Mass Shootings

[SSHoya]

American exceptionalism?

The United States is one of the only countries in the world where mass public shootings are a regular occurrence. Researchers Jillian Peterson from Hamline University and James Densley from Metropolitan State University, both in St. Paul, Minn., have spent their careers tracking these events, and their research shows that attacks are overwhelmingly carried out by men whose ages are strikingly clustered around two key periods in their lives.

Workplace attacks have been mostly carried out by men in middle age. School shootings, on the other hand, involve perpetrators mostly in their late teens or early 20s. Men in these same two age groups, Peterson points out, also have higher rates of suicide largely using firearms.

www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/06/03/why-so-many-mass-shooters-young-angry-men/

[bluegray79]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here it is, word for word. Clearly there are words and phrases that invite debate, right? What were the Founding Fathers thinking when they wrote this? Does their idea of a "militia" mean the same as what we might call a militia today? Etc., etc. There is plenty to imagine, presume, and interpret here that law schools and constitutional scholars -- as well as informed and uninformed citizens across the country -- still study and wrangle with this 250 years later.

I've followed some of the debate, but I never hear anyone talk about what "well regulated" means. To my uninformed mind, to "regulate" means to monitor, supervise, study and make changes and improvements. You keep an eye on something to ensure that it runs well, right? And "well" has to do with the quality of the regulation, I would assume. That it is done in a way that ensures that the regulation is timely and adheres to standards that maintain good, proper functioning of whatever you're regulating.

So, what exactly is the problem with calls to "regulate the militia"? Can even the most ardent, originalist 2nd Amendment and gun rights advocate deny that there is something very, very wrong about the repeated mass shootings in our country? And can they not understand that the need to regulate -- like the amendment calls for -- is all that people seek and all that the families and communities ravaged by gun violence deserve?

Help me out on this. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for us to cherry pick the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't.

[Elvado]

Jun 4, 2022 5:46:41 GMT -5 bluegray79 said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here it is, word for word. Clearly there are words and phrases that invite debate, right? What were the Founding Fathers thinking when they wrote this? Does their idea of a "militia" mean the same as what we might call a militia today? Etc., etc. There is plenty to imagine, presume, and interpret here that law schools and constitutional scholars -- as well as informed and uninformed citizens across the country -- still study and wrangle with this 250 years later.

I've followed some of the debate, but I never hear anyone talk about what "well regulated" means. To my uninformed mind, to "regulate" means to monitor, supervise, study and make changes and improvements. You keep an eye on something to ensure that it runs well, right? And "well" has to do with the quality of the regulation, I would assume. That it is done in a way that ensures that the regulation is timely and adheres to standards that maintain good, proper functioning of whatever you're regulating.

So, what exactly is the problem with calls to "regulate the militia"? Can even the most ardent, originalist 2nd Amendment and gun rights advocate deny that there is something very, very wrong about the repeated mass shootings in our country? And can they not understand that the need to regulate -- like the amendment calls for -- is all that people seek and all that the families and communities ravaged by gun violence deserve?

Help me out on this. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for us to cherry pick the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't.

It is absolutely mind-boggling that the “originalist” crowd latches on to those words as justification for the unfettered right to individual ownership of any type of weapon.

It is a reading as expansive as most of the Judicial activism they regularly decry.

[Massholya]

Jun 4, 2022 5:46:41 GMT -5 bluegray79 said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here it is, word for word. Clearly there are words and phrases that invite debate, right? What were the Founding Fathers thinking when they wrote this? Does their idea of a "militia" mean the same as what we might call a militia today? Etc., etc. There is plenty to imagine, presume, and interpret here that law schools and constitutional scholars -- as well as informed and uninformed citizens across the country -- still study and wrangle with this 250 years later.

I've followed some of the debate, but I never hear anyone talk about what "well regulated" means. To my uninformed mind, to "regulate" means to monitor, supervise, study and make changes and improvements. You keep an eye on something to ensure that it runs well, right? And "well" has to do with the quality of the regulation, I would assume. That it is done in a way that ensures that the regulation is timely and adheres to standards that maintain good, proper functioning of whatever you're regulating.

So, what exactly is the problem with calls to "regulate the militia"? Can even the most ardent, originalist 2nd Amendment and gun rights advocate deny that there is something very, very wrong about the repeated mass shootings in our country? And can they not understand that the need to regulate -- like the amendment calls for -- is all that people seek and all that the families and communities ravaged by gun violence deserve?

Help me out on this. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for us to cherry pick the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't.

Also, it isn’t the word of god.

[SSHoya]

The MAGA GOP is truly a pro-death cult.

Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) announced that he would suspend his reelection campaign Friday after facing pressure by his party to step aside for coming out in support of gun reforms as a solution to stem the tide of mass shootings in the country in recent weeks.

