Active shooter?

[JimC]

The thought of sitting in a McDonalds and the possibility that they guy at the next table might open fire at any moment. That must be a fear in the mind of many an American. It must be horrible to live with.

I never entered a McDonald's or other fast food establishment, or restaurant of any kind, and ever thought that someone might open fire. The fear you describe has never entered my mind, and I have never heard a single person my entire life suggest that they harbored that fear. But, what to I know, I just live here, and have lived for extended periods of time in three states, and experienced the same lack of fear in each.

Well that probably says two things - one that you live and spend your life in safer places and two - you are immune to the fear because of familiarity with the presence of guns.

My daughter and her ex boyfriend spent a couple of months touring the main National Parks (rental car and camping), two years ago and she said that seeing guns openly on display was frightening and that on a few occasions she felt very vulnerable to something crazy happening.

Here it simply isn't on the menu of possible things that can happen.

I think there's truth to that. I grew up with guns, and see armed police and security folks regularly. I've lived in an open carry state for 35 years, and while I don't see people carrying guns very often, it's often enough to get used to.

Joe, if you were a teenager in a US high school at the moment, I think you would be worried...

[Seabass]

Forty Two wrote:

Nobody does, but that's just one faction. I hear what they're saying, and I'm even in favor of lots of types of gun control. However, those same people who cheer and say we don't want to live like this are offering no compromise. They just tend to want wholesale gun bans. That is not going to happen. If they would propose sensible additional gun control measures that people could look at and evaluate, then we could talk. But just yelling and cheering doesn't do anything. And, believing that people who support private gun ownership don't want to stop school shootings is just divisive on the issue. Anytime one side demonizes the other as wanting people to die, discussion is impossible. And that kind of divisiveness comes from both sides of this issue - the pro-gun people often declare even the smallest of gun-regulation suggestions to be tantamount to a wholesale gun-ban, which they are not necessarily. And not everyone who approves of some gun regulation is a communist or a fascist gun-grabber.

The polarisation you describe here, from both sides, is, unfortunately, not something that you guys can hope to eliminate, or work through by rational debate. Everything I've read about recent trends in the US is that the highly charged and emotional political polarisation that exists is not diminishing, but increasing, and becoming thoroughly entrenched. It's not just over gun laws, although they capture the trend very strongly, but in almost all aspects of your political life. I mean, I agree with you that the rational course would be to find some sort of compromise, with more effective regulations on who can own guns etc. but my take is that it is not going to happen.

He's full of shit. No one's asking for "wholesale gun bans". Not in any significant numbers, anyway. Our left has been pretty reasonable on this issue. It's the right-wing, 2A absolutist lunatics that are "offering no compromise". As usual, this is not a "both sides" problem. Our right-wingers are fucking bananas.

I'm not so sure about this. I've certain seen plenty of media reports showing the recent anti-gun activists, and they do seem to be pushing a "ban the AR-15" rhetoric pretty strongly...

(mind you, I support that too, but there's simply no way anything other than perhaps a tightening of background checks will ever come to pass...)

A ban on a specific type of weapon is not a "wholesale gun ban". No one's looking to blanket ban all guns.

[JimC]

But would you agree that it would be virtually politically impossible to achieve a ban on AR-15 rifles, or semi-automatics in general?

[Seabass]

But would you agree that it would be virtually politically impossible to achieve a ban on AR-15 rifles, or semi-automatics in general?

Assault weapons have been banned in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

Semi-autos? Not in the foreseeable future.

[JimC]

All a mass shooter needs is a reasonably light-weight semi-automatic rifle (probably .223 calibre) with a magazine capacity of, let's say, at least 20 rounds and a few spare magazines. It doesn't have to be an AR-15, it doesn't have to be long-range, and it doesn't need to be particularly accurate. I'm pretty certain that there are plenty of those around...

As long as that remains the case, your experience of regular mass shootings will continue. I'm not even sure that increased background checks will do much - it could be that the majority of the past shooters could have passed such checks - that could probably be researched...

I'm sorry to be pessimistic, and I recognise and value the anti-gun activists, particularly the recent huge response from school students, but I honestly think you are caught in a political paralysis here...

