Gun Owners And Non-Gun Owners Actually Agree On A Lot Of Gun Reforms

Nick Wing
,HuffPost•May 17, 2018

When it comes to addressing gun violence in the U.S., the general consensus seems to be that there’s no consensus. Gun owners and non-gun owners apparently can’t find common ground on policy solutions, which some Americans argue explains why there’s been so little action despite the mass shootings and other routine bloodshed of recent years.
http://www.grantcunningham.com/wp-co...ifle-class.jpg
But that explanation might be a bit too simplistic, according to a new study comparing support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners. The survey, conducted in January 2017 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, found that both groups largely approve of the majority of the 24 proposals examined. For most of those policies, the approval gap between gun owners and non-gun owners was in the single digits.

“This signals that we have higher levels of support and higher levels of agreement between gun owners and non-gun owners than is generally understood,” said Colleen Barry, a Johns Hopkins professor and the lead author of the study.

Survey respondents were asked about a number of widely discussed gun measures, such as mandating universal background checks including for private sales of firearms, which are currently exempt under federal law. With support from 85 percent of gun owners and 89 percent of non-gun owners, this was the most popular proposal.

The study revealed broad support for a variety of lesser-known policies as well. The second-most popular measure was suspending the license of any gun dealer unable to account for 20 or more guns in their inventory, which 82 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of non-gun owners backed. Just behind that was a proposal to require concealed-carry licensees to undergo safety and proficiency testing ― 83 percent of gun owners and 85 percent of non-gun owners expressed support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_A...P1_Carbine.JPG
Large majorities of both groups also approved of so-called red flag laws. These measures give law enforcement additional authority to confiscate weapons from dangerous individuals, often following a petition filed by a family member or police. Four states have passed red flag laws since the Parkland, Florida, shooting in February, meaning nine states now have them on the books. A handful of other states are currently considering similar legislation.

For 23 of the 24 proposals in the study, the majority of respondents came down on the side of greater gun restrictions or regulations. The least popular proposal involved prohibiting individuals convicted of drunk and disorderly conduct from possessing a gun for 10 years.


The most fruitful directions for policy are areas where gun owners and non-gun owners are a little more in agreement.
Colleen Barry, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

On certain proposals, there were significant gaps between gun owners and non-gun owners.

The two groups were sharply divided on allowing concealed-carry permit holders to bring guns onto school grounds, though neither gave the idea majority support. Forty-three percent of gun owners backed the proposal, compared to 19 percent of non-gun owners.

There was also less agreement on requiring people to lock up firearms in the home when not in use ― 58 percent of gun owners supported the idea versus 79 percent of non-gun owners. The groups were similarly split, 63 percent to 81 percent, on requiring would-be gun owners to first obtain a license from a local law enforcement agency, as they must in Massachusetts.

Some of the most divisive measures were among those most often proposed in public debate. The survey showed large gaps and less overall support for banning the sale of military-style semiautomatic rifles ― 44 percent of gun owners versus 68 percent of non-gun owners ― and banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines ― 41 percent of gun owners versus 67 percent of non-gun owners.

These results could be used to guide decisions about which gun violence prevention measures to pursue, said study author Barry.

“In my mind, the most fruitful directions for policy are areas where gun owners and non-gun owners are a little more in agreement,” she said. “If that’s where policymakers are interested in moving, there are a lot of policies to choose from.”

Barry also noted that research on the effectiveness of a so-called assault weapons ban is somewhat limited, at least when it comes to reducing overall levels of gun violence. While lawmakers may understandably wish to prevent the sort of massacres that have been repeatedly carried out with AR-15s and similar rifles, she suggested they may not want to push that measure to the exclusion of more politically feasible proposals.

“There are potentially lost opportunities to focus more attention and political capital around policies where we do see much higher levels of support overall, but also across the gun owner/non-gun owner divide,” she said.
Banning assault-style weapons, which this protester may well support, is not one of the areas in which gun owners and non-gun owners agree.

Barry has conducted similar studies twice before, with the first coming in January 2013, just weeks after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. She said that she was initially concerned that support for gun reforms might be merely a reaction to a recent tragedy, but that subsequent surveys in 2015 and now 2017 have shown stable support for many proposals among gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

Although her latest survey was conducted before the Parkland shooting, Barry said she believes that event has likely only reinforced the public opinion trends seen in the 2017 survey, including the divisions on policies like banning assault weapons.

