Children and a teacher were killed at an elementary school in Texas(npr.org)
npr.org
Children and a teacher were killed at an elementary school in Texas
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/24/1101037902/texas-elementary-school-shooting-uvalde
28 comments
[deleted]
HN members are typically smart... How do we stop this kind of thing? Please don’t say gun laws, there are plenty of those.
If HN members are so smart, why don't they admit that taking laws written 200 years ago as gospel is fundamentally broken?
Yeah, largely agreed.
But also, what part of any of this shit looks like a well regulated militia? Take all the guns, including the police's, & lock them up.
But also, what part of any of this shit looks like a well regulated militia? Take all the guns, including the police's, & lock them up.
The logistics aren't practical (that is, confiscating the nation's guns). I don't know much on this, but I take Beau's word on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfaWQd4njB0&ab_channel=Beauo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfaWQd4njB0&ab_channel=Beauo...
The Supreme Court decided that "well regulated militia" doesn't mean anything, so they just ignore that part. They dub it the "prefatory clause" -- kinda like a comment, which might be some kind of hint but doesn't affect how the code actually runs.
So it goes, so it goes.
So it goes, so it goes.
The laws we have clearly aren't working, then. So: Better gun laws. Background checks. No guns for mentally unstable folks, or folks living with mentally unstable folks.
Absolutely, but the US have a gun culture that is in direct conflict with this sound proposal.
Another measure would be to raise the punishment for being an accessory, according to https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/blog/gun-violence/16-facts-..., at least one other person had knowledge of the attacker’s plan in 80% of the cases.
I don't think metal detectors or more surveillance at the school will help enough.
But implement the first two measures as a start.
Another measure would be to raise the punishment for being an accessory, according to https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/blog/gun-violence/16-facts-..., at least one other person had knowledge of the attacker’s plan in 80% of the cases.
I don't think metal detectors or more surveillance at the school will help enough.
But implement the first two measures as a start.
Less gun laws, equip every citizen who wants with a weapon. Including the children.
And the actual solution is to solve why people do these things, not how. How is simple to solve, just lock everyone in 2mx2mx2m cubes permanently.
And the actual solution is to solve why people do these things, not how. How is simple to solve, just lock everyone in 2mx2mx2m cubes permanently.
[deleted](1)
I would be interested in learning why we don’t have Armed guards at schools, the way we do in stadiums, airports, and other large gatherings.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You'll only get guesses. If people knew, it would be talked about on the larger stage and implemented.
In my opinion it's most commonly a lack of hope. They don't see things getting better (bullying, social isolation). They don't think they have any chance at a good job/life (turn to crime, commit suicide). There seems to be some supporting evidence in studies that look at socioeconomic factors of violence.
How to fix that is highly debatable. The general points could be people having jobs they feel are meaningful or pay enough, people having a respected part in the community, and people having friends who don't make them feel isolated and hopeless.
Edit: why disagree without a discussion?
In my opinion it's most commonly a lack of hope. They don't see things getting better (bullying, social isolation). They don't think they have any chance at a good job/life (turn to crime, commit suicide). There seems to be some supporting evidence in studies that look at socioeconomic factors of violence.
How to fix that is highly debatable. The general points could be people having jobs they feel are meaningful or pay enough, people having a respected part in the community, and people having friends who don't make them feel isolated and hopeless.
Edit: why disagree without a discussion?
I do agree that social isolation, hopelessness, and the US culture of rugged individualism may play a factor here, but we don't have a monopoly on that. Or mental illness. Or bullying. And on and on.
In this context, the only metric in which the US far surpasses other OECD countries is gun ownership and our idolatry of guns.
EDIT: Plus the constitutional enshrinement of gun ownership, based on a document written in the 17th century.
In this context, the only metric in which the US far surpasses other OECD countries is gun ownership and our idolatry of guns.
EDIT: Plus the constitutional enshrinement of gun ownership, based on a document written in the 17th century.
Yet if you look at a more granular level we see that theory fall apart. Look at the crime stats for Media PA and then for Chester PA. They're 7 miles apart, have the same gun laws, yet there are wildly different outcomes. Socioeconomic factors seem to be the most correlated (some studies and books support this). Gun ownership is realtively high in Switzerland and Canada (including illegal guns from the US) as well, yet we don't see the issues there on the levels we would expect - the correlation doesn't track. Plus, we should be looking at reducing all violence and crime, so addressing the socioeconomic factors is the holistic approach that would provide the most benefit to society. Also, re: mental illness monopoly - most other ODEC countries have much better access to healthcare, including mental health services. If you look at the mental health scores by country the US falls near the bottom.
