More school shootings (but now's not the time to talk about it)

[Jockey]

Without going overboard on the nuance, my business is analogues, not equivalencies.  But for those who see their own respective worlds as black and white (read: not race but rather the representations of everything and nothing on the visual spectrum), allow me to put this into universally understood terms*:

|Jockey & Muta| = |Chicos & Heisy|

That's not art, that's math (which is more science than science itself).



* Universally understood, that is, by anyone who passed 7th grade math.

You just "phoned in" this response. Complete lack of effort.

At some point, people become parodies of themselves. As a self-appointed man of reason, you are coming dangerously close.

[Benny B]

You just "phoned in" this response. Complete lack of effort.

I admit, I did.  I had a few more thoughts that were starting to draw comparisons to 3 and 4 dimensional space, but it seemed too preachy.  Last thing I ever wanted to be was a math teacher, so I'm just going to hit the kill switch on that metaphor.

I'm pretty sure you understand the point I was trying to make.  I'm certain you won't admit it.

[Jockey]

I admit, I did.  I had a few more thoughts that were starting to draw comparisons to 3 and 4 dimensional space, but it seemed too preachy.  Last thing I ever wanted to be was a math teacher, so I'm just going to hit the kill switch on that metaphor.

I'm pretty sure you understand the point I was trying to make.  I'm certain you won't admit it.

Much better.

[Lennys Tap]

Let me try to translate this into english: In Benny's world calling the Trump/NRA crowd "fools" and "traitors" is the equivalent of putting a white sheet over your head and burning crosses. Ok.
You can have the last word buddy.

Lost in translation - you're clearly unable to speak, read or understand "Benny". Study harder, the benefits make the work worthwhile.

[Mutaman]

Lost in translation - you're clearly unable to speak, read or understand "Benny". Study harder, the benefits make the work worthwhile.

Lenny= The Ross Douthat of MUScoop.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

“I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives.“

Speaking of saving lives...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/02/04/he-bought-a-gun-to-protect-his-family-then-he-saw-someone-beating-up-a-cop/?utm_term=.2a78655f0b96


82 conflated the other 2(rape and abortion) I didn’t.  They are 2 separate I topics that I don’t feel need to be nor should be discussed with regards to the 2nd amendment,unless it has something to do with protecting one from rape.  Then yes, guns are good. 

I can respect someone’s fear of guns as long as they respect my right to have and/or carry just as Oprah’s body guards do

Ah yes, the one "good guy with a gun" anecdote. I'll see your one good guy and raise you 150 dead in Las Vegas.  or Sandy Hook.  Or Columbine.  Or...an endless list.

[Pakuni]

Ah yes, the one "good guy with a gun" anecdote. I'll see your one good guy and raise you 150 dead in Las Vegas.  or Sandy Hook.  Or Columbine.  Or...an endless list.

Well, I mean, you can toss out the bad actors and just consider the fact that a gun in the home is much more likely to harm a member of the household than protect a member of the household.
But if people want to take that risk, have at it.

[mu03eng]

So an interesting question came up at a Superbowl Party with friends. Group of us (3 families) that the wives have known each other since high school or college and we get together all of the time so we're pretty tight (so it's a safe space so to speak). Anyway, it came up in the course of conversation that the hosts have a handgun in the house, but it's in a gun safe that requires a thumb print to access. It was a weird lighting bolt moment because it was the first time I really thought about this in the context of having a kid old enough to wonder around a house and find a carelessly secure gun or whatever. So it elicited a lot of good conversation but generated a lot of interesting questions that while I have answers in mind based on my experience I don't know if they're the right ones or not. I wouldn't say I grew up in a gun culture but I learned to shoot when I was 8(Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts), I was use to my dad occasionally wearing a sidearm if he had to go right to the flight line because of a last second exercise/mission or whatever, and my parents talked to me about guns in terms of never handling one without an adult, not toys, however other then antique non-operable keepsakes (great grandfathers WWI rifle,etc) we had no guns in the house. My wife and our friends had very different experiences and I'd be curious as to the takes from the folks in this thread.

-When if ever do you train your kids on the use of guns? (I don't hunt, do not want guns in the house, but I will occasionally will go to the gun range or trap shooting with friends because I do enjoy target shooting and I do think it's important for my kid to know about guns if only to understand how dangerous they are)
-When do you talk to your kids about guns, like if they might come across one at a friends house?
-If your kid is going to a friend's house, do you ask the parents if they have guns in the house and are they secured?
-If there are gun(s) at the friend's house do you still let your kid go over

Thoughts? Other questions that need to be answered?