“Folks who are in favor of a stronger regulatory environment may feel even more strongly about that, and folks on the other side who are more concerned about gun rights being restricted in the aftermath of recent events may or may not take a more stringent view,” she said.

The question now is whether lawmakers at the state or federal level will focus on gun violence prevention policies that have wide support among both gun owners and non-gun owners.

There are a few reasons they might not, even in the face of a vigorous push for gun reform following the Parkland shooting. For one, Barry’s study was national in scope, meaning it didn’t gauge public opinion in specific states or local jurisdictions, where gun policy is often decided.

Then there’s the matter of lobbying by interest groups like the National Rifle Association, which hold plenty of political power ― perhaps even more than public opinion alone.

YAHOO LINK

“We’d like to think that members of Congress speak with the voice of their constituencies, but it doesn’t always happen like we hope it does,” said Barry.

A Communist leftist website with a commie Lib journalist proclaiming how he and others are on the fence over the Second Amendment and gun confiscation. Good one professor.

https://www.news4jax.com/news/30-rou...asion-shootout

GLEN ST. MARY, Fla - Three men say they were asleep inside a mobile home in Glen St. Mary about 4 a.m. Sunday when they heard a voice outside yell “Sheriff’s Office!” before the front door burst open.

In stormed a masked gunman who fired off a single round before two of the men inside, one armed with an AR-15 rifle and the other with a handgun, emerged from two bedrooms and opened fire.

Gunfire ripped into the masked gunman and two other intruders, who crumpled to the floor with multiple gunshot wounds.



https://www.news4jax.com/news/5-arre...eadly-shootout

Send that story to your boy wing and see if he approves.

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-...-nevada139.jpg


Ask your boy wing if he thinks any of us would be willing to take on the feds over 300 cattle.

I'll just bet the non-gunowners are frightened by this picture. Along with the feds that thought we would just bend over and take it.

Case dismissed....

You mean those thieving Mormon bastards who were squatting on public land and refusing to pay their taxes, and then threatened to murder law enforcement officers. (and then two of their cult members actually DID murder two cops in a Vegas Wally World)

The same Mormon tax dodging wackjob cult who would later illegally take a national monument hostage and trash it entirely, before running from the cops like the little whiny bitches that they are, with one of their ringleaders finally getting exactly what he deserved, when he stupidly pulled his guns on the cops who ran him into a snowbank.

These are your role models, Jerksmear?? The KKKliven Bundy "let me tell you about them Negroes" cult??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSDZ7WMnZkA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FORD

You mean those thieving Mormon bastards who were squatting on public land and refusing to pay their taxes, and then threatened to murder law enforcement officers. (and then two of their cult members actually DID murder two cops in a Vegas Wally World)

The same Mormon tax dodging wackjob cult who would later illegally take a national monument hostage and trash it entirely, before running from the cops like the little whiny bitches that they are, with one of their ringleaders finally getting exactly what he deserved, when he stupidly pulled his guns on the cops who ran him into a snowbank.

These are your role models, Jerksmear?? The KKKliven Bundy "let me tell you about them Negroes" cult??

---

You must mean the guy there that was talking about government subsidies to black people.

In case you forgot with regard to the monument: FUCK BHOLE OBAMA

After the last election, who's crying now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacksmar

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-...-nevada139.jpg


Ask your boy wing if he thinks any of us would be willing to take on the feds over 300 cattle.

---

You mean become terrorists/criminals?

What if they were Muslims protesting with guns near their mosque? You you still wanna suck their e-dicks?

Quote:

---

I'll just bet the non-gunowners are frightened by this picture. Along with the feds that thought we would just bend over and take it.

Case dismissed....

---

http://blacktimetravel.com/wp-conten...6/06/ak-47.jpg

I bet you're scared of that picture...

Your tough guy with a gun rantings here get a bit old when you know you were a complete snowflake in the Army. I'm pretty sure that most who knew you then think you're a pansy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacksmar

A Communist leftist website with a commie Lib journalist proclaiming how he and others are on the fence over the Second Amendment and gun confiscation. Good one professor.

---

Except that it didn't. Good one, you F A T fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacksmar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSDZ7WMnZkA

---

Ah yes, the latest NRA Barbie doll, running around Kent State with a borrowed assault rifle......