Jacobs’s stunning decision to step aside rather than seek reelection proves how almost no room exists within the Republican Party for members who support banning assault weapons or limiting high-capacity magazines.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/03/gop-house-member-who-voiced-support-banning-assault-rifles-ends-reelection-campaign/

[bluegray79]

I just read that -- it does boggle the mind, but it is what we're facing in trying to understand and end mass shootings. Add to that this gem citing Mo Brooks' assertion that a poor upbringing in a single-mom household is to blame.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/03/uvalde-guns-mass-shootings-mo-brooks-blames-single-moms/

Again, I say we need to call this stuff out. The conversation needs to focus on these questions:

Are you o.k. with children getting murdered in their classrooms and folks getting gunned down in their grocery store or mall or movie theater or anywhere?

What are your solutions to stopping mass shootings in America?

We have to get public officials on record on this issue. Only then will we be able to have candid conversation about restricted access to guns, mental health, universal background checks, red flag laws, banning assault weapons, gun owner safety and storage, training and registration when you buy a gun and regular renewal of those.

It's not a single cause, single answer issue. Therefore, we have to call out attempts to boil it down to that. It becomes too easy to simplify, deny, dismiss, point fingers, and move on. Can't let that happen.

Families in Buffalo and Uvalde continue to mourn their lost family and friends and try to put together the pieces of their shattered lives.

[Elvado]

Jun 4, 2022 7:06:20 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

The MAGA GOP is truly a pro-death cult.

Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) announced that he would suspend his reelection campaign Friday after facing pressure by his party to step aside for coming out in support of gun reforms as a solution to stem the tide of mass shootings in the country in recent weeks.

Jacobs’s stunning decision to step aside rather than seek reelection proves how almost no room exists within the Republican Party for members who support banning assault weapons or limiting high-capacity magazines.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/03/gop-house-member-who-voiced-support-banning-assault-rifles-ends-reelection-campaign/

Feet of clay much? I can’t win because of my principles so I will quit.

The pressure from party is dead wrong.

Quitting is no badge of honor.

[tashoya]

Jun 4, 2022 9:45:25 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Jun 4, 2022 7:06:20 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

The MAGA GOP is truly a pro-death cult.

Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) announced that he would suspend his reelection campaign Friday after facing pressure by his party to step aside for coming out in support of gun reforms as a solution to stem the tide of mass shootings in the country in recent weeks.

Jacobs’s stunning decision to step aside rather than seek reelection proves how almost no room exists within the Republican Party for members who support banning assault weapons or limiting high-capacity magazines.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/03/gop-house-member-who-voiced-support-banning-assault-rifles-ends-reelection-campaign/

Feet of clay much? I can’t win because of my principles so I will quit.

The pressure from party is dead wrong.

Quitting is no badge of honor.

I agree in principle. However, in reality, the amount of money it takes to run a campaign is staggering. To throw money at a campaign that has a roughly 0% chance of ending in election or of moving the values needle of the "party" one is running as a member of seems insane.

[Elvado]

Jun 4, 2022 17:17:06 GMT -5 tashoya said:

Jun 4, 2022 9:45:25 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Feet of clay much? I can’t win because of my principles so I will quit.

The pressure from party is dead wrong.

Quitting is no badge of honor.

I agree in principle. However, in reality, the amount of money it takes to run a campaign is staggering. To throw money at a campaign that has a roughly 0% chance of ending in election or of moving the values needle of the "party" one is running as a member of seems insane.

He is an incumbent which means two things:

1. He has spent the last two years raising money rather than representing his constituents; and

2. He will now pocket those campaign funds

[tashoya]

Jun 4, 2022 18:16:31 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Jun 4, 2022 17:17:06 GMT -5 tashoya said:

I agree in principle. However, in reality, the amount of money it takes to run a campaign is staggering. To throw money at a campaign that has a roughly 0% chance of ending in election or of moving the values needle of the "party" one is running as a member of seems insane.

He is an incumbent which means two things:

1. He has spent the last two years raising money rather than representing his constituents; and

2. He will now pocket those campaign funds

I'm shocked that a "Republican" would do such a thing and, preemptively, blame the media for his lack of having a spine. I'm not saying a Dem in the same situation wouldn't do the same thing. I'm more saying that "Republicans" like guns and gun money more than they do almost everything else. You can't be a "Republican" at this point unless you are all in on a handful of things that most people are against. A sensible approach to guns is one of those things. It, very literally, doesn't matter what else the candidate stands for if they're not all in on guns.

[tashoya]

Again, "Republicans" surprising not one person with their complete lack of caring for human life:

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scare-some-gun-nuts-while-you-can-leaked-gop-memos-instruct-lawmakers-how-to-blow-off-uvalde-massacre/ar-AAY5m9w?li=BBnb7Kz

[tashoya]

[bluegray79]

So often the counter argument to gun safety measures is that they wouldn't have stopped the most recent shooting. (Of course, if you're talking about legal access to guns, that would include all of the mass shootings in recent memory, which highlights the absurdly easy access to guns by almost anyone 18 and older).

