The Politics of School Safety

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (103 posts)
  1. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    Some 4 years ago, a man lost his child at the Parkland, Fl. school shooting.  He has spent the intervening time working on school safety, from bullying to mass shootings and has done a wonderful job at it - his compilation of suggestions is beyond just good.

    A Senator has taken his suggestion and suggest a new bill, codifying much of it into law.  Unfortunately the Democrats, in the form of Chuck Shumer, stopped the bill dead in it's tracks.  It seems Chuck is worried that it might result in more guns in schools and besides, "going to vote on gun legislation", not ways to make schools safer.

    What is wrong with that half of the building when it's only goal is to take away guns,  When, right after losing another 19 children, a comprehensive bill to increase school security in all areas won't even be discussed, let alone acted on, because it is more important to continue the battle raging for 20 years with zero lives saved it says something about the mindset of those people. 

    Someone needs to set Shumer in the middle of the next school massacre and allow him to understand what is happening in our country.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … uxbndlbing

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "comprehensive bill to increase school security in all areas won't even be discussed"


      We need to discuss this as well as being proactive about identifying pertpetrators. We need to do BOTH

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes we do.  But liberals will not allow it, preferring to stick with attempts that have failed over and over while the death toll rose and rose.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Be careful, Cred, or they'll revoke your liberal card!  You're talking heresy here.

  2. Ken Burgess profile image73
    Ken Burgessposted 2 years ago

    "Hardening schools would have done nothing to prevent this shooting. In fact, there were guards and police officers already at the school yesterday when the shooter showed up." Schumer said Wednesday. "The shooter got past all of them."

    First Schumer is a complete ass for standing against this bill.

    Second he is full of crap, there were no guards and police officers already at the school ready or willing to stop the psychopath... They waited outside the school for almost an hour as shots rang out and children screamed... Incompetence and cowardice being the problem.

    The school had no means of defending itself, no one on the premises capable of stopping the assailant.  That was the problem.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom that focuses on gun issues, found that in Santa Fe and in three other prominent shootings in 2018 — Kentucky’s Marshall County High School in January; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February; Maryland’s Great Mills High School in March — "attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards." In each case, guards failed to stop the shooter from killing.

      Last year, a group of public health scholars published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association examining 133 school shootings from 1980 to 2019. An armed guard was present in about a quarter of the incidents in the study. Those schools actually suffered death rates nearly three times higher than schools without armed guards. Similarly, a 2020 review of gun policy research by the RAND Corporation think tank found no evidence that the presence of more guns had any effect on gun violence. Criminologists at Texas State University found that unarmed staff or the shooters themselves are far more likely to bring a school shooting to an end than someone with a gun returning fire.

      RAND analysts have found that even highly trained NYPD officers only hit their intended target in 19 percent of gunfire exchanges. Winning a gunfight with a shooter only becomes more difficult when the perpetrator carries a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15, as the Uvalde suspect and many others have done. These weapons have a much longer range and are far more accurate than the kinds of pistols typically used by police and civilian concealed carriers, allowing shooters to keep responders far enough away that their own weapons will be of little use. The Uvalde gunman, for instance, managed to overpower two officers whom he encountered on his way to the elementary school.

      Addressing this problem needs to begin before a shooter arrives at a school.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        It's a little difficult to understand how a greater range would help the shooter with a rifle rather than a handgun.  Not when the maximum range possible in the school is only a few yards.

        But no, the Uvalde shooter did not "overpower two officers whom he encountered on his way to the elementary school."; there were no officers, or guards of any kind, at the school.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      While he is an ass, first reports were that the shooter was met outside by the guard.  The one that wasn't there.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image73
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        It's funny how the MSM media always seems to botch, or leave out critical information, when reporting such tragic events.

        The last thing they want to report in this matter is the fact that there was no protection for the children and no-one that challenged the murderer as he walked into the school strapped with weapons and ammo.

        After all, there was a Bill on the Senate floor which wanted to provide for protection of schools and children, and it seems no one on the "Left" wanted it to pass... politics come first, always, before facts or truth.