[Joe]

The thought of sitting in a McDonalds and the possibility that they guy at the next table might open fire at any moment. That must be a fear in the mind of many an American. It must be horrible to live with.

I never entered a McDonald's or other fast food establishment, or restaurant of any kind, and ever thought that someone might open fire. The fear you describe has never entered my mind, and I have never heard a single person my entire life suggest that they harbored that fear. But, what to I know, I just live here, and have lived for extended periods of time in three states, and experienced the same lack of fear in each.

Well that probably says two things - one that you live and spend your life in safer places and two - you are immune to the fear because of familiarity with the presence of guns.

My daughter and her ex boyfriend spent a couple of months touring the main National Parks (rental car and camping), two years ago and she said that seeing guns openly on display was frightening and that on a few occasions she felt very vulnerable to something crazy happening.

Here it simply isn't on the menu of possible things that can happen.

I think there's truth to that. I grew up with guns, and see armed police and security folks regularly. I've lived in an open carry state for 35 years, and while I don't see people carrying guns very often, it's often enough to get used to.

Joe, if you were a teenager in a US high school at the moment, I think you would be worried...

No, I'd be pissed off. I'm the parent of two children who just completed public high school, and go to public universities, and that's their attitude.

[mistermack]

I think there's truth to that. I grew up with guns, and see armed police and security folks regularly. I've lived in an open carry state for 35 years, and while I don't see people carrying guns very often, it's often enough to get used to.

And there's truth in that.
If you live your life on a dung heap, very quickly you don't smell the shit.

But on occasion, out of the blue, you can slip up, and end up deep in it.

[Seabass]

All a mass shooter needs is a reasonably light-weight semi-automatic rifle (probably .223 calibre) with a magazine capacity of, let's say, at least 20 rounds and a few spare magazines. It doesn't have to be an AR-15, it doesn't have to be long-range, and it doesn't need to be particularly accurate. I'm pretty certain that there are plenty of those around...

As long as that remains the case, your experience of regular mass shootings will continue. I'm not even sure that increased background checks will do much - it could be that the majority of the past shooters could have passed such checks - that could probably be researched...

I'm sorry to be pessimistic, and I recognise and value the anti-gun activists, particularly the recent huge response from school students, but I honestly think you are caught in a political paralysis here...

Maybe, maybe not. Cultures tend not to remain static forever.

Anyway, I was only disputing the notion that both sides are equally bad. One side has facts and statistics, the other side has horseshit and dogma. "God-given right to bear arms", "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun", "an armed society is a polite society", "gun control doesn't work, see Chicago", etc...

[Joe]

I think there's truth to that. I grew up with guns, and see armed police and security folks regularly. I've lived in an open carry state for 35 years, and while I don't see people carrying guns very often, it's often enough to get used to.

And there's truth in that.
If you live your life on a dung heap, very quickly you don't smell the shit.

But on occasion, out of the blue, you can get slip up, and end up deep in it.

There's always bad luck mistermack, wherever you live.

[mistermack]

There's always bad luck mistermack, wherever you live.

True. But where I live, I'm unlikely to get killed with a gun, just as I'm unlikely to die in an avalanche or an earthquake. If you live at the bottom of a steep alpine mountain your chances are worth thinking about.
Same if everyone is armed. It's worth considering that that motorist who just cut you up might jump out of the car and start shooting. Best to meekly say sorry then, even when it's not your fault.

If you swing on a trapeze every day, you eventually become convinced it's safe. Then shit happens :

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world- ... goes-wrong

[JimC]

All a mass shooter needs is a reasonably light-weight semi-automatic rifle (probably .223 calibre) with a magazine capacity of, let's say, at least 20 rounds and a few spare magazines. It doesn't have to be an AR-15, it doesn't have to be long-range, and it doesn't need to be particularly accurate. I'm pretty certain that there are plenty of those around...

As long as that remains the case, your experience of regular mass shootings will continue. I'm not even sure that increased background checks will do much - it could be that the majority of the past shooters could have passed such checks - that could probably be researched...