[MU82]

Well, I mean, you can toss out the bad actors and just consider the fact that a gun in the home is much more likely to harm a member of the household than protect a member of the household.
But if people want to take that risk, have at it.

More Americans have been shot by toddlers than terrorists!

[Lennys Tap]

Well, I mean, you can toss out the bad actors and just consider the fact that a gun in the home is much more likely to harm a member of the household than protect a member of the household.
But if people want to take that risk, have at it.

In the areas where most Scoopers live that's undoubtably true. It's one reason I've never even considered having a gun in my home. For a single woman living in Englewood I'm not convinced, though.

[MU82]

Here is an excellent, short editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article198648229.html#emlnl=Morning_Newsletter

For those who for some reason can't access it via the link:

+++

Five months later, we still don’t know why Stephen Paddock rented a room in a Las Vegas high-rise and decided to commit one of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history, killing 58 and injuring more than 500.

Despite the carnage and initial chatter among members of Congress – and even the National Rifle Association – about finally taking concrete steps to lessen the chances such an event could be repeated, the federal government has again proven itself incapable of taking the issue seriously. Fortunately, several states and cities have begun trying to make up for Congress’s derelict of duty.

After the shooting, Columbia, S.C., became the first city to officially ban devices called bump stocks, which allowed Paddock to turn semi-automatic weapons into ones that could fire more rapidly and consistently. Cities such as Denver have followed suit. More than a dozen states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut have or are considering doing the same. It’s a small measure, and in some ways symbolic, given that we don’t how many people have bump stocks.

It won’t prevent every mass shooting. It won’t stop every person determined to cause as much harm as possible. Guns, semi-automatic or bump stock-enhanced, are not the only way to commit massacres and unleash havoc and terror. So even if our leaders in Washington reverse course and get busy on bipartisan legislation banning bump stocks, no one should declare victory over the scourge of gun violence that is the worst in the developed world. Only diligent, painstaking law enforcement work, along with a strong partnership with the community, can root out the most dangerous among us before they can cause too much damage.

But the decision to act in the face of inaction from Washington by a growing number of cities and states is welcome nonetheless. It’s not as effective as more comprehensive background checks, better mental health care, stricter training requirements, or any number of other measures. Still, it puts down a marker, makes a declaration that there are ways to cobble together the political will to begin tackling gun violence, even if it is one painstakingly slow step at a time.

We’ve so lost our way on this issue. Mass shootings and everyday shootings, no matter if they are in churches or schools, at country music concerts, or inside nightclubs, generate a few mostly localized headlines before quickly fading from public awareness. According to the Gun Violence Archive, more than 800 people were shot and killed in less than a month after the Las Vegas shooting even as Congress refused to act. So far this year, more than 5,300 people have been shot, nearly 1,500 of whom died, including 60 children. Charlotte in 2017 saw its most homicides in a dozen years, and a gun was involved in three-quarters of them.

That list will only grow. At some point, we must muster the courage to do something about it. Banning bump stocks should be only the beginning.

[forgetful]

This article kind of highlights the absurdity of our nation regarding new gun laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/02/07/tide-pods-must-be-changed-to-be-less-delicious-looking-lawmakers-say.html


We will pass laws to make tide pods look less delicious to stop people from eating tide pods, but we will do nothing regarding legislation to protect american's from gun violence by instituting new gun laws. 

[Benny B]

More Americans have been shot by toddlers than terrorists!

Of course... because terrorists don't actually shoot Americans; they just crash them into something or decapitate them.

Which, when you come to think of it is somewhat ironic (Canadian irony) insomuch that a terrorist act (to the terrorist) is mostly propaganda, i.e. to draw maximum attention/emotional effect.  If Hakmed goes out and shoots at a few Americans, it ends up in the pile with all of the other daily gun deaths that 95% of Americans don't even hear about.  In other words, the only chance it makes the news is if Hakmed leaves some sort of ISIS manifesto behind.  But Habib detonates a pressure cooker filled with nails and screws... that's not something you see every day, i.e. that's going to draw the attention of eyeballs around the country.

It hearkens to the paradox that we only pay attention to the violence when either a) it's in our immediate backyard or b) it's unique/sensational enough to draw curiosity.  After all, if we treated all gun deaths equally, 82 would have to spend his entire day - every day - just starting new threads on Scoop.  In other words, we don't have the emotional capacity, let alone the time, to react to every life that's lost to a firearm.