        Consider this when regarding this tragic event:

        - according to the 11 year old survivor, she was on the phone with 911 dispatch for nearly an hour wondering why the police weren't coming in to rescue her, only to find out later that there were 19 police officers outside with body armor, bullet proof vests, and AR 15s  who were too cowardly to try and save her and her fellow students. -

        This tragedy does not play out this way, if the Sheriff's Office already has an officer on duty inside the school.  If the faculty are well trained to contend with an active shooter, and if the police force for the community is made up of men and women trained and willing to protect and serve, the children above all others.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I don't know that I would classify 19 cops as cowards.  I understand that individual cops wanted to go in, and that the Border Patrol that finally ended it was denied the opportunity to do so.  In fact, they did so against orders.

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Neither would I call all 19 cops cowards. The public still does not know all the details, (except the gory details of the deaths). The 3-day change in press conference 'facts' is proof of that.

            The incomplete picture condemns the cops, (all of them), even for my gut reaction, but some details conflict with that first thought.

            One that is bothering me is the classroom door itself. I'm sure most of us are familiar with typical classroom doors. My experience is that they are really heavy-duty hardwoods. They make a household door look like a matchstick. Same thought for the hinges and latches. That strength is enhanced by the fact they are hung in industrial-strength steel frames.

            That's a lot of resistance for cops to try to bash through with their body force, and probably enough for a few clips of 9mm to try to shatter. Then, the kicker: the door opened outward, into the hallway. It couldn't be bashed through it had to be pried open. Again, unlike a household door, a big screwdriver wouldn't do the job.

            So, what were their options? Did maintenance have a big prybar? Did any cops have one in their car trunks? Another question is why it took an hour to find a key for the door? My perception is that the maintenance guy usually has them on a big keyring on his belt. Was that guy evacuated and it took an hour to find him?

            I don't know whether to defend any of the police actions or criticize them, en masse, until I find those answers.

            I think we will find plenty of reason to criticize the 'hour' it took to take action but maybe not so much as criticism of the cops as a whole.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              More food for thought for you - in my area high schools, and most middle schools, are built of cinder block throughout.  High school kids just do too much damage to sheetrock walls.

              But elementary schools are not.  Instead they are usually wood studs, with a few using metal studs, covered by sheetrock.  In these schools, it would be far easier, and faster, to simply go through the wall and leave the door intact.

              (In my work as an electrician, building schools was one of two "bread and butter" jobs for my employer.  We nearly always had a school being built, and often several.)

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                That wall thing is something to consider. My perception was remembrances of those cinder block walls. Stud walls would make a difference. A fist could punch a hole to shoot through. It wouldn't take much more effort to punch a hole to crawl through. Maybe we'll find out what kind of walls that school had.

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I was thinking to carefully and quietly cut the sheetrock from one side.  A razor knife would do it.  The other side, the inside of the room, would break apart instantly at the application of a body coming through.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    That might work.

                    GA

          2. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly. They did so against orders.
            When someone of higher authority than you gives you an order that is morally wrong and reprehensible, you must have the courage to go against those orders and do the right thing.

            Yes, a coward gave orders to stand down, and those who followed those orders were equally in the wrong.

            It's one thing to take a few moments to assess the situation, evaluate, observe, and then take action...it is quite another to stand around for an hour and do nothing.

            Those that finally went in were men of action and conviction, they chose to do the right thing and ignore the cowards willing to let children die.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I agree.  It is not a good thing to disobey orders because you feel they are wrong; one must also go through the process of getting the information and evaluating it before making that call.

              In this case it doesn't take an hour to do that.  A few minutes, maybe, talking to others for ideas on how to proceed, but that's it.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Here is a story about someone who took action and stopped a mass murder tragedy before it could become one.

                West Virginia woman stops shooter
                https://www.wral.com/woman-credited-wit … /20306891/

                That's all a school needs, someone trained, armed and committed to protect  on the premises.

                It doesn't matter how many police you have present, it doesn't matter how many show up, if they aren't willing to act quickly and with conviction tragedy cannot be stopped.

