Buffalo shooting, take 2

[Uncle Rico]

How is it no other country's mental health problems lead to multiple mass shootings most everyday?

Because America rules

[Hards Alumni]

Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?

I don't.

If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!  Except it literally is who we are.

The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.  Lazyyyyyyyyyyy ass response.  Explain why other countries don't have the same problem that we do with mass shootings and I may take this serious.

Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order. They're overworked, understaffed, and underpaid.  Just getting through the day is the best they can hope for.

I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc. We already lock a ton of people up, and it clearly doesn't work.  Instead it destroys families and is akin to blowing up terrorists in the hopes that we can eradicate terrorism.  It doesn't work, never has, never will.  Instead of a band-aid for the wound, why don't we figure out why the wound is being created.  Invest in education, expand mental health services and make them a required part of annual physicals, AND regulate the requirements and permits for all firearms.  You own a gun, you have that registered in a national database.  People evading gun laws or committing crimes with guns get extended sentences (we already do this).  BUT when we do this we provide assistance for the family of the offender as well as the victims. 

My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that. We went to the moon, but guns are too hard.  Okay boomer.

[MUBurrow]

If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!

Yes it is - "who we are" is a factual statement, not an aspirational one.  If these things happen with us in a way they don't happen with anyone else, it very much is who we are.

I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there.

This is a willful misunderstanding of how narrative and statistics interact.  We have orders of magnitude more guns than anyone else in the world and orders of magnitude more of these incidents.  When someone is morally or mentally predisposed to commit one of these atrocities, it is easier and more likley that they will cross paths with the necessary firearms to follow through in America than anywhere else in the world. That's it. That's the reason.  We keep applying this "if you want one bad enough" standard - but that's not how most mentally ill people operate. These incidents aren't carried out by unabomber types - its mentally ill teenagers. They act erratically and almost randomly.  Even the smallest deterrents from obtaining these guns can have a big effect. That is more time for them to lose interest, to latch onto something else, to be nabbed by police or psychiatrists or whatever.  This is blackjack, not three dimensional chess. We don't need to play Dick Tracy to stop these, we just need to apply simple probability.  But that would require us coalescing around the general idea that "maybe just in sheer numbers there are too many guns floating around."  But we find that very notion abhorrent to our self identity as a country, so yes, this is very much who we are.

[Pakuni]

Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?

I don't.

If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!

It's a perfect reflection of our culture and exactly who we are.

As for more laws ... it's worked in every other country that's tried it.
Meanwhile, doing nothing but praying and thinking hasn't gone so well here.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Right on queue after these events, The Onion posts it's "story" always with the same appropriate title.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

UVALDE, TX—In the hours following a violent rampage in Texas in which a lone attacker killed at least 21 individuals and injured several others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Idaho resident Kathy Miller, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?

I don't.

If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!

The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.

Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order.

I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.

My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.

Doing nothing isn't working.

Doing something, even if it is a first step like required background checks and waiting periods, may help a lot.  Not many people are seriously suggesting "banning guns."  I mean, we do have a second amendment. 

So yeah I do think that "more laws" could help.  They just have to be the right kinds of laws.

[JWags85]

I mean this only for discussion, I have no firm opinion on it either way.  Someone posed something like "only land/home owning tax paying citizens with clean records can own guns".  Ignoring the potential illegal immigrant dog whistle, it would start checking off boxes of a number of recent mass shootings.

[MU82]

And while not an apples to apples comparison, smoking regulations are great example of how regulation can completely change the culture on a topic and lead to meaningful change over time. Cigarettes have never been banned in this country, we just put some common sense regulations into place to limit their proliferation and improve public health. Over the past few decades we have seen smoking go from an activity that many or even most people partook in to something that only a minority engage in (CDC says about 12% of adults smoked in 2021). You can still be a chain smoker if you want to be, you can still smoke the occasional cigarette if you just want to dabble, and yes, some people still get health complications from smoking, but regulations have been massively successful in limiting the negative impacts of smoking. My guess is that in a few more decades, cigarettes will no longer be a meaningful concern.