So getting back to the sensational nature of a terrorist act.... that's not something that's going to be solved with putting more laws on the books.  Even if the US enacted a wholesale ban on firearms, I'm sure there are already tens, and more likely hundreds, of thousands of guns drenched in oil buried underground somewhere.  So I think most would agree that you can enact every extremist law you want, but you're not going to stop these incidents.   What we perhaps overlook is the reality is that of the incidents typically cited as rationale for more gun control, not all of them are being committed with a primary intent to kill... Eric and Dylan had a specific plan and were targeting specific people... that's intent to kill.  Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Vegas... those were simply random killings committed in the name of making a statement.  Orlando... kind of a hybrid between the two.

I absolutely believe that more gun control would - at the very least - reduce the severity of these incidents, but I didn't think it would reduce the frequency until now.  In short, these are two different types of incidents that can't be killed with one stone; I believe that denying access to firearms will reduce the frequency (but do little to the severity) of the Columbine-type incidents and reduce the severity (but do little to the frequency) of the Vegas-type incidents.

My only concern is that these whack jobs just feel like they have to make a statement, so they're going to do whatever it takes to get people's attention; whether this is grown from the same root stock as the Meeseeks ("look at me") phenomenon that seems to be rising in correlation to the rise of social media is a different analysis for a different day, but to these people, guns are simply a means to an end, and a convenient one at that.  If you take away that access, are you actually going to stop them from making a statement?  If not, it begs the question of how they're going to stage such a sensational, news-worthy event without firearms?  Poisoning?  Viruses?  Bombs?  Torture?  Arson?  Evisceration?*

I would think the overwhelming consensus is that something should be done (yes, banning bump stocks and any contrivances that cause semi-autos to mimic autos would be an excellent start).  But everyone should bear in mind that while the cost of doing nothing is certainly greater than the cost of doing something, the cost of some things may be greater than the cost of doing nothing.

Come to think of it, gun control and immigration seem to be peas in a pod.... "ban the guns" and "build the wall" are both ideas with merit that will not solve the problem on their own, but I'll be damned if those two rallying cries don't turn out the vote.  #CompulsoryElections



* With as ubiquitous as mass-killings are becoming these days, we might be moving towards this anyway.

[Benny B]

So an interesting question came up at a Superbowl Party with friends. Group of us (3 families) that the wives have known each other since high school or college and we get together all of the time so we're pretty tight (so it's a safe space so to speak). Anyway, it came up in the course of conversation that the hosts have a handgun in the house, but it's in a gun safe that requires a thumb print to access. It was a weird lighting bolt moment because it was the first time I really thought about this in the context of having a kid old enough to wonder around a house and find a carelessly secure gun or whatever. So it elicited a lot of good conversation but generated a lot of interesting questions that while I have answers in mind based on my experience I don't know if they're the right ones or not. I wouldn't say I grew up in a gun culture but I learned to shoot when I was 8(Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts), I was use to my dad occasionally wearing a sidearm if he had to go right to the flight line because of a last second exercise/mission or whatever, and my parents talked to me about guns in terms of never handling one without an adult, not toys, however other then antique non-operable keepsakes (great grandfathers WWI rifle,etc) we had no guns in the house. My wife and our friends had very different experiences and I'd be curious as to the takes from the folks in this thread.

-When if ever do you train your kids on the use of guns? (I don't hunt, do not want guns in the house, but I will occasionally will go to the gun range or trap shooting with friends because I do enjoy target shooting and I do think it's important for my kid to know about guns if only to understand how dangerous they are)
-When do you talk to your kids about guns, like if they might come across one at a friends house?
-If your kid is going to a friend's house, do you ask the parents if they have guns in the house and are they secured?
-If there are gun(s) at the friend's house do you still let your kid go over

Thoughts? Other questions that need to be answered?

I deplore the fact that my 9 year old is going through the standard obsession with guns phase right now; fortunately, it seems to be subsiding.  Nevertheless, I have tried to use it to teach him the basics of gun safety without having him hold an actual gun; but Cub Scouts day at the firing range is coming up next year, and I am probably going to enroll him in hunter's safety, even though I'm not a hunter (although I have hunted in the past and may again in someday in the future), for that exact reason -- in case he encounters one at a friend's house.