                But when the opposite is true, well, you don't really hear about it because the shooter is shot dead.

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I can't stop myself, you know I have to go here . . .

                  "Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” said Lieutenant Tony Hazelett. “She was lawfully carrying a firearm and stopped a threat. "

                  Almost every search result included that quote. I know this incident is probably statistically insignificant, (in the big picture), and nearly anecdotal, but it does feel good to see a real-life example as proof of a point.

                  You don't mess with those W. Virginia gals. What are the odds that, in daylight, she might be one of those uneducated deplorables?

                  *This "deplorables" thing is turning out to be a good counter to that "uneducated" jab.

                  Ga

                2. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "That's all a school needs, someone trained, armed and committed to protect  on the premises."

                  Well, Ken in this society and culture, that is what EVERYPLACE needs.

                  As for the story about the heroic woman, can lighting ever strike twice in the same place?

                  Yeah, everyone armed like in the old west, you may well get shot for just having your dog pee in someone's yard.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Again, it is the responsibility of adults to protect themselves, or not.

                    The issue here is schools and the reality is Democrats are getting in the way of protecting many schools in many states.  Florida is an example of how Republicans make efforts to protect their children, I provide some excerpts from a recent article regarding this:

                    [Florida] raised the bar considerably with putting [at least one] armed person on every campus [school], [it] created mandatory threat assessment teams, provided funding for hardening of campuses, infrastructure improvement. So there were a number of things that began in 2018 because prior to that, in Florida, we just simply were not where we needed to be.

                    I think the Tampa Bay schools are really just an example of the changes throughout the state. One of the things that I would say that is probably most consequential, most significant, is kind of an intangible, and that is a culture change within the schools in the prioritization of school safety and security.

                    The full article:
                    https://www.tampabay.com/news/community … cI011knav0

  3. Nathanville profile image90
    Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

    Bizarre logic from the view point of those outside of the USA – It seems that the NRA and Republican’s answer to gun violence is “more guns”?  Whereas logically - the answer to gun violence from the perspective of those living outside of the USA is “Less Guns”. 

    You shouldn’t have to increase school security; if you have to increase school security with more guns then there is something wrong with society.   You don’t see tight school security in countries like the UK beyond CCTV (passive security) – And you don’t get all the school massacres in the UK that you get in the USA. 

    The last time we had a school massacre was in 1996 when 15 children and 1 teacher was killed – such incidences in a country like the UK, where guns are banned, are extremely rare.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately your logic is based on the premise that killers won't kill if they can't get a gun.  An assumption that is not true but is often accepted because the alternative is to think there is something wrong with the psyche of Americans that needs looked at.

      1. Nathanville profile image90
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Not at all:  the premise is that without guns there is less killing.  The most common weapon in Britain is the knife, and consequently homicides in Britain are far lower than it is in the USA; guns are far more lethal than knives. 

        If you’re an 18 year old teenager who walks into a school classroom with a gun you can stand in the doorway, blocking the exit, and take your time to pop-off each kid, and the teacher, from where you stand; and neither the kids nor the teachers stand a chance. 

        Whereas, if your only weapon is a knife, you need to be in physical contact with your Vitim, you can’t just stand at a distance and shoot away, and you can only stab one victim at a time; and while you’re stabbing one kid, the others have a chance to run around you and escape into the corridor and to safety, and any teacher tackling you stand a far greater chance of disarming you and restraining you than if you had a gun.

        No, guns are more lethal and making them freely available, as they are in the USA, will continue to result in high levels of homicides of which a high percentage will be gun violence.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I recently heard a comment by Donald Trump, Jr., not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer (pun intended), that he could have fatally killed all those kids in Texas with a baseball bat. Well, yes, you could kill with a baseball bat, but isn't it infinitely easier and faster using an AR-15?

          Conservatives here seem to avoid this simple piece of logic a great deal.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            And liberals keep coming up with ridiculous scenarios to "prove" how deadly a gun is.  Without ever comparing it to equally deadly weapons, in the hope of ridiculing the argument.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Guns are more lethal than knives.  Guns are NOT more lethal than bombs, poison, fire, cars, etc.