Kent State (as Neil Young once reminded us) is in Ohio.

If you are a 12 year old black kid in Ohio, racist cops will shoot you instantly for playing with a TOY gun.

If you are a 30 something year old black man in Ohio, racist cops will shoot you instantly for carrying a toy gun in a Wal Mart. Never mind that the toy gun was taken from the shelves of that very store. Let alone the fact that WalMart also sells REAL guns.

But an airhead blonde cunt walking around a campus (where students were once infamously MURDERED by BCE stormtroopers) can carry military assault weapons at will. And even shock a dumbass like FAUX's Steve Douchey with the arrogance of her attitude about it all.

And you don't see anything wrong with any of this??

Oregon man arrested for opening fire with AK-47 on child’s birthday party because kids were too loud

Martin Cizmar
Rawstory.com
17 May 2018 at 16:54 ET

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/...er-800x430.png

An Oregon man has been arrested after he allegedly opened fire on an apartment complex, injuring two, after he became angry about loud children, reports Portland’s KPTV.

The alleged shooter Franklin L. Tomes, became angry about the noise at a children’s birthday party—so he opened fire with an AK-47, unloading 12 rounds and hitting two men.:gun:

Both men are expected to survive, but one may lose his foot.

The shooting happened in Newport, a hardscrabble fishing town that is notably obsessed with guns.

After shooting the men, Tomes retreated to his apartment where he sat holed up from the police for five hours. Police eventually talked him out peacefully.

Tomes is in jail on charges of attempted murder, first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon and reckless endangering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FORD

After shooting the men, Tomes retreated to his apartment where he sat holed up from the police for five hours. Police eventually talked him out peacefully.

---

Being white is awesome isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

You mean become terrorists/criminals?

What if they were Muslims protesting with guns near their mosque? You you still wanna suck their e-dicks?



http://blacktimetravel.com/wp-conten...6/06/ak-47.jpg

I bet you're scared of that picture...

Your tough guy with a gun rantings here get a bit old when you know you were a complete snowflake in the Army. I'm pretty sure that most who knew you then think you're a pansy...

---

Wasn't in the US Army prof TARDO. So, whatever you wikied after that doesn't make a LGBT pay toilet shit to me.

Last I saw recently, 2 dead religion of peace members. One dead Imam and one dead Imam helper.

https://religionnews.com/wp-content/...DER081516a.jpg


Hopefully law enforcement officials collected names and fingerprints of the funeral attendees in accordance with the Patriot Act. Then went to their hovels and did a search of the property to determine if there were any guns on the premises. All of which would've been standard procedure but this occurred in that multicultural shithole John Rocker called the most hectic, nerve-racking city.

2 dead radical muslim boxes. Help me with the math here: How many virgins does that come to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FORD

Oregon man arrested for opening fire with AK-47 on child’s birthday party because kids were too loud

Martin Cizmar
Rawstory.com
17 May 2018 at 16:54 ET

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/...er-800x430.png

An Oregon man has been arrested after he allegedly opened fire on an apartment complex, injuring two, after he became angry about loud children, reports Portland’s KPTV.

The alleged shooter Franklin L. Tomes, became angry about the noise at a children’s birthday party—so he opened fire with an AK-47, unloading 12 rounds and hitting two men.:gun:

Both men are expected to survive, but one may lose his foot.

The shooting happened in Newport, a hardscrabble fishing town that is notably obsessed with guns.

After shooting the men, Tomes retreated to his apartment where he sat holed up from the police for five hours. Police eventually talked him out peacefully.

Tomes is in jail on charges of attempted murder, first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon and reckless endangering.

---

It's my understanding that this guy has his own TV show now. He'll be doing book reviews from his jail cell and have an open conversation about long novels such as War and Peace and Les Misérables.

The TV show is called: Tomes on Tomes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seshmeister

Being white is awesome isn't it?

---

So, the other side of that white privilege coin would be black entitlement?

Once again good points counselor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacksmar

It's my understanding that this guy has his own TV show now. He'll be doing book reviews from his jail cell and have an open conversation about long novels such as War and Peace and Les Misérables.

The TV show is called: Tomes on Tomes....

