American needs to fight against terror closer to home

[josil]

And focus their energy on teenage boys who seem to be causing terror frequently by shooting us schools. Supermarkets etc etc.

What never ceases to amaze me is somehow these shooters manage to escape the stereotypes that others ethnic groups find it impossible to shake off.

RIP to those dead ok the latest massacre in the US.

The US needs to fight against terror and start with those close to home.

This suggests that guns are secondary to a primary cause. Mental health

But like the guy in the video i just posted says, don't European countries have people with mental health problems as well? How come it isn't happening in those countries?

This idea that the country will descend into civil war if any sort of gun control legislation is passed, is pure NRA/Republican party (who are NRA-funded)-induced hysteria.

90% of Americans - including nearly 74% of NRA members - support background checks of gun owners.

The entire country is held hostage by 50 NRA-backed senators.

Just like the entire country is held hostage by a couple of SCOTUS justices, even though the country overwhelmingly supports Roe v Wade.

Americans scream ‘freedom’ at every turn, while turning a blind eye to the fact that they don’t even live in a functioning democracy.

Political historian, Heather Cox-Richardson has posted a fascinating piece on FB on the history of gun ownership in the US and how the 50 Republican senators who hold the country to ransom have been bought, and are now owned, by the NRA.

Oh, and watch out for NRA annual meeting this Friday in Houston - guest speakers include Trump (who’d sell his soul and every last member of his family for $$$) and Cruz. I’m sure it will all be in the best possible taste.

How many school shootings have involved the murder/s using legally purchased weapons they either own themselves or have accessed through family members? These aren’t stolen guns

Nobody's saying they are, though no doubt it happens sometimes, so it's not so much about how they get them as WHO gets them and the fact there are insufficient background checks

See also, the fossil fuel industry and Republican politicians.

It’s (one of) the things that really pisses me off with the narrative pushed by the right that the left is always engaged in fighting culture wars. Really? And the party that opposes gun control legislation, wants to ban abortion and is unwilling to acknowledge climate change as a serious matter that requires meaningful action is NOT engaged in culture wars?

Nice username JosephdeMaistre 🤨 I am no expert but pretty sure assault weapons were banned by Clinton, until the ban ran out shootings dropped considerably. So it is doable.

I'm (mostly) not quarrelling with the logic - just the apparent ease with which you think the significantly fewer guns option could be achieved, that's all.

A simple piece of gun control would be a time period between applying and having a gun licence. Probably would reduce suicides, as well as some of the shootings concerned.

I've not said it will be easy. The principle is easy-> Less guns, less people getting shot. I'm aware the implementation of such a thing is not easy.

But I am sick of all the same tired excuses about how the USA is somehow special and that the ordinary person on the street should be able to own automatic weapons with virtually no controls. Any idiot can see that's a bad idea.

While there are obviously problems, I think there is also an issue of perspective, especially for our non American friends.

First things first, while guns laws differ from state to state, nowhere in the USA can a person just walk into the local supermarket and legally purchase a gun.
Federal level background checks are required, and most states also require some form of licensure. If a person has already gone through the states process and had the Federal background check completed, a person can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in about an hour.

Automatic weapons have been outlawed from civilian ownership in the United States for a hundred years. An automatic weapon is one in which it will keep firing so long as the trigger is held down. A machine gun.

A semi-automatic weapon is one in which it will fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The vast majority of all firearms across the world are semi-automatic. The AR-15, while commonly used and scary looking, is not a particularly powerful or accurate weapon. There is nothing particularly special about them as far as guns go. They just look intimidating and are cheap. A good hunting rifle is far more powerful, shoots further, and is more accurate.

In the context of 330 million people and 500 million guns, almost all of the gun violence is isolated to a few geographically tiny areas, most of which have already have extremely strict gun restrictions. The overwhelming majority of geographic America is largely devoid of any gun violence, especially in the more rural areas where legal gun ownership is the highest. Hell, those small rural towns can go decades without any weapon related crime, where the worst they see is a few bar fights, kids breaking into a house or spray painting a shop front, or bubba getting drunk and slapping his wife around. Not good for sure, but hardly the war zones as is often suggested.

The quoted statistics for what qualifies as mass shootings include any incident in which two or more people are injured or killed, so included in the totals, the majority of mass shootings are made of the typical weekend shootings in the few high crime areas such as select neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, Baltimore.

The particular types of mass shootings that make world headlines, especially those occurring in schools, while tragic with shocking numbers, make up a very small portion of the total gun violence, which again, is extremely isolated to a few areas. What these mass shooting do however is they affect the psyche in the same way that any other terrorist attack does around the world. They happen in places most people can personally relate to such as schools, churches, restaurants, workplaces. It gets people thinking...if it could happen there, it could happen here as well. That is the whole point behind effective terrorism. Not necessarily to rack up body counts, but to make people fear their day to day lives and activities.

In the end, the vast majority of school kids have, and will continue to go through their time in school without ever personally experiencing anything like this. They are far more likely to experience a classmate getting dunk at a party and dying in a car wreck with a few other classmates.

Tell that to the grieving parents. None of that 'rationale' or 'justification' is good enough to excuse one child's life lost.

Oh, so most kids get through school without getting shot?

That's ok then. Sure that is of great comfort to the people of Uvalde. The fact is, if America cared enough about these shocking, repeated attacks they would do something about it.

Sure, but a discussion about a systemic issue is always meaningless to an individuals personal grief.

Part of my post was to explain, at least in part, the wild mischaracterizations and misunderstandings about guns and violence in America. That is not saying there aren't serious problems, but like most things, it is far more nuanced than any of the "Just do this" kind of direction these things always tend to take.

