There have been 18 mass shootings in the US so far just this year where a mass shooting is defined as one in which at least four people are shot, including survivors. This does not include the at least 60 shootings that left three people dead but don’t technically count as mass shootings. If those are included, we have at least three such shootings per week, a horrifying statistic.
After the recent wake of mass shootings, there seems to be a sense of desperation among those politicians who are subservient to the NRA about how to deflect attention away from the obvious problem, that “It’s the guns, stupid!” Their previous attempts at deflection, such as stationing armed guards have failed repeatedly and now they are flailing away by suggesting even more outlandish solutions.
One of the most idiotic is to suggest that schools have just one door that is heavily guarded. Don’t they stop to think before they speak? No fire marshal would ever allow such a thing because we have had numerous tragedies where people inside a building which had just one exit were crushed in the stampede to get out when a fire broke out. If such a plan were implemented, then a mass murderer would not even need an assault weapon. All they would have to do is create a small fire or set off a smoke bomb, trigger the fire alarm, and watch as people get killed trying to get out
The Daily Show‘s Michael Kosta went out in New York City’s Times Square to ask tourists from overseas how their countries solved their door problem, since they do not have the shootings that we routinely see.
Below is a screen shot I took from Kosta’s piece.
As usual, editorial cartoonists have the most succinct take on events.
The Canadian government’s response to the Uvalde massacre:
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2022/05/30/further-strengthening-our-gun-control-laws
Someone is going to have to formulate realistic proposals.
txpiper@#2,
Your ‘realistic’ is clearly a weasel word because there are plenty of proposals that have been successfully implemented the world over but you can just dismiss them as unrealistic because … well, America.
It is pretty obvious what you are trying to do, so you might as well stop trying to pretend you are seeking a solution.
“Your ‘realistic’ is clearly a weasel word”
.
Whatever the ideas are, they have to be legislated, court-approved and enforced in the United States.
“Whatever the ideas are, they have to be legislated, court-approved and enforced in the United States”
Yes, so what? Those all involve political actions that can be taken with political will, hence they are ‘realistic’.. They are not impossible violations of the laws of science.
“Those all involve political actions that can be taken with political will, hence they are ‘realistic’.. They are not impossible violations of the laws of science.”
.
There are lots of political, social and legal obstacles involved. You dissed the idea of one-way access doors in schools. The same thing will happen with every other suggestion that anyone puts on the table.
The laws of science?
“The same thing will happen with every other suggestion that anyone puts on the table.”
It is true that some people will object to any proposal. But it does not follow from that that no proposal will garner majority support and be enacted.
Yo, txpiper, how about: universal background checks, red-flag laws, mandatory waiting periods, and no exceptions? Yes or no?
No fire marshal would ever allow [only one door] because we have had numerous tragedies where people inside a building which had just one exit were crushed in the stampede to get out when a fire broke out.
And if someone wanted to kill or at least terrorize a lot of kids at once, he’d no longer have to go in with a gun; he’d just have to call in a bomb threat.
The same thing will happen with every other suggestion that anyone puts on the table.
Translation: “I’m gonna respond to every suggestion the same way, without even bothering to think.”
PS: Only one door, guarded by armed guards, presumably searching everyone’s clothes and backpacks for guns before letting them in, would mean a huge crowd waiting in line to get through. So a shooter could just spray a hail of bullets into that crowd, and probably kill MORE kids per minute than he would have done had he had to go in and pick just one classroom full of kids.
I fully expect after the Tulsa mass shooting that we will hear how doctors and nurses need to be armed too , just like teachers.
Or perhaps alternately “US company behind Tasers plans to produce stun gun-armed drones it claims will help stop school shootings.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61685117
In other words, all suggestions are pre-dismissed purely because USA’s political environment means they will be blocked by Republicans. When txpiper asked for realistic proposals, he was just pretending to be interested.
^ That was in reply to #6. Perhaps I should refresh more often.
