Today was the 74th school shooting since Sandy Hook.

[Brian Fein]

^^ Gotta be honest he has a point.  Shootings happen all the time.  Just because one happens to be near a school doesn't mean it is any more or less heinous than one that happens, say, outside a grocery store.

I think, clearly, a "school shooting" is one in which a psychopath rolls up into a school and starts picking off random kids and teachers.  Not when a drug dealer kills a junkie who didn't pay for his crack yesterday down the block from a school.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I agree with this.  So, who should be responsible, the gun owner or the store that sold the gun?  Both?

If the gun store sold a gun to someone whose has undergone a proper background check than the store shouldn't be responsible.   Hence, why we should close the gun show loophole and do a better job with background checks.   

[mboss]

That is a gross misstatement and patently wrong. I know many gun owners, including myself, who would like to see the mental heath system in this country fixed, to prevent those who pose a danger to themselves and others, from legally obtaining a firearm. As it sits now, there is no way for approving authorities to find out that someone is in treatment and a possible danger, so they can deny a purchase of a firearm.
Adding even more gun laws will not prevent a mentally ill person from purchasing a firearm, especially if no one is told they are a danger. We need to close the loophole that prevents the information from getting to those who need to know.

But this is not a one or the other proposition....shouldn't we do both?  To be able to purchase a firearm shouldn't you have to register and go through a process of taking a gun safety class and psychological evaluation. If there was a program set up for a free mental health screening as part of a process for getting a gun, I think that would be a program worth having. I believe everyone has the right to have a gun if they want one, but the difference is the NRA and the far right believe that ANY PROGRAMS like that (even registration) is an affront to Freedom and liberty. This is the problem is that even reasonable gun control measures is met with hard line opposition. And they like to say that the mental health system is to blame, not guns, but it is really both. You could possibly have a program like the TSA(not that they are the best Gov't organization) has pre-approved travelers that don't have to go through the same screening process to purchase additional firearms.

[Fau Teixeira]

We SHOULD repeal the 2nd amendment, and treat firearm ownership as a privilege similar to driving.
We SHOULD mandate Smart Gun technology across the nation. It doesn't impact 2nd amendment rights either way.
We SHOULD hold gun owners directly accountable for actions people take (legal and illegal) with guns they've purchased.

Those are things we SHOULD do as a society.

[Phishfan]

the gun show loophole   

Worst name ever since it is so misleading. Gun dealers still are required to run the background checks at gun shows. Private sales are not required to do background checks but it is illegal to sell to someone if you know they cannot have a gun (I declined selling a gun which I didn't really want to sell anyway because I knew the person could not legally have it). Requiring background checks on private sales is a slippery slope. How does a private citizen access the information? Is there a fee? Who pays the fee? What if it is someone you know very closely (relative)?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Private sales are not required to do background checks but it is illegal to sell to someone if you know they cannot have a gun

I say reverse that.  To make it illegal to sell a gun unless you know that the person is legally permitted to own the gun.

Let say you want to sell your gun to your next door neighbor.  You don't that he is a felon, but you don't know he isn't either.  You can't sell him a gun unless he presents proof in the form of having undergone a background check and presenting proof.  If you sell it to him without proof then you have automatically committed the felony of illegal gun transfer, and if the the gun is subsequently used in a crime the additional crime of aiding and abetting. 

As for who pays for the background check that is up to the buyer and seller to decided.  You can say, "I am not even going to discuss selling you the gun without the background check"  or you can say, "gun cost $300 but that includes the cost of the background check"  entirely up to you. 

[pondwater]

We SHOULD repeal the 2nd amendment, and treat firearm ownership as a privilege similar to driving.

I really hate this argument because it goes to the extreme so easily. As a middle of the road person who owns guns I find the arguing points generally rush right past me to the point I say both sides are being stupid.

^^^I could be wrong but I think this is what Phish was referring to when he said "argument goes to the extreme". Not gonna happen. Waste of time and beyond the scope of this discussion.

We SHOULD mandate Smart Gun technology across the nation. It doesn't impact 2nd amendment rights either way.

Again, waste of time. Any technology can be reverse engineered and rendered useless. Not to mention that there are 300 million+ firearms in this country already.

We SHOULD hold gun owners directly accountable for actions people take (legal and illegal) with guns they've purchased.

We already do that, it's called the criminal justice system.

Those are things we SHOULD do as a society.