          Why do you assume that without a gun a killer will choose a much less lethal weapon?

          1. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Anybody can pull a trigger on a gun and kill people; but not many people can build a bomb, and poisoning isn’t as easy as pulling a trigger on a gun, and fires and cars are more cumbersome and less assured e.g. it’s easier to escape from a burning building or a car driving towards you than it is to dodge a bullet.  Deterrent is an effective defence; and when you take away tools that can kill easily (like guns) a lot of people who might have used a gun to kill aren’t going to bother trying to build a bomb.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Anyone with access to Google can build a bomb or mix a poison.

              But if you were correct (that no guns means fewer murders) we would find a direct correlation between the number of guns in a society and the murder rate.  There isn't one.

              1. Nathanville profile image90
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                It’s not as easy as it looks; if guns are easily accessible, as they are in the USA, then pulling a trigger on a gun is infinitely easier and more sure of killing your victims than trying to build and successfully build a bomb, or trying to successfully fatally poison someone.

                And no, there can’t be a direct correlation between the number of guns in a society and the murder rate when you try to make comparisons with different nations; too many other variables.  Some people on these forums made the same mistake when trying to compare the difference in the covid death rates in different countries to try to prove that the strict covid regulations (lock downs, masks) and the vaccines were in effective and counterproductive!

                It would be far better to look at the high gun violence in the USA and start asking ‘why’ and ‘if’ questions specific to the USA itself e.g. why is gun violence so high in the USA, is it because the gun ownership laws are too relaxed?  What if semi-automatics were made illegal, would it reduce homicides and suicides in the USA.  I know what your answers would be, and they would be opposite to mine (different country, different cultural values, different attitudes); and I don’t think either of us is likely to change our views in the immediate future.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You're right - we should look at the violence in American and ask "Why?".  But we should NOT fall back on the default answer of "There are guns there", instead of actually trying to find out "why".

                  Trying to answer the "what if's" is much the same; simply falling back to a default answer that you like doesn't do much towards actually finding a correct answer.  Without history in America in, for example, your semi-automatic ban, one can only go elsewhere to other nations - to simply say "It will slow the death toll" isn't a reasonable answer at all as it relies solely on opinion that is in turn based on the  desired conclusion.

                  1. Nathanville profile image90
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    It’s not a desired conclusion as we don’t have gun violence in the UK; so it’s your problem not mine.  And it seems obvious to people outside of the USA that far too many Americans have no desire to change things; and to just let the bloodshed continue because of a misguided belief that Amendment 2 of the Constitution is sacrosanct!!!!

  4. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Interesting video.

    John Oliver discusses the push for more police in schools and whether they are the answer to our school safety issues, or a new problem altogether.

    https://youtu.be/KgwqQGvYt0g

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That was a struggle, I'm not a fan. There were more than a few 'minutes', (particular points), that I should have just fast-forwarded through. But, he also had more than a few 'minutes' that demand at least a little thought. Mostly because they are contrary to 'obvious' common sense.

      One that I had never thought about was the question of the effectiveness of SROs in stopping mass shootings. So now, I can shoot safely because I already told you I don't know what I'm talking about.

      Oliver referenced a study that says they have almost no effectiveness. He gave details that seem to support what he said. But the applicable incidents were in the low single digits, so an anomaly of just one or two would change that evaluation.

      That's where he went off the rails for me.

      He featured an expert that said SROs could actually be a magnet for shooters that may be familiar with their presence at the school, and were suicidal. Geez Jon.

      Anyway, the original thought is still a puzzler worth checking out. The SRO issue is more complex than just having a cop there or not, so if that study is credible—relative to the credibility of the data, not the explanatory opinions of what the data says, that would be stuff I should know before marking a spot.

      GA

      1. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        A quick search, to your point about the study (by the Texas State University and the FBI.)

        A study by Texas State University and the FBI examined over 160 incidents, including 25 school shootings. The study found that none of the school shootings were ended by armed officers returning fire. Rather, these shootings typically ended when the shooter(s) was restrained by unarmed staff or when the shooter simply decided to stop.