Did you drop a 2 from in front of that 18 in the number of mass shootings?
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ has mass shootings in the US so far this year at 233.
Mano,
“But it does not follow from that that no proposal will garner majority support and be enacted.”
.
I’m afraid that it actually does. Legislators will be asking questions about unintended consequences, and previous failures. There are plenty of legal experiments to learn lessons from, the war on drugs being an obvious one.
I don’t have any personal stake in this issue. I don’t own or possess anything that would be affected by any proposals that I have heard. But I have lived to see the pathetic results of “just do something” reactions.
In the news: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23153122/democrat-bills-gun-control-uvalde-tulsa-buffalo
(hyperlinks elided)
US shootings: Firm unveils plans for Taser-armed drones
That should solve everything!
“Those all involve political actions that can be taken with political will, hence they are ‘realistic’.”
Mano, respectfully, there’s more than just the need for “political will”. There are structural reasons that the US, alone out of all developed countries, has problems with guns. See, for example, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/world/americas/canada-gun-buyback-parliament.html . If the cause is ultimately structural then the structure itself needs to change.
Put more bluntly, why isn’t Joe Biden using his bully pulpit to call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?
Oh, a challenge for people who want a shooting. The predators can get creative instead of us focusing on predatory behavior.
#15 txpiper
They’ll also be ignoring the proven successes in other nations, or even lying about them. And when all else fails, they and their useful lackeys will simply declare that what worked elsewhere will not work for America because [mumbo jumbo]. The excuses often include poverty (which they refuse to address), mental health (which they refuse to address, and which they refuse to screen against) and ‘demographics’ or ‘cultural plurality’ (a disguised jab at the non-white population).
Holms @#12,
“In other words, all suggestions are pre-dismissed purely because USA’s political environment means they will be blocked by Republicans.”
Yes.
Find a solution to the system that allows a minority of the electorate to keep Republicans either in or near power for the foreseeable future, and figure out how to stop a significant portion of that group from fetishizing guns, and we can talk about moving reasonable proposals that have already been offered into the category of “realistic.” I’m using “realistic” in the colloquial sense.
(Just to put my cards on the table: I do not support the prohibition or confiscation of all firearms. I would like to see a system where all guns are required to be federally registered and may be owned only by licensed individuals who have completed training and passed an extensive background check. Licenses would need to be renewed regularly, and endorsements for anything beyond single shot weapons would require expanded training and proof of mental fitness. I think this would fit into the current interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual ownership. I also think it is a pipe dream, so I am willing to accept more modest proposals that, sadly, are also unrealistic given the above.)
Long way to say that I am a pessimist on this issue.
John McElhinny,
Since not everyone (even under the current and ever more-lax regime) is allowed individual ownership, if follows that that protection is conditional.
That is to say, if one can except some (under whatever criteria), one can except all but one and still achieve that goal.
(Difference between ∀x and ∃x)
—
I take it you’re from the USA, from your comment.
John Morales @#22,
I am neither a lawyer nor a logician (I had to look up those symbols). That said, I certainly agree that the right to own a firearm is conditional, even under current laws. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your next sentence. Are you asking whether I think that all but one person in the US could be prohibited from owning guns? Or whether all but one type of gun could be prohibited?
Yes, I’m from the US. I ought to have clarified that.
JM (like me!):
Nah. I’m suggesting that, since the right to own a firearm is conditional, those conditions can be changed without fundamentally changing the current interpretation of the Second Amendment.
No worries. I’m Australian (from Spain), and therefore I am an outsider to your milieu.
—
To hopefully clarify somewhat:
In my estimation (FWTW) the acculturation US people receive shapes their thinking about this issue.
What is supposed to be a fundamental and universal right is in practice contingent on certain criteria. This is fact.
So, why not change the criteria themselves, rather than either the right or the contingency?
@txpiper: how many guns do you own?