I'm sorry to be pessimistic, and I recognise and value the anti-gun activists, particularly the recent huge response from school students, but I honestly think you are caught in a political paralysis here...

Maybe, maybe not. Cultures tend not to remain static forever.

Anyway, I was only disputing the notion that both sides are equally bad. One side has facts and statistics, the other side has horseshit and dogma. "God-given right to bear arms", "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun", "an armed society is a polite society", "gun control doesn't work, see Chicago", etc...

Well, I 100% agree with you about the NRA type idiocy, although as a former gun owner and hunter, I'm not anti-gun per se.

However, I can't see change beyond a little bit of minor stuff being on the cards in the short and medium term. Your gun lobby is very powerful indeed and the whole gun ethos seems soaked deep into US society; it would take a very large shift indeed to bring about major change that would significantly reduce your number of gun deaths...

And Joe, I think that high school students in the US are currently both worried and pissed off, and I do applaud their activism, even if I remain somewhat pessimistic......

[Joe]

There's always bad luck mistermack, wherever you live.

True. But where I live, I'm unlikely to get killed with a gun, just as I'm unlikely to die in an avalanche or an earthquake. If you live at the bottom of a steep alpine mountain your chances are worth thinking about.
Same if everyone is armed. It's worth considering that that motorist who just cut you up might jump out of the car and start shooting. Best to meekly say sorry then, even when it's not your fault.

If you swing on a trapeze every day, you eventually become convinced it's safe. Then shit happens :

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world- ... goes-wrong

Everybody isn't armed. The vast majority of people you encounter in the US are unarmed. Three million Americans carry a a loaded gun everyday, which is about 1 in 100. We have a gun problem, but the US isn't quite a war zone yet.

I'm a hell of a lot more worried about heart disease or an auto accident than getting shot. The data seems to support that.

[pErvinalia]

Responsible gun owners don't shit in public bathrooms as it puts them at a tactical disadvantage.

[Brian Peacock]

You're right about that, but when your activism and protest is a demand for government to restrict people's rights in order to obtain safety, then the government will oblige.

Hmm. I think they just don't want to be shot at in their classrooms, churches, nightclubs, concerts and shopping malls any more. The government is the only authority they can appeal to, isn't it?

Given that homicides in general, shootings, and school shootings are all on the decline, and have been for decades, I would think that there would be perhaps a recognition that greater coverage in the news of these incidents does not mean they are more common. https://mises.org/wire/there-are-fewer- ... ring-1990s

I don't disagree. I think it's pretty common for people's fears about the level and extent of crime to significantly over-state the statistical likelihood of it happening to them. UK figures show that those over 35s are generally more likely (and more likely still with age) to overestimate victimisation within their age group than shown by the actual statistical likelihood, whereas under 25s seem to underestimate both the general prevalence of crime and their levels of personal risk. The 25-35 age group's estimations of victimisation were generally the most accurate (ONS, 2017).

Of course, that the statistical likelihood of being a victim of crime is low is of little comfort to those actually on the receiving end of criminal activity.

Now, I have small children, so the idea of any child getting shot hits me close to home. I am fiercely protective of my kids. That being said, the numbers don't lie. My guess is that the reason for the decline is greater security at schools. In the 1980s, campuses were largely open, with anyone being able to walk onto school grounds anytime. The public made use of school playgrounds, and sports fields/tracks when not in use. As late as, say 15 or so years ago, I would go to the local high school and run around the track, work out on the bleachers, and play pick-up games of football with others in our town.

I know what you mean. 20 years ago I wouldn't have though twice about having a totally innocuous and innocent conversation with an unknown child in the park. But we all know the reason behind the heightened level of concern, whether in the public park or the public school don't we? It's because of that naturally ferocious impulse we have to protect our beloved children, and I think deep down we know that we have to make sure all the children are safe to ensure that our children are also.

People are tired of living with the fear of well-arned random nutters with a grudge, and tired of picking up the pieces when that fear is given a face. These young people don't want a future like that - and they're passionate about it.