        The study is online, but the link I got is a download.

        This one is from the Congressional Research Service, but from 2013

        School Resource Officers: Law Enforcement
        Officers in Schools


        "...The body of research on the effectiveness of SRO programs is noticeably limited, and the research that is available draws conflicting conclusions about whether SRO programs are effective at reducing school violence. In addition, the body of research on the effectiveness of SROs does not address whether their presence in schools has deterred mass shootings."

        https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43126.pdf

        This one is from SUNY and Brown University, 2021

        The Thin Blue Line in Schools: New Evidence
        on School-Based Policing Across the U.S.



        "We find that SROs do effectively reduce some
        forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents."

        https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/d … 21-476.pdf

        1. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          That is certainly a range of perspectives: it does, it doesn't, and it doesn't, but . . .. And it sort of makes the point that dry stats—on this issue, are both short in support. and inclusive, with the exception of actually stopping a shooting in progress, or from starting to 'progress'. I don't think that data point alone is enough to work with.

          It will be hard for me to not think that their armed presence doesn't have at least some deterrent effect. I surely expected their armed presence to be a 'fail-safe' in an actual event. I guess I'll have to look.

          GA

          1. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Here are some sources to check out:

            https://youtu.be/zgeRtRo862w

            https://www.cisa.gov/k-12-school-security-guide

            https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ … -resources

            I have participated in Active Shooter training, and part of that training was watching footage taken from security cameras of real events.

            It is possible that an SRO may not have any effect stopping an Active Shooter, however, an SRO has far more chance of doing something to prevent the deaths of children than if there isn't one.

            And one of my favorites (why I love living in Florida) is this at minute 4:45 on:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Kb4XuHoKw

            The shame of it is, people like that (video above) aren't often the ones allowed to be in charge and make those decisions.  But it is EXACTLY what this nation needs.

  5. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    A gun owner powerful speech.

    https://youtu.be/YkG-hNlhn_8?t=50

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't listen to all 36 minutes of it, but what I did hear was a fine, passionate speech...without any real data or truth to offer.  Just tears and a demand that we repeat what we've been doing for decades, with the assumption that this time it will work, if he can just get it by the evil politicians that look to truth rather than tears before removing freedoms.  Just my opinion.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I heard it the same: it was a great emotional presentation. No data, but plenty of sound points addressing exactly the points I would have.

        Of course, it was a performance. He may even think it to be the best he's ever given, but because of the content of the speech, that doesn't lessen its credibility to me. He addressed the specifics of the demographics of most school mass shooters, (great focus point—exactly what is in and on most of the nation's minds), to power the reason for his message.

        I didn't hear any assumptions beyond the one that we can address this issue. Unless I missed it I didn't hear any talk of bannings. I want us to have this conversation.

        GA

    2. Ken Burgess profile image73
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't get by the first ten seconds.

      "To make these... Lives lost... matter" click click...

      Decent actor... his opinion is worth no more or less than anyone's.

      Click Click

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, click-click.

        GA ;-)

    3. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Ha! I knew it was going to be McConaughey's speech. I saw most of it.

      He is a [C]conservative. He said it a lot better than I could. I keep telling Cred to look around, there are more of us [C]onservatives than he thinks.

      The speech was masterly structured, (Buggers, Fox is saying the same thing this instant, but I had a typing-headstart). I was thinking it before they said it.

      Since all of us can only determine what we think the national and political moods are based on media presentations, I think the only safe thing to consider, currently, is any change in tone from the extremes of each side.

      I'm hearing possible opportunities from both sides. He may spark that "win-win-win" idea mentioned here. Somewhere.

      I do have a worry, but it's too early to be a real worry yet: the talk seems to be for a straight 21-year-old minimum. I want to see some exceptions. Not to rehash it, but one solid opportunity involved military experience and the other might involve public/private partnerships to develop programs of civilian instruction, training, and experience achievements, (something like a year-long involvement with milestones checked off), that could follow the military idea.