As to whether he gets to go to the friend's house if I know there are guns there... I honestly don't know.  Frankly, it isn't a conversation I've had with my wife either... I guess the default would be "no" but if I knew the parents well and were comfortable with their sense of responsibility, I probably would allow it.

But I also have a single firearm in the house.  A 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun secured such that a both a key and combination is required to make it work.  It's stored in a plain, black inconspicuous case that's completely hidden in a place where my children will quite likely never find it.  More importantly, the only person in the entire world who knows there's a gun in our house is my wife.  Not our friends, not our neighbors, not our parents, and especially not our children.

Am I the most responsible parent in the world for keeping a gun in a house with three children?  Of course not.  But as they say "out of sight, out of mind" and the fewer the people who know it's actually there, the less risk there is of any sort of curiosity-driven accident.  This isn't a pistol being kept in a dresser... it's hidden such that the only way anyone ever finds it is if they know what it is they're looking for; in other words, it's statistically impossible that anyone will ever stumble upon it completely by chance, but given the industrious nature of my kids, I will concede an outside chance that if they were actively looking for it, eventually they might find it.

That said, I bet I could explain everything I just did (and even elaborate on the deliberate measures I've taken with the location of the key, how well it's hidden, etc.) and for most parents, it won't matter.  Hell, I could have one of those mini bank safes with the spinnie captain's wheel with two-factor biometrics, time-release, and a 24/7 armed security guard watching over the damn thing, and the only thing they'll process is "loaded gun in the house." 



So if I'm ever asked if there was a gun in the house, my answer is going to be an unequivocal "no," and that troubles me, because I don't want to lie to someone any more than I want them to lie to me when it comes to my children's safety, actual or perceived.  Nevertheless, I firmly believe that - given the security measures I've taken - disclosure presents more of a risk than honesty.  So if I am ever asked, I will at least try to be half-respectful of the parents' wishes and subtlety insist the kids have play-dates elsewhere from then on... which is a win-win because I don't need more kids tracking salt and slush into my house right now.  Wet socks suck.

[GooooMarquette]

But I also have a single firearm in the house.  A 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun secured such that a both a key and combination is required to make it work.  It's stored in a plain, black inconspicuous case that's completely hidden in a place where my children will quite likely never find it.  More importantly, the only person in the entire world who knows there's a gun in our house is my wife.  Not our friends, not our neighbors, not our parents, and especially not our children.

Well, until now...

[Jockey]

I deplore the fact that my 9 year old is going through the standard obsession with guns phase right now; fortunately, it seems to be subsiding.  Nevertheless, I have tried to use it to teach him the basics of gun safety without having him hold an actual gun; but Cub Scouts day at the firing range is coming up next year, and I am probably going to enroll him in hunter's safety, even though I'm not a hunter (although I have hunted in the past and may again in someday in the future), for that exact reason -- in case he encounters one at a friend's house.

If you are a good father - as you seem to be, it shouldn't worry you. The fascination is normal. He won't be scarred by shooting a gun.

Yes, it's really me (no one hacked my Scoop account), and you well know that I am anti-gun and think the right has made a mockery of the 2nd Amendment. I was fascinated by guns as a kid. We played cowboys and Indians and were pretend shooting each other almost every day. My dad had a rifle from his dad from WW1 that I played with all of the time.

As an adult, I have never owned a gun, never shot one, and never plan to own one. I have no problem with hunters, collectors, or, if someone feels the need, to have a handgun in their house for protection.

I would let my child go to a friends's house whose parent owned a gun as long as it was locked up securely. I would never let him go where guns were owned and not locked up. Ever. And I woulkd let that kid's parent know exactly why in no uncertain terms.

[Jockey]

But I also have a single firearm in the house.  A 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun secured such that a both a key and combination is required to make it work.  It's stored in a plain, black inconspicuous case that's completely hidden in a place where my children will quite likely never find it.  More importantly, the only person in the entire world who knows there's a gun in our house is my wife.  Not our friends, not our neighbors, not our parents, and especially not our children.

If someone breaks in your house, be very polite and offer him coffee and cookies. That should give you time to distract him, go get your gun, and shoot the intruder. Just remember. Don't just ask "Do you mind if I get my gun?", cuz he'll probably just shoot you first.

[Pakuni]

-When if ever do you train your kids on the use of guns? (I don't hunt, do not want guns in the house, but I will occasionally will go to the gun range or trap shooting with friends because I do enjoy target shooting and I do think it's important for my kid to know about guns if only to understand how dangerous they are)
-When do you talk to your kids about guns, like if they might come across one at a friends house?
-If your kid is going to a friend's house, do you ask the parents if they have guns in the house and are they secured?
-If there are gun(s) at the friend's house do you still let your kid go over

Thoughts? Other questions that need to be answered?