---

Looks like someone upset Jeff Rense. Haha! He couldn't do his conspiracy broadcast in his garage because of all the damn noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FORD

You mean those thieving Mormon bastards who were squatting on public land and refusing to pay their taxes, and then threatened to murder law enforcement officers. (and then two of their cult members actually DID murder two cops in a Vegas Wally World)

The same Mormon tax dodging wackjob cult who would later illegally take a national monument hostage and trash it entirely, before running from the cops like the little whiny bitches that they are, with one of their ringleaders finally getting exactly what he deserved, when he stupidly pulled his guns on the cops who ran him into a snowbank.

These are your role models, Jerksmear?? The KKKliven Bundy "let me tell you about them Negroes" cult??

---

I have relatives that live where that LaVoy Finicum was from. He basically was considered an extremist even where he was from. I read the police report on the shooting. If you watch the video an officer is approaching Finicum from behind with what looks to be a pistol in his hand. Now they could have dropped Finicum without moving up on him like that. What that officer was holding was a taser gun. They were going to taze Finicum and then Finicum wouldn't follow orders to get on the ground and started reaching into his jacket. A sniper with a rifle dropped Finicum. So LaVoy would have had the shit shocked out of him but he would have lived if he wasn't reaching for the Ruger pistol he was packing. So people who want to make LaVoy Finicum some kind of constitutional rights guru have no clue. From what I read the BLM were acting like a bunch of assholes and put a bunch of extremists in a corner. Not a good mix. See it as a situation where both sides were at fault.

I might add those officers who moved up on Finicum were putting themselves at risk because there were others in the vehicle. They could have opened fire on the officers. So they exposed themselves to try and take Finicum alive. Hell they just could have opened up on him behind cover.

I get so tired of sloppy reporting. Unless it's got a milled receiver and is full automatic it's not an AK-47. Call it a Kalashnikov which covers everything of that basic design which includes Ak-47, Ak-74, AKM, and all the many non automatic variants including the Siaga rifle. Also an AR-15 in not an assault rifle. It has no burst or full automatic capability. If it did it would be an M-16. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle or carbine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh

Nick Wing
,HuffPost•May 17, 2018

When it comes to addressing gun violence in the U.S., the general consensus seems to be that there’s no consensus. Gun owners and non-gun owners apparently can’t find common ground on policy solutions, which some Americans argue explains why there’s been so little action despite the mass shootings and other routine bloodshed of recent years.
http://www.grantcunningham.com/wp-co...ifle-class.jpg
But that explanation might be a bit too simplistic, according to a new study comparing support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners. The survey, conducted in January 2017 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, found that both groups largely approve of the majority of the 24 proposals examined. For most of those policies, the approval gap between gun owners and non-gun owners was in the single digits.

“This signals that we have higher levels of support and higher levels of agreement between gun owners and non-gun owners than is generally understood,” said Colleen Barry, a Johns Hopkins professor and the lead author of the study.

Survey respondents were asked about a number of widely discussed gun measures, such as mandating universal background checks including for private sales of firearms, which are currently exempt under federal law. With support from 85 percent of gun owners and 89 percent of non-gun owners, this was the most popular proposal.

The study revealed broad support for a variety of lesser-known policies as well. The second-most popular measure was suspending the license of any gun dealer unable to account for 20 or more guns in their inventory, which 82 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of non-gun owners backed. Just behind that was a proposal to require concealed-carry licensees to undergo safety and proficiency testing ― 83 percent of gun owners and 85 percent of non-gun owners expressed support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_A...P1_Carbine.JPG
Large majorities of both groups also approved of so-called red flag laws. These measures give law enforcement additional authority to confiscate weapons from dangerous individuals, often following a petition filed by a family member or police. Four states have passed red flag laws since the Parkland, Florida, shooting in February, meaning nine states now have them on the books. A handful of other states are currently considering similar legislation.

For 23 of the 24 proposals in the study, the majority of respondents came down on the side of greater gun restrictions or regulations. The least popular proposal involved prohibiting individuals convicted of drunk and disorderly conduct from possessing a gun for 10 years.


The most fruitful directions for policy are areas where gun owners and non-gun owners are a little more in agreement.
Colleen Barry, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

On certain proposals, there were significant gaps between gun owners and non-gun owners.

The two groups were sharply divided on allowing concealed-carry permit holders to bring guns onto school grounds, though neither gave the idea majority support. Forty-three percent of gun owners backed the proposal, compared to 19 percent of non-gun owners.