      We have a shot this time. I think the [C]s and [L]s are going to persuade some [c]s and [l]s, (aka the Rs and Ds), to think about it. And that will get the attention of the R and D politicians. Things won't be 'business as usual.

      Wanna bet?

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        GA, I look around and I might find 1 out of 100 that could be even considered as reasonable as a Cheney or Romney. As for the direction of Republicans and conservatives that is no more significant than that of an ant pushing against a steam locomotive.

        The video was more one of remorse than anything else, the hard nose gun people will never allow for a reasonable compromise. I can't always share your optimism and I hope that I am wrong.

        1. I don't like the 21 year old restriction on principle, but I will work with it in the interest of compromise

        2. I want background checks as a prerequisite  to any legal purchase of any weapon regardless of vendor.

        3. I want a reasonable waiting period between purchase and receipt by the customer of any firearm. Reasonable is defined as no more than a week. It gives people time to think about the purpose and allow background check authorities time to look into more aspects and do more through evaluations.

        4. Institute "red flag" markers that I believe should come with purchase of body armor for example. (What purpose do civilians have for this item). These random massacre type assailants have a profile, let's refine it and be looking for the indicators as part of the background checks. Conservatives are not going to like this, but the days of just buying a 38 over the counter from a merchant, no questions asked, are over.

        We need to get SMART about this, beyond hardening school facilities and placing armed guards everywhere, or even arming teachers. We need to be pro-active and do a better job of identifying these troublesome individuals long before they reach the schoolyard.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I, too, would agree with this...assuming there is no fee to the purchaser for that background check.  Where do you stand on that point?

          But while I agree, I am not sanguine about just what happens when that "profile" (remember, we can't profile people any more anyway) indicates there may be a problem.  Will the purchase be denied?  Would it require a mental exam (who pays for that?), and who would be doing that exam.  What points would be used to deny purchase?  I like the red flag thing, but I have serious doubts it would be useful at all.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I am ok, with your "no fee" stance. I complained about poll taxes and such impeding people exercising the right to vote, I should be as accommodating toward the 2nd Amendment.

            Profiling should not be so broad to allow cops to accost anyone just because they were black and young. That was my problem, how it was used.

            In this case, we are not focusing on irrelevant attributes, but on those indices that are consistent with the commission of these crimes and the description and behaviors of the overwhelming number of those that commit them, it makes sense. The FBI uses techniques such as these.

            I would not deny purchase without clearly explicit disqualifiers such as certain felony convictions or parole status, etc. However, a good background check might look at any brush with the law, misdemeanors charges thay may be consistent with shooter profiles as cause for suspicion as a "red flag". For the Texas shooter, perhaps his purchase of body armor and large quantities of ammunition combined with his age, to include the nature of his past brushes with law, might get someone's attention. The mental exam idea won't work, that could be only identified consistent with a misdemeanor conviction that should show up in a good background check.

        2. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          And there you go, a Progressive with agreeable discussion points on a gun issue. We did it. We found a place to start from. Now imagine the normal folks of Middle America that aren't as politically obsessed as we are, I bet they, both sides, are going to be considering a 'Hmm . . .'

          Help yourself to some optimism bud, if we can do it surely normal people can. We'll let them take care of the politicians that don't get the message.

          Then we can get down to criticizing this flat 21 thing. We might even work on the background check if there is an exception for instances like inter-family exchanges—gifts or sales. Your waiting period, meh, I ain't too hot on that one.

          As for Red Flag laws, we have room to talk. I'm for the removal concept of them, but there is the possibility that there is too much room for abuse and bad shit by folks that would do both. But we can talk.

          Or, recollecting some of your previous 'Minority Report' proposals, we can argue.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, we found a place to start from, but where do we end up?

            We all have been on this topic for some time. Kumbaya? I will have to see it to believe it.

            I think waiting periods are essential, if only to do the more thorough background checks that we obviously need.

            I don't like the idea of exceptions for gifts, but as long as the weapons can be traced to its original owner, I might live with it. Daddy might gift a weapon to a sociopathic serial killer, but with a good red flag check, he might still trip a wire bringing him to the attention the authorities.