No, those are things that YOU think we should do as a society. Most rational people wouldn't agree with you.

[Spider-Dan]

Likewise, are  you going to tell me that a crackhead that robs and shoots a pedestrian on a sidewalk next to a school is the same as a mentaly ill person getting 12 guns and blasting 10 people inside the confines of  a school.

What's the difference to you?

I mean, if your solution to both is "more guns!" then why even bother complaining about how the shootings are categorized?  It could be a mass shooting of nuns holding orphaned infant children of war veterans and your position would be exactly the same.

So why are you complaining about whether we categorize them as school shootings when it literally makes no difference to you?  It's like we're sitting here arguing whether the Virginia Tech massacre was one incident or multiple incidents when you don't actually care either way.

[pondwater]

What's the difference to you?

I mean, if your solution to both is "more guns!" then why even bother complaining about how the shootings are categorized?  It could be a mass shooting of nuns holding orphaned infant children of war veterans and your position would be exactly the same.

So why are you complaining about whether we categorize them as school shootings when it literally makes no difference to you?  It's like we're sitting here arguing whether the Virginia Tech massacre was one incident or multiple incidents when you don't actually care either way.

You're correct. A shooting is a shooting. However they have been misrepresented as SCHOOL SHOOTINGS by the left, the article of reference, and even you in this thread. And it matters because the left is distorting facts to make things seem worse than they actually are, pushing fake propaganda through the left leaning mainstream media. Why all the "school shooting" talk and twisted facts?  It really doesn't even matter if your "74" number was actually "105", because gun homicide rate is down almost 50% since 1993.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Mass shootings are a matter of great public interest and concern. They also are a relatively small share of shootings overall. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics review, homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths

Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago. A new Pew Research Center survey (March 14-17) found that 56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago

The liberals lying and twisting facts to fit their agenda and the public's widespread ignorance and acceptance of the leftist mainstream media propaganda is the problem, not firearms. Hell, Negros shooting negros in the streets of Detroit, Chicago, DC, and other liberal cities are much bigger problems and kill far more people in this country than school shootings. The wide open borders are a bigger problem than your fake exagerated misrepresented "74 school shootings" media scare tactic.

[Spider-Dan]

However they have been misrepresented as SCHOOL SHOOTINGS by the left, the article of reference, and even you in this thread. And it matters because the left is distorting facts to make things seem worse than they actually are, pushing fake propaganda through the left leaning mainstream media.

Such a claim would require you to acknowledge that school shootings actually are worse.  Are they?

I still find it funny that you cry foul when this is referred to as a school shooting.  It wasn't "down the block" or "across the street" from the school; it was on the school grounds.  Kids were in class and in direct danger of being hit by stray shots.

Why all the "school shooting" talk and twisted facts?  It really doesn't even matter if your "74" number was actually "105", because gun homicide rate is down almost 50% since 1993.

Homicide as a whole has gone down greatly.



But since you specifically mention gun homicide, let's take a look at this graph for homicide victims among those aged 10-24, from the CDC:



So regarding this age group, it would indeed be accurate to say that gun homicides have decreased greatly: they used to be over four times higher than all other homicides combined, but now they are only a bit more than three times higher.  Progress!

[bsmooth]

But this is not a one or the other proposition....shouldn't we do both?  To be able to purchase a firearm shouldn't you have to register and go through a process of taking a gun safety class and psychological evaluation. If there was a program set up for a free mental health screening as part of a process for getting a gun, I think that would be a program worth having. I believe everyone has the right to have a gun if they want one, but the difference is the NRA and the far right believe that ANY PROGRAMS like that (even registration) is an affront to Freedom and liberty. This is the problem is that even reasonable gun control measures is met with hard line opposition. And they like to say that the mental health system is to blame, not guns, but it is really both. You could possibly have a program like the TSA(not that they are the best Gov't organization) has pre-approved travelers that don't have to go through the same screening process to purchase additional firearms.

Many states have such requirements already. It is not as easy to buy a gun as people make it out to be. What has never been addressed yet is fixing our mental health system. No one on either side is pushing to fix the mental health system in this country. After every shooting, the anti-gun crowd crows for more gun laws, and they ignore the fact the majority of the shooters all share a component of mental illness. How about we try and go after the one thing we have not addressed yet? We have thousands of gun laws...let's try and address the mental heath component of these shootings for a change.
The reason there is so much push back, is because so many laws have been passed, and gun free zones have been created, and still the mentally ill shooters legally acquire firearms and kill people. This is because doctors and counselors do not inform the authorities about people who are possibly dangerous, thus prevent ing them from purchasing firearms. The children who got their firearms from their family members, means those adults screwed up. They should have better secured, or removed the firearms from the home.