There was also less agreement on requiring people to lock up firearms in the home when not in use ― 58 percent of gun owners supported the idea versus 79 percent of non-gun owners. The groups were similarly split, 63 percent to 81 percent, on requiring would-be gun owners to first obtain a license from a local law enforcement agency, as they must in Massachusetts.

Some of the most divisive measures were among those most often proposed in public debate. The survey showed large gaps and less overall support for banning the sale of military-style semiautomatic rifles ― 44 percent of gun owners versus 68 percent of non-gun owners ― and banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines ― 41 percent of gun owners versus 67 percent of non-gun owners.

These results could be used to guide decisions about which gun violence prevention measures to pursue, said study author Barry.

“In my mind, the most fruitful directions for policy are areas where gun owners and non-gun owners are a little more in agreement,” she said. “If that’s where policymakers are interested in moving, there are a lot of policies to choose from.”

Barry also noted that research on the effectiveness of a so-called assault weapons ban is somewhat limited, at least when it comes to reducing overall levels of gun violence. While lawmakers may understandably wish to prevent the sort of massacres that have been repeatedly carried out with AR-15s and similar rifles, she suggested they may not want to push that measure to the exclusion of more politically feasible proposals.

“There are potentially lost opportunities to focus more attention and political capital around policies where we do see much higher levels of support overall, but also across the gun owner/non-gun owner divide,” she said.
Banning assault-style weapons, which this protester may well support, is not one of the areas in which gun owners and non-gun owners agree.

Barry has conducted similar studies twice before, with the first coming in January 2013, just weeks after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. She said that she was initially concerned that support for gun reforms might be merely a reaction to a recent tragedy, but that subsequent surveys in 2015 and now 2017 have shown stable support for many proposals among gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

Although her latest survey was conducted before the Parkland shooting, Barry said she believes that event has likely only reinforced the public opinion trends seen in the 2017 survey, including the divisions on policies like banning assault weapons.

“Folks who are in favor of a stronger regulatory environment may feel even more strongly about that, and folks on the other side who are more concerned about gun rights being restricted in the aftermath of recent events may or may not take a more stringent view,” she said.

The question now is whether lawmakers at the state or federal level will focus on gun violence prevention policies that have wide support among both gun owners and non-gun owners.

There are a few reasons they might not, even in the face of a vigorous push for gun reform following the Parkland shooting. For one, Barry’s study was national in scope, meaning it didn’t gauge public opinion in specific states or local jurisdictions, where gun policy is often decided.

Then there’s the matter of lobbying by interest groups like the National Rifle Association, which hold plenty of political power ― perhaps even more than public opinion alone.

YAHOO LINK

“We’d like to think that members of Congress speak with the voice of their constituencies, but it doesn’t always happen like we hope it does,” said Barry.

---

Most of these gun regulations are silly. They basically deal with cosmetics. Basically if it looks military it's bad. Of course the manufactures find ways around the new regulations. If you ban semi-automatic firearms well you pretty much ban the newer firearms people like. Revolvers aren't as popular as they once were. People today favor semi-automatics for numerous reasons. So let's look at magazine capacity. if you are aiming your shots and shooting like a marksman you really don't need a big magazine. I rarely put over ten rounds in an AR-15 when I'm shooting one. 30 round magazines replaced the 20 round magazines in Vietnam when the soldiers wanted more firepower out of the M-16. A big magazine is nice when you are rocking full auto trying to keep your position from being over ran. So yeah what the hell. Ban large capacity magazines. The law abiding citizens will abide but the type of person who is going to do a mass shooting doesn't give a fuck about the law. Too many firearms out there to really do anything. Statistically there are bigger problems to worry about.

The gun debate is tiresome... IMO no amount of policy, laws, controls, etc. will stop mass shootings in the US. Too many guns, mentally deranged and idiots already exist to stop most cases.

One thing I do believe... if we want to stop school shootings, we have to harden security at schools. There's no other viable options I can see. Armed security and limited physical access with controls that prevent students and the public from entering the school with a weapon. It's not complicated nor expensive. There's way higher security at government, municipal buildings, sporting venues and entertainment venues than at most schools. We need to quit fooling ourselves that a single armed school resource officer protecting a huge campus with 1000 kids with fully open access can be a deterrent.