            We are all going have to compromise to get a better control on a problem that is ever increasingly getting out of hand.

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              We are a long way from 'Kumbaya', but maybe the roadblock to the campfire entrance is moving?

              The exception I want in the background check idea is for a father or grandfather-type exchange to the next generation. Or from brother to brother. Those are the type of inter-family exchanges I want to be left alone.

              That's the ideological gist. I understand it would leave an opening for the potential of an anomaly, (dad giving a gun to a crazy kid, anyway), but the risk cost works for me. I don't think that type of occurrence could represent any significant number. So let's not restrict thousands(?) from a potentially important cultural tradition for fear of a few possible aberrations.

              Do you think that would be workable for the [L]'s that are considering movement in their positions? I think it would work for the [C]s.

              GA

              1. tsmog profile image84
                tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                On that note in Calif basically without going into detail you can only purchase a gun from a gun dealer. I bought those shot guns I mentioned from a private party (a friend), but he had a gun dealer's license. Yet, would it have mattered as who would know.

                As far as the concept of passing along a gun to a son and etc. below is what Calif says in that regard. Below that is a link to Frequently Asked Questions about firearms in Calif for perusal.

                " Can I give a firearm to my adult child? Can he/she give it back to me later?

                    Yes, as long as the adult child receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category, pdf and the firearm is legal to possess (e.g., not an assault weapon). The transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. The exemption does not apply to step-children/step-parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins.

                    If the firearm is a handgun, the recipient must obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate prior to taking possession and must also submit a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days after taking possession.

                    The same rules apply to the return of the firearm at a later date.

                    (Pen. Code, §§ 27870-27875, 30910-30915.)

                The link is:
                https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs

                BTW . . . on my recent excursions I learned Maryland bans assault weapons. Isn't that where you live?

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  That California code works for me. And yep, Maryland is a very blue state.

                  I think we can still buy Ar-15 style 'assault' weapons, but they have to pass a 'prohibited-cosmetics' test.

                  GA

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Ok, I will let Jimmy bob inherit a weapon from papa. You guys and your "traditions".....

                Under MOST of terms found in the California example provided by TSmog, I can work with your exception proposal.


                "So let's not restrict thousands(?) from a potentially important cultural tradition for fear of a few possible aberrations."

                Funny, that is the same logic I used to support my resistance to raising the age to 21 from 18.

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, and that logic is also the same logic I had, and in most issues still have.

                  My flexibility now, is narrow, and only there if the proposed solution isn't an across-the-board application. I want some exceptions. I think you have seen them, do you think they are open for discussion with the [L]s?

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    The problem, GA, is that often times "exceptions" can become "loopholes".

                    From the Left, your exceptions may have exceptions applied, so that there isn't much opportunity to wiggle out from requirements.

                    I agreed with your tradition of transfer of weapons to immediate progeny under relatively stringent conditions.

                    I reluctantly agreed to an age 21 restriction for certain weapons sales and ownership. But if there is going to be an exception it is for active law enforcement people and on duty military, with firearms being a necessary accoutrement to their duties, not just because the guy is or has been in the military.

        3. Ken Burgess profile image73
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I'd take it, give me that age 21 (with exceptions for police officers, military, and well trained and checked security) and I'll give you 2,3 and 4.

          It's a shame it can't be done by reasonable people willing to compromise like you and I... instead it is left to politicians which have to pander to their voter base and their funders (lobbyists and campaign donors).

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I give a big 10-4 to that.

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image76
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    Nathanville: You see clearly. Wilderness doesn't want to see. The solution: Stop sending republicans to Washington. The majority of American people want change. That is the only way it will happen.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Can you explain the stats I noted about the UK and show that they actually show that more guns = fewer homicides?  That would be a great start to "seeing", don't you think?

  7. tsmog profile image84
    tsmogposted 2 years ago

    Since the Robb Elementary School shooting I have been on an adventure reading, reading, and reading. And, I have been following the discussion. I understand the point I think Wilderness is making. That is that more guns in society does not equate to more homicides overall. Do I have that right? In other words not more guns equates to more gun homicides. Those are two different things. Am I on the right track?

