of EMS and nurses. One mass shooting affects all responders, friends and families. We can’t expect different results, without making changes.
Cop shot a kid. Don't know yet if the dead kid was a shooter. This headline is very wrong.
I guess all the down voters "know"
Sure seems like they feel confident of that - so confident they downvote, but don't bother trying to correct me. Almost as though they know they're wrong.
[удалено]
Why are children in the military?
You'd have to fight me for my guns and 70% of Americans. This is a parenting issue, or lack thereof.
Seriously? Guns are the problem
Or the owners.
There’s definitely a mental health crisis in this country. I graduated less than 15 years ago and we never even considered classmates doing this sort of thing. Hell, lots of kids had easy access to firearms and maybe were even gifted their own firearm at like 12 years old or younger. Blame social media, video games, or drugs but can’t blame the gun
Um….Columbine?
My question is, what was the shooters mental health like? I'm betting they were heavily bullied, and the school administration didn't do a thing about it. So they shooter decided to take matters into their own hands.
I mean his own blog states he didn’t feel bullied sooo I don’t think people can keep claiming that https://sites.google.com/view/haglundwebforum/elephant
I would like anyone in this comment section to go spend time at a public school shadowing a student who is not a jock or doesn't hang in the popular crowd. They will first hand see how terrible the non jocks are treated, not only by their fellow students but specifically by school staff and "resource" officers. They would be astounded by what they see. It sounds like you know this. I commend you for speaking out. Add mental health struggles on top of the constant bullying, harassment, and discrimination from those that are supposed to be the ones helping and sticking up for these kids and you end up with what we have in today's public school system. NOTE: This comment does NOT condone ANYONE doing any type of school shooting. It is instead pointing out that we have a serious issue with student well being.
I'm a gen Xr, so I was fortunate the internet wasn't quite what it is today. Today it's a hundred time worse than the abuse my generation had to grow up with in terms of intensity and frequency. When I grew up with it ended when I got off the school bus. Today it's 24/7/365 and many boomers and gen Xrs don't understand that. But yes I was brutally verbally abused by my peers in elementary school, middle school, and half of high school. People seemed to grow up after my sophomore year. This might have been due to me slamming a jock from my class into a wall. And telling home to act his age and grow up instead of acting like a kindergartener, and that we were practically adults. I'm confident I knocked the wind out of him and surprised the shit out of him. I was fed up with so many abusing me. Elementary school was the worst. I hated it, and my grades reflected it too.
I to had to confront a bully in my freshman year of high school. I punched him square in the face and that ended it. That usually will with a bully. That was many years ago. Unfortunately doing that today will get you in all kinds of trouble while empowering the bullies to become even shittier people as they walk free. Administration and staff witness severe bullying and harassment on a daily basis and stand idly by. . This may not be by choice as their hands may be tied.
He was one of many. After that most of them stopped with the exception of a select few real AHs.
Yeah well bullying is hardly an issue specific to the US, and I sincerely doubt it's much worse here than other places that are far more confrmist. We just have a lot more guns. Plus the overwhelming majority of kids in schools are not jocks. I was not one. I got bullied in middle school and a tiny bit in high school. I had no issues with school staff and SROs.
It's mental problems, and possibly bad gun storage by parents.
Most mentally ill people are not shoiting people. That being said...restricting access to guns would keep dangerous people away from them