It's a cunning argument that you shouldn't discuss gun control in the aftermath of a mass shooting when the US is at all times in the aftermath of a mass shooting. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZahZoo

The gun debate is tiresome... IMO no amount of policy, laws, controls, etc. will stop mass shootings in the US. Too many guns, mentally deranged and idiots already exist to stop most cases.

One thing I do believe... if we want to stop school shootings, we have to harden security at schools. There's no other viable options I can see. Armed security and limited physical access with controls that prevent students and the public from entering the school with a weapon. It's not complicated nor expensive. There's way higher security at government, municipal buildings, sporting venues and entertainment venues than at most schools. We need to quit fooling ourselves that a single armed school resource officer protecting a huge campus with 1000 kids with fully open access can be a deterrent.

---

I don't own a gun. I don't have a desire to own a gun. I shot rifles and handguns recreationally at targets when I was growing up, but haven't done so since I was...18 or so.

Without having precise figures at my immediate command, even just ballparking it in terms of the amount of guns in the country along with a guess as to the amount of people who could be classified as emotionally disturbed/mentally imbalanced - which isn't necessarily the same as the amount of people with the potential to snap and go on a shooting spree (and trying to give an exact figure or even a meaningful estimate re: nutters with the ability to snap and have access to a gun would be a Fool's Errand) - my feeling is that if anything it's more surprising to me that there aren't MORE mass shootings than there already are.

Which certainly isn't to say that I think the amount of mass shootings as an acceptable number in terms of frequency, regardless of where the shootings are happening.

I do tend to think we can no longer currently consider schools safe places by default. So, we need to take measures to make them safe places. A single armed school resource officer for a campus with 1,000 students probably isn't enough if a shooting incident happens. With the speed in which a shooter can expend rounds from an automatic weapon, it seems to me the most effective way of stopping the shootings is by preventing the weapons from getting onto the campuses in the first place: what good would one, two or however many armed resource officers do at preventing the incidents from happening once the shooter gets the automatic weapon onto campus and opens fire? Once that happens, now you've got armed resource officers potentially exchanging gunfire with the assailant and increasing the likelihood that the resource officers will be hitting innocent students in the process.

So, maybe schools need to start putting metal detectors at all entrances and exits. Maybe kids need to start using clear backpacks, and their lockers will have clear plexiglass in place of the solid metal doors. Maybe kids will have to start arriving at school an hour earlier every day to line up and pass through metal detectors, and have their expectations of privacy diminished. Maybe parents of these school shooters who are under 18 will need to start being criminally charged along with their shooter children: maybe the fear of THAT will be enough to get these parents involved with what their children are up to. Maybe parents of school age children will have to expect an increase in their local taxes to fund these new security measures. Maybe more local communities via their school boards can start opting to have high school courses taught online, and kids who are assessed as potential threats can get their degrees that way, so they don't even have to go onto campus.

Perhaps it's time to seriously consider new approaches to the traditional public education experience. Either that, or just accept that there will be a mass school shooting at the rate of roughly one a month, and chalk that up to the cost of doing business.

I mean, as a species, we've learned to live with the existence for 75 years now of weapons that can wipe out civilization within an hour. We haven't mobilized in an effective way to rid ourselves of this existential threat: certainly we can learn to live with a dozen or so teenagers being senselessly gunned down a dozen times a year, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHLupBh-7oQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry

I mean, as a species, we've learned to live with the existence for 75 years now of weapons that can wipe out civilization within an hour. We haven't mobilized in an effective way to rid ourselves of this existential threat: certainly we can learn to live with a dozen or so teenagers being senselessly gunned down a dozen times a year, right?

---

You must have been watching the Majority Report......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWybVkSL9E4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry

I mean, as a species, we've learned to live with the existence for 75 years now of weapons that can wipe out civilization within an hour. We haven't mobilized in an effective way to rid ourselves of this existential threat: certainly we can learn to live with a dozen or so teenagers being senselessly gunned down a dozen times a year, right?

---

People are always going to kill other people. Welcome to planet earth. As far as guns go it's social conditioning. There are other countries where the population has been conditioned that those in control will take care of them. Actually smart conditioning if you are on the top tier. Here in the US we grew out of citizens (minutemen) rebelling with arms against a monarchy's troops. So the gun in the mindset of this country is a form of freedom. The right to have one is in the constitution and with all the corruption in the government and everything for that matter people want a gun. You just aren't going to erase that and the more you try the more guns you will help sell. So if you don't like guns don't live here. Live in some place where people have never owned them and have been conditioned to believe only the government can have them. Lot's of places like that. The US has always been a maverick nation that way.