2 things to keep in mind here:

1) it's a merit-less point because, as several people have pointed out here, mass shootings do not have just one cause and one matching solution. If we are to seriously as a society take on this issue we would have to address an array of factors like, of course, access to guns (minimum age to purchase, universal background checks, red flag laws, criminal history, and more), mental health, banning assault and military weapons, gun owner safety and storage, training and registration, etc., etc.

2) in many cases, even the no-brainer solutions that most Americans approve of would likely have prevented as many as 35 mass shootings had they been law -- and that's just since 1999 -- from today's NYT:

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/04/upshot/mass-shooting-gun-laws.html

So, as R.I. Rep. Cicilline says, "So spare me the bullsh!t."

[bluegray79]

P.S. - since we do not have the fortitude, compassion, or resolve as a society to address all of those factors, we do what we can with what we got, right?

Baby steps.

[Massholya]

Philadelphia

[bluegray79]

Philadelphia, Tennessee, Virginia, Arizona and South Carolina. Just another weekend in America.

Why do proposals fail every time? 240 mass shootings in the U.S just this year. Children mass murdered in their classrooms. People at the grocery store, in their churches -- sh!t, you know the long list already. If we could just figure out why we can't pass any laws that will make a difference...

www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/gun-control-timeline.html?name=styln-gun-control®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=show&is_new=false


Scroll down to read the names words of these U.S. senators, every one of them Republican. Most notable to me is the utter absence of ANY solution of their own. Just cherry picking proposals that wouldn't have stopped this shooting or that shooting. And the total lack of empathy and compassion - none. No inkling that we are facing something that is tearing at the soul and conscience of our country. No acknowledgment of the horror, loss, devastation of lives, time after time. That and the amount of money they received from the NRA over the years.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/25/us/gun-control-republican-senators.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-gun-control&variant=show®ion=BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT&block=storyline_flex_guide_recirc


Yep. Until our love for our children and neighbors is greater than our love for money and power, we're stuck here in hell. I dread feeling that this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets at all better.

[bluegray79]

Sorry to start the week off with that. Here's something that will let you laugh a little while you're also crying. Have a good week.

[tashoya]

Jun 6, 2022 5:11:40 GMT -5 bluegray79 said:

Philadelphia, Tennessee, Virginia, Arizona and South Carolina. Just another weekend in America.

Why do proposals fail every time? 240 mass shootings in the U.S just this year. Children mass murdered in their classrooms. People at the grocery store, in their churches -- sh!t, you know the long list already. If we could just figure out why we can't pass any laws that will make a difference...

www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/gun-control-timeline.html?name=styln-gun-control®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=show&is_new=false


Scroll down to read the names words of these U.S. senators, every one of them Republican. Most notable to me is the utter absence of ANY solution of their own. Just cherry picking proposals that wouldn't have stopped this shooting or that shooting. And the total lack of empathy and compassion - none. No inkling that we are facing something that is tearing at the soul and conscience of our country. No acknowledgment of the horror, loss, devastation of lives, time after time. That and the amount of money they received from the NRA over the years.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/25/us/gun-control-republican-senators.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-gun-control&variant=show®ion=BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT&block=storyline_flex_guide_recirc


Yep. Until our love for our children and neighbors is greater than our love for money and power, we're stuck here in hell. I dread feeling that this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets at all better.

And, North Carolina.

[tashoya]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-gop-donors-buck-party-to-urge-new-gun-limits-after-uvalde-shooting/ar-AAY8DnG?li=BBnb7Kz

[bluegray79]

Jun 6, 2022 11:55:07 GMT -5 tashoya said:

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-gop-donors-buck-party-to-urge-new-gun-limits-after-uvalde-shooting/ar-AAY8DnG?li=BBnb7Kz

The idea that any restrictions are "targeting law-abiding citizens" is absurd. 

First, a majority of Americans (60% in 2019 and rising since 2017) support restrictions on guns to lower or end gun violence.  There have to be a good number of law-abiding gun owning citizens in that group.

2) In what way do universal background checks, red flag laws, raising the age from 18 to 21 to buy a semi-automatic firearm, enforced storage and safety measures, & banning assault weapons target law-abiding citizens?  I'm not just being rhetorical here, I really don't know.  Is it that there will be a process of accountability that bothers them??  Why?  They're law-abiding citizens.  No one's coming for their guns.  Nothing onerous to do. Do they not want to have any accountability?  Jesus, I respect the 4th Amendment and the right to privacy, but I gladly compromise that right about 15 times from the time I walk into an airport to when I sit in my seat.  All in the name of public safety. And that's just air travel.  Wouldn't you think gun safety and saving lives are important enough that we all can do something small to guarantee the safety of all?? What is the problem?

3) Interview on NPR this morning presented 2 old timers who are Texas farmers and life-long gun owners.  They support these measures, think things have gone way too far, and are sure that there are many others like them who support gun safety measures but don't feel they can be vocal about it.  Start talking to each other, people -- you just might learn that you've got allies where you least expect.