Fetuses need guns, too.
I find it interesting, that in my limited experience, the same people who defend the act of taking off shoes at airports, also balk at absolutely any limitation on firearm ownership, including people who injure and even kill others through their negligence…
txpiper: I don’t have any personal stake in this issue.
Exactly: you don’t give a shit about anything or anyone, and have nothing at all useful or decent to offer. So why the fuck are you here at all?
I don’t think they are desperate. There have been so many years of “they are gonna grab your guns!” and nothing happening, that at this point it’s an empty threat. The administration may as well say “we’re gonna queue up legislation we know the republicans will shoot down but that way we can say we did something” and the republicans will say “see they tried to grab your guns but we stopped ’em” — it’s dishonest theater in all directions. Nothing will get done.
I’ve been thinking frantically about this stuff and I have some ideas, namely that the way to attack the problem is to completely bypass the gun regulation issue and go toward a states rights approach like the anti-abortion crowd did against Roe. Of course the supreme court is ganked, but there are so many things that could be done. The 2nd doesn’t say “open carry” is a protected right. So, state governors can shut down that shit. States can drop huge regulations on firing ranges to the point where firing is no fun. Only bolt action rifles .22 cal allowed at ranges and you’re not allowed to shoot except at a regulated range. You can imagine the many many many slices that can be put on that problem because it’s the anti-abortion attack just going against guns. #sorrynotsorry. Don’t worry about regulating high capacity magazines, just legislate that you can have as many as you like in your home but don’t even think about taking them out to somewhere except a certified range. Then, squeeze the ranges so there’s one certified range in the whole state. What about the hunters? I hate those guys; fuck them. Make game management a state agency and regulate it under the state government. Want to shoot feral pigs? The job application for “pig control” is online and we’re hiring 3. Send your resume. We’re probably gonna hire liberals only. Etc.
The following is my rant. I am so sick of hearimg the same old argumemts year after year, all the while seeing more and more children massacred over in “Death Cult USA”.
I am no constitutional scholar but it would seem to me that the current legal ‘interpretation’ of the 2nd amendment infringes upon some of the rights implied by the introduction to the US constitution.
These are arms to bear in the fight for gun control, are they not?
The blessings of liberty mean nothing to the many many innocent children whose lives have been snuffed out by the 2nd amendment.
I cannot understand why children are used for target practice over there. What are you people? Fucking Dwellers?
Here in Australia we are all living in fear. We are terrified to go to school, visit the department store, or walk the streets at night because no one has any guns! (Well, the military do and the police and those few who think it worth the hassle to get permission to have one) Fuck, it is so terrifying! I could trip over on the pavement and scrape my knee.
It’s about will.
If the government and people of the US have the will to ban guns, guns will be banned. The 2nd amendment could be repealed, with the will so to do.
The people and government of the US lack the will. That is all.
The mass shootings will continue.
Marcus Ranum,
“how many guns do you own?”
.
Very few. I am not a collector.
#32 txpiper
So multiple then.
“So multiple then.”
.
Yes. And I have several knives, both folding and fixed blade. I even have scissors.
Well, I’ll trot out this one because it is relevant. After all, the Repub judges in SCOTUS are always braying about *originalism*, right? Because it’s slways the 18th century, right? Nothing ever changed since then. Nuh-huh.
So: guns for evvvveryone, as long as they are front-loading black powder muskets and pistols.
Ridiculous? Inane? Not after hearing the door argument it ain’t. If originalism is used to deny abortion or fair process, then it’s good also in this case. No excuses.
That establishes your bad faith beyond any possible doubt.
Worrying news! Mass shootings are a true tragedy in which innocent people are mercilessly slaughtered, and the scourge is only spreading owing to the unlimited and easy access to guns. Unfortunately, I doubt that gun control measures will ever be enacted because too many politicians and money are involved. However, I would advocate for universal background checks and red-flag legislation.