The gun debate has gone on my whole life. I've seen it go nowhere. It just changes the cosmetics and paperwork. It really does nothing. With that open border we have you can buy anything you want if you are a criminal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToU8RM2lMg4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FORD

You must have been watching the Majority Report......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWybVkSL9E4

---

No, I hadn't.

I was being half-sarcastic and half-serious: from nuclear weapons, to the production of chemicals toxic to our species, to the production of conventional weapons designed to kill one another, to putting unhealthy levels of salt/sugar/additives in the foods we eat...we have spent trillions of dollars and an inestimable amount of hours coming up with a seemingly infinite number of methods - both fast and slow -to kill one another. We have opted to continue doing these things, even after we know what the outcomes will potentially/eventually/inevitably be.

So why are school shootings so shocking? In proportion of potential devastation, one mentally unbalanced teenager firing an automatic weapon inside a school and murdering a dozen other teenagers is small compared to the other things I've mentioned that we've conditioned ourselves to live with our entire lives.

Most of us won't really exert any effort to try and stop school shootings (if they even can be stopped) beyond sending internet condolences to the victims after the event(s).

Taking all of what I posted into account, seemingly we've also been conditioned to accept school shootings along with all the other lethal activities we engage in or condone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry

No, I hadn't.

I was being half-sarcastic and half-serious: from nuclear weapons, to the production of chemicals toxic to our species, to the production of conventional weapons designed to kill one another, to putting unhealthy levels of salt/sugar/additives in the foods we eat...we have spent trillions of dollars and an inestimable amount of hours coming up with a seemingly infinite number of methods - both fast and slow -to kill one another. We have opted to continue doing these things, even after we know what the outcomes will potentially/eventually/inevitably be.

So why are school shootings so shocking? In proportion of potential devastation, one mentally unbalanced teenager firing an automatic weapon inside a school and murdering a dozen other teenagers is small compared to the other things I've mentioned that we've conditioned ourselves to live with our entire lives.

Most of us won't really exert any effort to try and stop school shootings (if they even can be stopped) beyond sending internet condolences to the victims after the event(s).

Taking all of what I posted into account, seemingly we've also been conditioned to accept school shootings along with all the other lethal activities we engage in or condone.

---

Read a history book. There never has been a civilization that was ever violence free. It's human nature. Chances are you have had a better life than your grand parents and great grandparents. I bet you could sit in with a group of very talented psychiatrists and none of them would agree on what makes Billy want to shoot up the school. Never before have we had so much stimulation. The internet, video games, movies, and we will invent more. If you think we are screwed up now. Wait until people get addicted to virtual reality goggles. Haha! They will be addicted to the virtual reality on some computer using it to escape life like how people used to use drugs. That being said it's probably better than being a serf under a feudal lord a few hundred years ago.

All true but why is the USA so much worse for mass shootings than any other comparable country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seshmeister

All true but why is the USA so much worse for mass shootings than any other comparable country?

---

You know this socialist bullshit is getting really old.


Why are we constantly advised to not judge all muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but its those same people that tell us to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics?

Nice try counselor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitro Express

Read a history book. There never has been a civilization that was ever violence free. It's human nature. Chances are you have had a better life than your grand parents and great grandparents. I bet you could sit in with a group of very talented psychiatrists and none of them would agree on what makes Billy want to shoot up the school. Never before have we had so much stimulation. The internet, video games, movies, and we will invent more. If you think we are screwed up now. Wait until people get addicted to virtual reality goggles. Haha! They will be addicted to the virtual reality on some computer using it to escape life like how people used to use drugs. That being said it's probably better than being a serf under a feudal lord a few hundred years ago.

---

I agree with a lot of that. There will never be a guarantee, regardless of even instituting the most stringent gun laws, that some nutter doesn't flip out and kill a bunch of people: if it is in a school, a mall, a sports event, a church or wherever...the particulars of the location don't really make a shooting at one place more horrific to me vs. another place.

I mean, I'm not trying to intentionally be flippant or dismissive about how horrific these school shootings are, but we tolerate far worse in terms of destructive potential on a daily basis for the entirety of our lives.