Another interesting thing is the focus on guns and gun laws that don't match the events. The gun laws being proposed would do almost nothing to prevent the events the media swarms to (Rand analysis shows). Most of them would have little impact on crime in general. The main way places like the UK get to low levels of gun violence is by near prohibition on ownership over generations. Then we will see that violent crime is still twice the US level, even after adjusting for differences in definitions.
Another interesting thing is the focus on guns and gun laws that don't match the events. The gun laws being proposed would do almost nothing to prevent the events the media swarms to (Rand analysis shows). Most of them would have little impact on crime in general. The main way places like the UK get to low levels of gun violence is by near prohibition on ownership over generations. Then we will see that violent crime is still twice the US level, even after adjusting for differences in definitions.
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion but comparing gun/crime numbers to Canada isn't particularly helpful. Canada has wildly different tolerances of what is legal as far as violence goes, not to mention the suspect nature of crime statistics in the US when comparing areas with differing socioeconomic status. Many in the US see it as perfectly reasonable to use deadly force to defend property, as that's been heavily pushed into legislation (ALEC's 'stand your ground' gun laws) See this article about self-defense in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-defence-what-s-acceptabl...
Your last line is vague - can you expand? The UK has far, far lower murder rates than the US so do you mean that the UK has twice the amount of non-murder violent crime?
Your last line is vague - can you expand? The UK has far, far lower murder rates than the US so do you mean that the UK has twice the amount of non-murder violent crime?
"use deadly force to defend property, as that's been heavily pushed into legislation (ALEC's 'stand your ground' gun laws)"
Stand you ground laws do not allow for deadly force to defend property. Ones life must be imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (or kidnapping, or rape, or any of the above in defense of a third person). The vast majority of places do not allow deadly force to defend property. I believe Texas has a law that sort of allows it on the presumption that anyone committing a felony on your property at night has deadly intent). But that's an exception. Reasonable force still applies as well.
And yes, approximately.
Stand you ground laws do not allow for deadly force to defend property. Ones life must be imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (or kidnapping, or rape, or any of the above in defense of a third person). The vast majority of places do not allow deadly force to defend property. I believe Texas has a law that sort of allows it on the presumption that anyone committing a felony on your property at night has deadly intent). But that's an exception. Reasonable force still applies as well.
And yes, approximately.
Short of helping people to value and protect human life, I’m not sure how this can be stopped. A very quotable line from the movie Full Metal Jacket is apt: “It is not your rifle but a HARD HEART that kills!”
>“It is not your rifle but a HARD HEART that kills!”
A hard heart doesn't kill anyone but its owner. Plenty of people in this world have hard hearts, but this level of constant gun violence only happens in the US. A hard heart may make pulling the trigger easier, but the bullets are what kill people.
A hard heart doesn't kill anyone but its owner. Plenty of people in this world have hard hearts, but this level of constant gun violence only happens in the US. A hard heart may make pulling the trigger easier, but the bullets are what kill people.
Treat these shootings as a process from (decision to implement action) to (horrific outcome). Enlist experts to find out what can continually stop that process.
And, yes, some of those steps would be gun laws. "How do we stop these kind of fires from burning down houses? Please don't say water, we have plenty of that at the lake."
And, yes, some of those steps would be gun laws. "How do we stop these kind of fires from burning down houses? Please don't say water, we have plenty of that at the lake."
I think it's a bit presumptuous to claim that some of the steps would be gun laws when we're enlisting experts to figure out what would continually stop school attacks.
Maybe it would, maybe it would be something else.
Maybe it would, maybe it would be something else.
The Dickey Amendment[0] frightened the CDC from doing just that. Lobbied for by the NRA and added to a spending bill by a Republican congressman. "Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized." The CDC had budgeted $2.6M to study the problem. This was stopped and, in addition (as "punishment" perhaps?), exactly $2.6M was diverted to something else. Willful ignorance. What can you do?
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
[deleted]
Bring back the public mental hospitals.