[bsmooth]

Such a claim would require you to acknowledge that school shootings actually are worse.  Are they?

I still find it funny that you cry foul when this is referred to as a school shooting.  It wasn't "down the block" or "across the street" from the school; it was on the school grounds.  Kids were in class and in direct danger of being hit by stray shots.
Homicide as a whole has gone down greatly.



But since you specifically mention gun homicide, let's take a look at this graph for homicide victims among those aged 10-24, from the CDC:



So regarding this age group, it would indeed be accurate to say that gun homicides have decreased greatly: they used to be over four times higher than all other homicides combined, but now they are only a bit more than three times higher.  Progress!

Since you forgot the key part of the text, I grabbed it for you. "When homicide rates were examined by age group, rates for persons aged 20-24 years remained highest, and rates for persons aged 10-14 years remained lowest."

This means among school children, the threat of gun homicide is not a real threat. Age 20-24 is the highest risk. But that does not fit the school shooting narrative.

[pondwater]

Since you forgot the key part of the text, I grabbed it for you. "When homicide rates were examined by age group, rates for persons aged 20-24 years remained highest, and rates for persons aged 10-14 years remained lowest."

This means among school children, the threat of gun homicide is not a real threat. Age 20-24 is the highest risk. But that does not fit the school shooting narrative.

He knows what he's doing, he's changing the subject like usual. I pointed out that the original "school shootings" analysis and this thread was skewed by the democrats in an attempt to fear monger and stir people up. Then spider asked, "So why are you complaining about whether we categorize them as school shootings?" Then I provide a link that points out that gun homicide as a whole(no catagory) is down 49% since 1993. Then spider changes the subject again and starts talking about age ranges and categories.

[Spider-Dan]

What has never been addressed yet is fixing our mental health system. No one on either side is pushing to fix the mental health system in this country. After every shooting, the anti-gun crowd crows for more gun laws, and they ignore the fact the majority of the shooters all share a component of mental illness. How about we try and go after the one thing we have not addressed yet?

Because everyone implicitly realizes that a comprehensive government system of mental health evaluation would be decried as a FAR more invasive violation of liberty than any gun control bill on the table.

Gun rights advocates seem to categorize every mass shooter as "mentally disturbed" (which is a not-unreasonable assessment).  Fine.  So do we start taking guns away from people who start talking about our unconstitutional, tyrannical government?  Who gets to determine who is mentally healthy enough to own a gun, and how do we go about keeping a verified, updated database on the mental health status on the owners of the 300 million guns in America (WITHOUT a gun registration system, mind you)?

It's a smokescreen, intended purely to get people off the topic of gun control long enough for whatever recent event to fall off the news page.

Since you forgot the key part of the text, I grabbed it for you. "When homicide rates were examined by age group, rates for persons aged 20-24 years remained highest, and rates for persons aged 10-14 years remained lowest."

This means among school children, the threat of gun homicide is not a real threat. Age 20-24 is the highest risk. But that does not fit the school shooting narrative.

Well, first off, that quote means that among ages 10-24, ages 10-14 are the lowest.  If the point you take away from that fact is that school shootings are not the leading cause of homicide in the age group (10-24) that leads the nation in homicide victims, I certainly concede that point.  If they were, I'd be talking about the 740th school shooting since Sandy Hook, not the 74th.

But more to the point: talking about the problem of school shooting does not necessarily require that school shootings are a leading cause of deaths.  We can also talk about Islamic terrorism and drunk driving while acknowledging that neither of those are leading causes of fatalities in the U.S., can we not?  So how is "school shootings don't really kill that many kids compared to the total number of dead young adults" a relevant response?

[masterfins]

You'd think that, once gun control laws went into place, the number would decline sharply.  But, has it?

Fact is: people who shoot other people with guns don't care about laws (clearly), so how do you expect to control them with more laws?

Well the problem is that people buy guns in States with lax gun laws, and bring them into states/cities that have tough gun restrictions.  What's needed is tougher National guidelines, but that infringes upon States' rights.