Gun ownership and these types of mass shootings are a uniquely American problem which there is really no analog or point of comparison in any other country, thus is a problem no other country can truly relate to or undertand.

These 'mental health' arguments are irrelevant.

First, When you're at the end of the barrel and 8 years old, doesn't really matter if the shooter is mental or not. Just matters that you're facing the horror of being shot to death. Second, all shooters are insane anyway. That's clear. Finally, If there are no guns, people can't shoot kids with them. If there are guns, people will shoot kids with them.

End of.

Part of my post was to explain, at least in part, the wild mischaracterizations and misunderstandings about guns and violence in America. That is not saying there aren't serious problems, but like most things, it is far more nuanced than any of the "Just do this" kind of direction these things always tend to take.

And your suggestion is?

Of course policy is complex and nuanced. I don’t think anyone with half a brain needs this explained to them (but thanks anyway).

However ‘just do this’ is a damn sight more helpful than the ‘opt out, doing nothing while demonstrating to the world how ineffectual you are as innocent people die’.

I am utterly certain that ‘opt out and do nothing’ would not happen if it were a Muslim terrorist.

I'll agree when a lone teenage boy manages to blow up something of the magnitude of the twin towers or manages to take over another country/region.

So if licences and background checks already exist there shouldn't be an issue with extending them?

The current background checks are to check you aren't legally prohibited from owning a gun - i e. a restraining order or a felony conviction. My understanding is that they don't have to be completed when you buy a gun off another gun owner e.g. second hand sales. It seems to be like you could very reasonably introduce this for second hand sales.

Re licencing: this could reasonably be extended to locked cabinets with the amunition stored locked and separately without impacting on anyone's rights to bear arms. Sure it wouldn't solve gang based gun crime. And maybe you wouldn't get it implemented for everyone straight away but if you did those checks every time a gun changed hands for the next decade (i.e. if you buy a new gun then you have to apply these rules) then in 20 years it would be basically done. If that had started 20 years ago then it would be nearly done today.

I think it would also be very reasonable ASA starting point to allow no new purchases of guns with more than X chambered rounds (X tbc). A rifle is clearly more powerful but certainly in the UK rifles have a single shot and then you have to reload. Shotguns two shots.

None of those are banning guns or preventing people from bearing arms. The fact that fully automatic weapons are banned tells us that limits to this are possible and accepted. That is really a case of not letting perfect be the en enemy of good.

So a group of school children and their teachers don’t count?

I've not said it will be easy. The principle is easy-> Less guns, less people getting shot. I'm aware the implementation of such a thing is not easy

the issue is it would appear there are americans who don't believe this.

who in fact believe more guns= fewer people getting shot.

there are seemingly genuine calls to arm teachers. Armed guards in schools. Hell I even saw one tweet suggesting that wach class should have an armed teacher and one well trained armed pupil. I’ve seen people state that 4 armed persons are the minimum needed to take a shooter down.

until the gun advocates can be convinced that gun control = fewer deaths nothing will change.

However the evidence is out there, the stats that guns kill people by accident more than in defence. But like I said earlier about Caleb Keeter’s about turn, it seems that most gun owners just believe they and their gun would make a difference. Even when the evidence says not- as in this case where 3 armed police were unable to stop one shooter entering a school and massacring kids.

Finally, If there are no guns, people can't shoot kids with them. If there are guns, people will shoot kids with them.

Is it really that simple? Well, yes. It really is that simple. Simple to the point of being meaningless. A drug addict? Make drugs illegal, and don't do drugs. In an abusive relationship? Make abuse illegal and leave.

But as they say, the devils in the details. While the high level platitude may be easy to see, the actual process for getting there is not nearly so straight forward.

That is really a case of not letting perfect be the enemy of good.

I think this really gets to the heart of it for both sides, and why any sort of reasonable compromise has been so difficult because it is approached from an activist angle where compromise is seen as failure, and our politics catering strictly to our activists.

The suggestions above, which I do agree with, would have had minimal impact when it comes to the types of mass shootings as we saw yesterday, however, the issue with gun crime is far more than just these types of shootings. Those get the headlines but make up only a small portion for the overall death and injury toll. The reasonable steps above would have a significant overall positive impact for sure.

Another thing that is now making this even more complex is that 3d printing has gotten good enough and is easily accessible and affordable, the issue of ghost guns and gun modifications is becoming really serious. I mean, a person could walk into a Best Buy a buy the printer for under $1000, download plans for free, and print a dozen guns. Hell, in some places, you could just steal the printer right off the shelf knowing that you won't be prosecuted for shoplifting. And if printing guns isn't your thing, you could print expanded magazines that are otherwise fully illegal to buy anywhere.

But what posters are proposing has been done before, and was successful at reducing this type of massacre:

A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period

Nowhere in the USA can a person just walk into the local supermarket and legally purchase a gun ... federal level background checks are required

While true about the supermarkets, isn't this a bit selective?

AFAIK - and please correct me if I'm wrong - the background checks only apply to those purchasing from licensed gun sellers, and don't apply to many gun shows, internet sales, etc.
So someone who'd fail a background check can still buy a gun only too easily

It's mad that they are even at the supermarket, no matter what hoops you have to jump through to get one.

Seeing guns at the supermarket normalises them. They shouldn't fucking be normalised.

Nowhere in the USA can a person just walk into the local supermarket and legally purchase a gun ... federal level background checks are required

Nowhere in the world can a person walk into a local supermarket and expect to purchase a gun…..

Yeah, that is largely correct. The rules around temporary gun shows and internet sales are very grey, and need to be tightened up for sure. Though in some areas, all you need is $50 and the right street corner and you can get what ever you want. Those are the guns causing the most issues, and the ones that are the hardest to stop.