1. Seeing as that I'm not a gun owner and have limited experience firing guns, I won't be training my kids on their use or having someone else do it. If they wish to be trained as adults, that's their call.
2. I've spoken to my kids about guns being dangerous and they should never touch/play with one without an adult present, and even then it's better to keep away until they're older.
3. I've never asked. I wonder if I'm a bad/lazy parent for that, or simply trying to avoid coming off as judgmental (I only do that on the internet).
4. See 3. I know one of my son's close friends comes from a family of hunters and they have firearms in the home. I also know the dad well and am confident the guns are secure and his kids know not the play with them.

Speaking of reasonable gun laws .... is anyone against criminalizing the failure to secure firearms (either by trigger lock or a gun safe) firearms kept in homes with children under 18?

[Jockey]

Speaking of reasonable gun laws .... is anyone against criminalizing the failure to secure firearms (either by trigger lock or a gun safe) firearms kept in homes with children under 18?

The NRA (and those that it bribes in Congress) would never allow it.

That is the sad state of this country and probably the biggest reason I consider Dems to be cowards. Obama - whom I consider an outstanding president - failed miserably after Sandy Hook when pressure could have been applied as he had overwhelming support on the issue from the American people.

[Lennys Tap]

Obama failed miserably.

+1.

(Sorry, Brandie, couldn't resist)

[Golden Avalanche]

The NRA (and those that it bribes in Congress) would never allow it.

That is the sad state of this country and probably the biggest reason I consider Dems to be cowards. Obama - whom I consider an outstanding president - failed miserably after Sandy Hook when pressure could have been applied as he had overwhelming support on the issue from the American people.

Support from citizens is great but what do you suggest he had done with a Republican controlled House led by Boehner that stalled every discussion with gun safety regulations included?

[mu03eng]

Support from citizens is great but what do you suggest he had done with a Republican controlled House led by Boehner that stalled every discussion with gun safety regulations included?

These political issues don't happen in a vacuum, not saying it would have been easy or cheap from a political "capital" standpoint but the pressure to do something was never going to be higher (I hope) but because of political choices before and during that time he didn't have the ability to force the issue. I mean the Republican's were awful on that issue, it should have been relatively easy to force their hand.

[Benny B]

Well, until now...

Perhaps... but you don't know where my house is.  And if you do, then rest assured I'll be waiting for you, Stalky McStalkerson.

[Golden Avalanche]

These political issues don't happen in a vacuum, not saying it would have been easy or cheap from a political "capital" standpoint but the pressure to do something was never going to be higher (I hope) but because of political choices before and during that time he didn't have the ability to force the issue. I mean the Republican's were awful on that issue, it should have been relatively easy to force their hand.

You either weren't paying attention at that time or you've forgotten how easy it was to feign concern. It was easy to sidestep the issue. Much like it's been easy to sidestep the issue after the deadliest shooting massacre in modern American history occurred in Las Vegas.

The American people, and as an extension it's politicians, are experts in forgetting. We shove everything into a closet and simply move on. There is no reckoning. There is no proper action taken. There is no path forward other then accepting that shooting massacres that take anywhere from eight to 50 lives will be an ever present touchstone in our culture for the foreseeable future.

[MU82]

You either weren't paying attention at that time or you've forgotten how easy it was to feign concern. It was easy to sidestep the issue. Much like it's been easy to sidestep the issue after the deadliest shooting massacre in modern American history occurred in Las Vegas.

The American people, and as an extension it's politicians, are experts in forgetting. We shove everything into a closet and simply move on. There is no reckoning. There is no proper action taken. There is no path forward other then accepting that shooting massacres that take anywhere from eight to 50 lives will be an ever present touchstone in our culture for the foreseeable future.

True dat.

I mean, remember when even the GOP and the FNRA were gung-ho to ban bump stocks?

Well, I just checked on Amazon, and this little baby is available for any domestic terrorist who wants to shoot up the next Vegas concert:

https://smile.amazon.com/Exile-Machine-Hammerhead-CA-Legal-Adapter/dp/B00RY568CS/ref=sr_1_1?s=sports-and-fitness&ie=UTF8&qid=1518325376&sr=1-1&keywords=bump+stock+ar+15