Those regulations were stoopid. Cigarettes (and cigarette manufacturers) didn't kill people, smokers killed themselves. We need to get government out of our lives and let people kill themselves with tar and nicotine. And while we're at it, let's get rid of those stoopid laws requiring that kids riding in cars be buckled into child safety seats. They don't stop every kid from getting killed in car accidents, so that proves those laws aren't worth having.

Stop interfering, government! (Except when it comes to women's reproductive systems.) Jeesh.

Right on queue after these events, The Onion posts it's "story" always with the same appropriate title.

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

UVALDE, TX—In the hours following a violent rampage in Texas in which a lone attacker killed at least 21 individuals and injured several others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Idaho resident Kathy Miller, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

Do we laugh or cry at this? Both, I guess.

So much senseless, needless death ... and those who defend our gun culture the loudest are those who scream from the All Lives Matter and All Life Is Precious soapboxes.

[4everwarriors]

Smithy, why are always so bitter? Is it because you've realized you're not the smartest guy in the room, hey?

[Lighthouse 84]

In the other thread, in response to me saying, " Right. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures. Right. Because no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives. Right. Because no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun. Right. Because all Republicans are the same as someone who shoots up the school."

Pakuni asked me,

"As for your latter comments, who actually said these things?"

My response was to Jockey saying, "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow."  So the answer is, Who is Jockey?

I, and plenty of republicans (including on this site) don't agree with the entire platform of the republican party, nor are we responsible for the actions of some idiot/deranged individual who commits such a horrific crime.  Personally, I don't own a gun, would never own a gun, and I can't come up with a good reason why a background check and reasonable waiting period are unreasonable restrictions to buying a firearm.  To group all republicans as thinking/believing everything that someone else did is, as I said, idiotic.  And before anyone including Jockey, says he meant "every republican lawmaker" rather than "every republican", he would have said that.  But based on Jockey's comments to other posters on Scoop, he didn't though because he sees everyone who doesn't agree with all of his thoughts, the same. 

And to Tsmith, who said my feelings of sadness don't mean sh!t, three things can be true at once. One, a person can be right leaning. B, a right leaning person can be incredibly saddened by a mass shooting, especially when it involves children. And  3, you're an idiot.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

And to Tsmith, who said my feelings of sadness don't mean sh!t, three things can be true at once. One, a person can be right leaning. B, a right leaning person can be incredibly saddened by a mass shooting, especially when it involves children. And  3, you're an idiot.

So long as you continue to support the politicians that refuse to do anything, your feelings are as useless as thoughts and prayers.

[MU82]

I, and plenty of republicans (including on this site) don't agree with the entire platform of the republican party, nor are we responsible for the actions of some idiot/deranged individual who commits such a horrific crime.  Personally, I don't own a gun, would never own a gun, and I can't come up with a good reason why a background check and reasonable waiting period are unreasonable restrictions to buying a firearm.  To group all republicans as thinking/believing everything that someone else did is, as I said, idiotic. 

This is fair, L84, and I'm glad to hear this from you.

I do hope this means that you will not vote for politicians who oppose those reasonable restrictions you favor. Because until we get those people out of office and replaced by those who are willing to enact such restrictions, there will never be any meaningful change.

[noblewarrior]

We're failing as parents, mentors, and educators.  No amount of legislation will change this.  Change your culture and change your outcome. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

No amount of legislation will change this.

Other countries of the world disagree with you.

Change your culture and change your outcome. 

Like...how?

[Pakuni]

In the other thread, in response to me saying, " Right. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures. Right. Because no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives. Right. Because no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun. Right. Because all Republicans are the same as someone who shoots up the school."

Pakuni asked me,

"As for your latter comments, who actually said these things?"

My response was to Jockey saying, "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow."  So the answer is, Who is Jockey?