Certainly, and when they present a concrete proposal that can be evaluated, I'll evaluate it. If the message is, "we don't want shootings to happen anymore!" I agree, neither do I. What more can I say about their position?

I don't know. I don't see you as necessarily taking up the contrary position here, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot but (!) I guess you're saying that earnest good intent isn't enough in itself, even if it's a pretty good place to start from.

These youngsters clearly have made a proposal, in their own way. In fact they've put it in many different ways, but basically they want the chances of another school shooting happening cut to as close to zero as possible - that is a really good proposal. Some might think it's a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream, even if that's sound more like an excuse to dodge the issue than ever before, but it's something worth thinking about - a society from which personal firearms were mostly absent: what would that be like?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, it's just that I think we should not assume that the survivors of Parkland, and the survivors of other incidents, and all the young people who turned out a the weekend to show support and solidarity with their perspective, are contributing nothing until they have a workable solution that salves the personal and institutional concerns of those who think otherwise.

And it's not like that there isn't a plethora of possible solutions out there already. Perhaps it might be an idea to try a few and see what might really work, but one things for sure, without a position that is at least as earnest in intent at it is visible not much is going to happen. It hasn't so far has it?

The young 'uns are telling us all, in lots of little and big ways, that doing the least possible is no longer an acceptable solution to the problems of the present. On this matter they say that more and better work should be done to reduce the likelihood of random acts of gun violence in schools to as close to zero as possible - and who can really disagree with that. The difficulty is in the scope of the challenge that comes from embracing ideas like that.

I, myself, have suggested many ways gun control can be enhanced without infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. And, I think my ideas would reduce the prevalance of shootings considerably. I haven't heard what David Hogg and his raised-fist outrage have in mind, but if it's "guns will be illegal" they're just not going to get anywhere. No western industrialized country does that. Take Norway, the prime example of a successful social democracy - they have guns all over the place. My relatives go hunting every year. It's part of their culture. But they have some decent gun regulation. It doesn't mean that Anders Brevik is not going to happen again, but they do pretty good.

That's a really good point about the difference in the gun cultures of nations, and I've always said that in the American context the prevalence of personal firearm ownership is quite understandable. Personal firearms are not just a protected right in the US, they're a huge and powerful industry as well -- guns are empowering in so many ways -- and sales imperatives and the constitutional rights imperatives conjoin to make a very strong case. Within that uniquely American context firearm sales are so tightly bound that most fundamental of American freedoms that anything which might undermine the former automatically becomes a attack upon the latter.

And yet I and many of my friends live without regular or easy access to firearms, and do we feel less free for it, and are we less free for it? Do we feel, and are we, less free than the average American citizen? I doubt it very much.

Nonetheless, these young people don't seem to be going away - and neither are they shouting in the dark. They're active, they want to make a difference for themselves and for others. I think that many of the things that have been said by young people since Parkland has been right on the money. In this time of dodgy emails and perpetual #FAKENEWS their public activism is actually a testament to the rude health of democratic freedoms in the US. It's is by such things that shifts in the Zeitgeist occur, and from which new social gestalts can emerges.

OK, I may have been waxing lyrical a bit there, but these kids are shaming politicians over their long-running 'hurry up and do less on gun control' positions that organisations like the NRA had contributed to so relentlessly, and let's face it, so effectively.

From what I read I'm guessing a fair cut of the US public has quite a bit of sympathy with let's-really-really try-and-stop-it-happening-again-this-time position, and it might even become a significant issue at election time - who knows. But as sure as farts stink, if politicians start to smell votes in it they'll be at gun-control like a dog after a pound of sausages.

[pErvinalia]

People are tired of living with the fear of well-arned random nutters with a grudge, and tired of picking up the pieces when that fear is given a face. These young people don't want a future like that - and they're passionate about it.

Certainly, and when they present a concrete proposal that can be evaluated, I'll evaluate it.

What students want
Initially organized by the Women's March youth branch, the National Student Walkout demanded three key actions from Congress:
-- Ban assault weapons;
-- Require universal background checks before gun sales;
-- Pass a gun violence restraining order law that would allow courts to disarm people who display warning signs of violent behavior.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/n ... index.html