    Anyway, to support Wilderness's view is the link below. It is a Wikipedia source, yet it is the best one I discovered for all countries. It shows intentional homicide rate by 100,000, gun count per country, and guns per capita or guns per 100 residents. What is cool is you can sort the header topics.

    If you sort by intentional homicide rate by worse to least the U.S. is ranked 87 out of 171 listed countries with 4.2/100,000. Yet, they are #1 of all countries for guns per capita at 112.6/100 residents. Also, while in that sort order the U.S. is bordered by Turkmenistan with 4.2, yet guns per capita is 3.8. Far less than the U.S. The other country is Yemen at 4.2, yet guns are 54.8  per capita. Still less than the U.S.obviously since the U.S. has the greatest guns per capita. So, that seems to support Wilderness's view. 

    Note: You can sort by region and sub-region as well. The link follows:

    List of countries by guns and homicide
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … d_homicide

    But, addressing more guns means more gun homicides there was a study done using data/info for the U.S.from 1981 - 2010. It is published by the National Library of Science and peer reviewed. It is extremely thorough and extensive. The final conclusion is "Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher levels of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides". Yet, as said earlier that is not the same thing as more guns does not equate to more homicides. The link follows:

    The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

    If I misunderstand Wilderness, then the above can be negated.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "That is that more guns in society does not equate to more homicides overall."

      You are correct.  It is not the number of bodies with bullet holes that matters; it is the number of bodies and that is what I look at.

      I will throw just one more thought into the mix, something I came across recently.  It is not so much the number of guns per capita (precious few people can blaze away with both hands and expect even a little of accuracy).  Rather, it is the number of guns per household, and the US ranks well below Switzerland, with it's extremely low homicide rate.

      I agree with your last thought; it is a no brainer that if you can get the guns away then the bodies will not have bullet holes in them.  You may still have the bodies, but they won't have bullet holes.

      (If you are interested I compiled a list of countries and collated them into a graph and chart.  The article is on my carousel.  I turned my nose up at Wikipedia, using the UN Small Arms Survey and the  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).  Presumably a neutral source without an ax to grind.  It is a little dated now, but I truly doubt that things have changed that much, at least in regard to the desired question of "Do more guns equal more homicides")

      1. tsmog profile image84
        tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The Wiki source used the Small Arms Survey 2017 for civilian guns per capita by country. The source for intentional homicide rate was UNODC as was yours. And, I have read your thorough article already years ago. That is why I haven't entered the discussion before. I think this Wiki data table that can be sorted would be very useful for people to see what the correlations are with those two variables - intentional homicides and guns per capita.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          For me, it was most obvious when graphed.  But then I like graphs; they give the best overall look, and at a glance.

          Charts are fine when great detail is needed, but graphs are better, IMO, when one is simply looking for a rough correlation.

          1. tsmog profile image84
            tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed with graphs to an extent. My job for fourteen years was data mining for inventory, sales performance, store this and that, and other business stuff. My reports to the owner, the president, VP, and etc always had a graph as a cover followed by the data summary, and then my analysis, which was viewed as an opinion many times.

            But, they wanted more when they went on a tangent to discover support for their own theory(s) while also seeking to substantiate their perspective. That would be followed by further research and report building by me. It was always a precarious position for me when I could not support their theory. 


            Perhaps the Wiki one would be useful for Nathan. On that note I'll post your article since by TOS you aren't suppose to. Hopefully others will see it. Maybe Cred will see it and Nathan too.

            Gun Control and Crime Statistics: Does Gun Control Reduce Crime?
            https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Gun … duce-Crime

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              That would be a bad (and precarious) position to be in.  A good way to lose one's job. smile

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks form the chart and graph. I guess my point regarding homicides and guns needs a fresh look?

      Compared with non western nations, considering the number of guns in our population, the level of US homicides can considered miraculous. But I can make my case better when considering Western Style industrialized  nations, that USA would be expected to emulate.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)