I, and plenty of republicans (including on this site) don't agree with the entire platform of the republican party, nor are we responsible for the actions of some idiot/deranged individual who commits such a horrific crime.  Personally, I don't own a gun, would never own a gun, and I can't come up with a good reason why a background check and reasonable waiting period are unreasonable restrictions to buying a firearm.  To group all republicans as thinking/believing everything that someone else did is, as I said, idiotic.  And before anyone including Jockey, says he meant "every republican lawmaker" rather than "every republican", he would have said that.  But based on Jockey's comments to other posters on Scoop, he didn't though because he sees everyone who doesn't agree with all of his thoughts, the same. 

You're being (generously) misleading here, Lighthouse.
When I asked "who actually said these things" I was responding to these statements you made:

1. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures.
2. Because no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives.
3. Because no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun.

What Jockey wrote is nothing close to that.
So, again, who is saying these things?

[Pakuni]

We're failing as parents, mentors, and educators.  No amount of legislation will change this.  Change your culture and change your outcome.

Why have laws?
Segregation in the South was a result of failings by parents, mentors and educators. It took laws to change the culture, which obviously still hasn't changed entirely.
Had we waited for the culture to change, how much longer would Black kids in Mississippi have been required to attend separate schools?

Anyhow, aren't laws the way any culture/society codifies its beliefs and values?

[JWags85]

You're being (generously) misleading here, Lighthouse.
When I asked "who actually said these things" I was responding to these statements you made:

1. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures.

What Jockey wrote is nothing close to that.
So, again, who is saying these things?

He didn't?  Direct quotes...

Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow.

Then doubled down with...

Virtually every republican supports more more more guns for everybody. That is not my opinion - it is fact.

That kind of speaks directly to that if you ask me.  His whole persona is treating every conservative leaning person as a monolith.

[jficke13]

At some point the only thing that matters is what the practical effect of a voting or political choice actually is, not the personally-held conviction of the voter. What is actually at play here are the relative priorities of the voter simply meaning one thing is more important to them than another.

Say I support Policies A and B and oppose Policies C and D. If I vote for a politician who enacts all 4 policies, as a practical matter I voted to support the ones I personally oppose as much as the ones I personally support.

If I hate gun violence, but dislike taxes. And I vote for a Republican Senator who will lower my taxes and ensure no gun control is enacted, my choice is, on a practical level, one in favor of no gun control and that's not changed by whether I hate gun violence and want gun control or if I want all gun regulations stripped away forever.

What everyone is really dealing with is handling the cognitive dissonance of their relative priorities. "I want sensible gun control reform but not enough to vote for a Democrat who would enact such gun control because I dislike these other aspects of their platform or I like the rest of the Republican position more than I want gun control enacted" is what it really boils down to. I'm not really condemning this framework, because I find it hard to imagine being 100% lockstep in approval of any one candidate's platform or policy choices so compromises are inherent in an electoral representative democracy.

But let's not kid ourselves, this is merely about priorities and painting oneself as one of the "good" ones.

[noblewarrior]

Why have laws?
Segregation in the South was a result of failings by parents, mentors and educators. It took laws to change the culture, which obviously still hasn't changed entirely.
Had we waited for the culture to change, how much longer would Black kids in Mississippi have been required to attend separate schools?

Anyhow, aren't laws the way any culture/society codifies its beliefs and values?

You are right P… let me restate.  No amount of additional legislation will deter these outcomes.  It starts at home folks.  Enforce what’s on the books and take notice of your neighbors.  This kid like most others didn’t just materialize.  Stability at home creates stability in the community. 

the Mississippi comments have no bearing here.

You changing the Constitution? 

[Pakuni]

He didn't?  Direct quotes...

Then doubled down with...

That kind of speaks directly to that if you ask me.  His whole persona is treating every conservative leaning person as a monolith.

No, he didn't.

In what reading of the English language is "Every Republican should hold his hang in shame" synonymous with "no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun"?

How are you reading "Virtually every republican supports more more more guns for everybody" to mean "no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives."

These statements aren't remotely similar, much less the same.

[jficke13]

You are right P… let me restate.  No amount of additional legislation will deter these outcomes.  It starts at home folks.  Enforce what’s on the books and take notice of your neighbors.  This kid like most others didn’t just materialize.  Stability at home creates stability in the community. 

the Mississippi comments have no bearing here.