Okay, I'm going to read a history book!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacksmar

You know this socialist bullshit is getting really old.


Why are we constantly advised to not judge all muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but its those same people that tell us to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics?

Nice try counselor.

---

They're judging by statistics, dipshit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry

I agree with a lot of that. There will never be a guarantee, regardless of even instituting the most stringent gun laws, that some nutter doesn't flip out and kill a bunch of people: if it is in a school, a mall, a sports event, a church or wherever...the particulars of the location don't really make a shooting at one place more horrific to me vs. another place.

I mean, I'm not trying to intentionally be flippant or dismissive about how horrific these school shootings are, but we tolerate far worse in terms of destructive potential on a daily basis for the entirety of our lives.

Okay, I'm going to read a history book!

---

I'm more interested in why these kids want to commit mass murder more than what hardware they use. You can take the guns away but they are still going to want to kill. They will use bombs. Then we get into outlawing pressure cookers, nails, galvanized steel pipe, etc... Sorry sir. You can't fill your car up with gasoline because it can be used in a flame thrower or a molotov cocktail.

I get wanting to burn the school down. What kid didn't fantasize about that? Going in and shooting the school up? Don't get that one. That's like some sick revenge for getting bullied or something. But then of course the whole thing becomes politicized and it becomes a political pissing match. The thing is these kids would wrap the school up in detonation cord and implode it on their teachers and school mates if they could. The big question is WHY? Does anyone really have an answer? Why weren't kids doing this in the 1950's? You had screwed up kids back then and they had easier access to firearms than we do now. Also. Why are teachers screwing the kids so much? If I had a dollar for every story I read about a teacher screwing a student, I would be rich. Where were these teachers when I was going through school? Most of mine were ugly and mean. Fucking any of my english teachers would be like fucking a water bed and not only that, the water bed would be screaming at you while you did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitro Express

Why weren't kids doing this in the 1950's? You had screwed up kids back then and they had easier access to firearms than we do now.

---

Don't think so. There are far more guns around in the US now than there ever were in the past.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...ple.jpg&w=1484


I think some of it is also probably copycat which is why the media should not focus too much on individual murderers.

Also been quite a lot of shit did actually go down in schools back in the day....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitro Express

I'm more interested in why these kids want to commit mass murder more than what hardware they use...

---

https://dailyonnews.com/wp-content/u...es-326x245.jpg

In this case, he was apparently obsessed with this girl that spurned him. She was his first victim, RIP...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seshmeister

Don't think so. There are far more guns around in the US now than there ever were in the past.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...ple.jpg&w=1484


I think some of it is also probably copycat which is why the media should not focus too much on individual murderers.

Also been quite a lot of shit did actually go down in schools back in the day....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

---

Easier access due to less gun regulation. Not necessarily more guns. In the 50's you still could buy guns mail-order. Also they were in the open more. Where I grew up you always saw rifles in the back of the cab of pickup trucks and it was common to have big glass display cases full of guns at home. Now you never see those. People now lock their guns up in safes or closets. During hunting season it was not uncommon to see rifles and shotguns in trucks in the school parking lot. Nobody thought anything of it. Now did kids with that kind of access go grab their Remmington pump shotgun and blast their girlfriend or shoot up the jocks who gave them some shit? Nope! They might get in a fist fight or slash the tires on someone's car at the worst. Something has changed in the moral makeup and psychology of these kids. Also in my redneck town most everyone carried a knife. Usually a lock blade. Never saw anyone pull a knife either. It was not only viewed as a very wrong thing to do it was viewed as a cowardly action. Kicking and aiming for the balls was also considered sissy stuff. You landed punches and as Zahzoo said it usually ended up in a faggy wrestling match on the ground.

As I keep saying the facts just don't agree with the 'the kids today are terrible' narrative. Violent crime is way down compared to your youth.

You and Zahzoo should really read this book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Be..._of_Our_Nature

I concur that overall violent crime is and has been declining for some time globally. I'm familiar with that book...I think the nature of violent crime has changed as far as rather than a significant number of limited individual acts, today we have more mass incidents in places that typically weren't common targets.

These school shootings are the most troubling in both where they occur but also being carried out by kids who's lives shouldn't be driven to commit crimes of such significance.