You changing the Constitution?

No one has really engaged with what the practical effect of "gun control" reform laws would be under a constitutional analysis in the post-Heller world (which is probably a testament to how effectively the "why bother it will never happen" headset has crystalized in everyone's mind, but that's neither here nor there).

I think it's probable that any regulation would have to past strict scrutiny to survive, which is damn near impossible, but not totally impossible. This means that any law would have to advance a compelling governmental interest and it would have to do so in narrowest means possible to achieve that interest. Typically, constitutionality arguments are over what form of scrutiny to apply and once the courts decide that a law is subject to strict scrutiny it's determinative of the outcome and that outcome is that it is not constitutional.

However, since we kinda take as a given that gun control is going to be subject to strict scrutiny, then as a practical matter the people crafting the law can earn their lobbying cash by writing one that can pass strict scrutiny analysis.

I've got real work to do so am not going to research or craft an analysis or argument but for funsies you all are welcome to try. I'll even get you started: I'll posit that preventing the  mass murder of children in schools is a compelling governmental interest. Now all you have to do is propose laws that will will advance that interest *that are also the narrowest means of advancing that interest*.

Good luck.

[Pakuni]

You are right P… let me restate.  No amount of additional legislation will deter these outcomes.  It starts at home folks.  Enforce what’s on the books and take notice of your neighbors.  This kid like most others didn’t just materialize.  Stability at home creates stability in the community. 

the Mississippi comments have no bearing here.

You changing the Constitution?

1. Plenty of murderers and mass shooters came from loving, stable, two-parent homes. Eric Harris. Dylan Klebold. Seung-Hui Cho. Patrick Crusius. Payton Gendron. James Holmes.
I could go on for a while.

2. Of course the Mississippi comments have bearing. The suggestion that the only way to solve a societal problem is by changing the culture before the laws is nonsense. As the Civil Rights Movement showed,the legislation drove the change in culture, not the other way around.

3. Sure,let's change the Constitution. It's not like we haven't done it 33 times already.

[Lighthouse 84]

This is fair, L84, and I'm glad to hear this from you.

I do hope this means that you will not vote for politicians who oppose those reasonable restrictions you favor. Because until we get those people out of office and replaced by those who are willing to enact such restrictions, there will never be any meaningful change.

  I get what you're saying, but let me first ask you something, because  you seem to be very philosophical. 

This is sort of like back in the day sitting in Dr. Beach's Phil class:

Is it possible to believe in most, but not all, policies of a group, and still remain a member of that group?  In other words, if one aligns with the majority of policies of one group or entity over those of another, is it possible to remain a member of the first group?  If the answer is yes, it seems that one should align him or herself with the group that most closely represents his or her beliefs, even though there's not 100% agreement on all policy.  If the answer is no, should the person choose to then be a member of no group?  Because it's not logical for one to then be a member of the group whose policies are less aligned, so it would only make sense to either (a) remain a member of the first group because it best represents the majority of one's own beliefs, or (2) be aligned with no group.

Maybe we should ask Nancy Pelosi?

[Spotcheck Billy]

Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?

I don't.

If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!

The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.

Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order.

I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.

My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.

Plenty of mass shootings are NOT caused by mental illness. See the Deere district shootings 2 weeks ago for a recent example.

[JWags85]

No, he didn't.

In what reading of the English language is "Every Republican should hold his hang in shame" synonymous with "no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun"?

How are you reading "Virtually every republican supports more more more guns for everybody" to mean "no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives."

These statements aren't remotely similar, much less the same.

Pak, read what I wrote and quoted again.  I never addressed those.  Thats why I chopped off 2 and 3, cause I thought those were projecting and stretching instead of actual points directly stated.  He very clearly stated that no "republican" wants any reasonable gun control measures, just "more more guns" which kicks off plenty of other stuff.

If you disagree with point 1, that I quoted, you're being incredible generous and I'll just agree to disagree.