What do we need to do to stop mass shootings?

[Anonymous]

Believe we are getting somewhere here.

It is a hassle to take off my shoes every time I fly out of Dulles, but it’s better than another 9/11.

And there has not been anything comparable to 9/11 since TSA took over.

[Anonymous]

We hardened air-travel after 9/11. It can be done.

You realize that this did effectively nothing, right? The only useful thing that happened here was securing cockpit doors. The TSA has, by its own statistics, been a complete failure at detecting contraband at airport security checkpoints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

I posted upthread but I think you’re probably being obtuse deliberately. As far as the average civilian was concerned, assault weapons weren’t available till the 80s. Why? Because the gun manufacturers saw dwindling sales and needed to get their consumers excited. Voila. Mashed elementary students.

There have been plenty of cases of people committing school shootings with pistols, like Virginia Tech. Don’t be obtuse yourself. You know it is deeper than gun ownership. John Wayne was an American icon and people idolized guns in a time period that had hardly any school shootings at all. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

I posted upthread but I think you’re probably being obtuse deliberately. As far as the average civilian was concerned, assault weapons weren’t available till the 80s. Why? Because the gun manufacturers saw dwindling sales and needed to get their consumers excited. Voila. Mashed elementary students.

There have been plenty of cases of people committing school shootings with pistols, like Virginia Tech. Don’t be obtuse yourself. You know it is deeper than gun ownership. John Wayne was an American icon and people idolized guns in a time period that had hardly any school shootings at all. Why?

Rifles and handguns do different things to the body, even with the same caliber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

Well said and completely logical.

The guns are not “causing” this. Guns are inanimate objects. The root causes are deeper and potentially more difficult to confront.

Easily, however, we can harden our schools today, without controversy.

We hardened air-travel after 9/11. It can be done.

Inconvenient? Sure, but it can be done. IT MUST BE DONE FOR THE SAKE OF OUR KIDS.

Are you part of the security complex with this nonsense? No child should be forced to spend 8 hours a day in high security conditions. Guns aren’t walking themselves to the schools, but they make it EXTREMELY EASY for a nut job to wipe out an entire class in 30 seconds. Get rid of the tools of mass murder and you just might see a decline in mass murders!

But no, our kids aren’t with you giving up your toys. Because let’s be clear, that’s what they are. You’re not hunting with them, and you’re certainly not going to take out a government tank with them. They are toys for people who are poor sportsmen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We hardened air-travel after 9/11. It can be done.

You realize that this did effectively nothing, right? The only useful thing that happened here was securing cockpit doors. The TSA has, by its own statistics, been a complete failure at detecting contraband at airport security checkpoints.

Are you insane?

There has been another attack like 9/11 since TSA took over.

The biggest threat on a commercial flight is a drunk, rowdy passenger starting a fight, getting dragged off the plane, and your flight gets cancelled.

[Anonymous]

“Not”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

I posted upthread but I think you’re probably being obtuse deliberately. As far as the average civilian was concerned, assault weapons weren’t available till the 80s. Why? Because the gun manufacturers saw dwindling sales and needed to get their consumers excited. Voila. Mashed elementary students.

+1 and assault weapons ban ended in 2004.

It began in 1994. Please list the school shootings for approximately 30 years before 1994 and compare that to a list from 1994-2023. If it was all about the prevalence of guns the number of school shootings and mass shootings from 1964-1994 should be higher, correct?

[Anonymous]

How about we just focus on the bullets? Then they can hug the guns all they'd like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

I posted upthread but I think you’re probably being obtuse deliberately. As far as the average civilian was concerned, assault weapons weren’t available till the 80s. Why? Because the gun manufacturers saw dwindling sales and needed to get their consumers excited. Voila. Mashed elementary students.

There have been plenty of cases of people committing school shootings with pistols, like Virginia Tech. Don’t be obtuse yourself. You know it is deeper than gun ownership. John Wayne was an American icon and people idolized guns in a time period that had hardly any school shootings at all. Why?

Rifles and handguns do different things to the body, even with the same caliber.

I read that Washington Post story as well, but let’s continue to think for ourselves.

Mass shootings were nonexistent before the mid-80s. America has been a nation of gun nuts since it’s inception. Yet mass shootings, especially at schools, are a relatively recent phenomenon. Why? People weren’t shooting up schools in the Wild West, yet you want me to believe that regulating the sale of a certain type of gun is going to stop people from A) using illegally obtained guns, B) legal guns, or C) other weapons to slaughter innocent children in schools?

That seems completely illogical to me. A better, more sensible and immediate solution would be to protect our children like we protect our money at banks. It seems almost callous to do otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

Well said and completely logical.

The guns are not “causing” this. Guns are inanimate objects. The root causes are deeper and potentially more difficult to confront.

Easily, however, we can harden our schools today, without controversy.

We hardened air-travel after 9/11. It can be done.

Inconvenient? Sure, but it can be done. IT MUST BE DONE FOR THE SAKE OF OUR KIDS.

people like you make me sick. you belong in a mental institution. the world doesn't have to be this horrible, it really doesn't. most countries are much better than this. why should american compete with saudi arabia, north korea, and russia for being a dystopia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about we just focus on the bullets? Then they can hug the guns all they'd like.

Proof of insurance with ammo purchase and making it a felony to resell or fail to report robbery of same might be a very good, fast interim solution, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

I posted upthread but I think you’re probably being obtuse deliberately. As far as the average civilian was concerned, assault weapons weren’t available till the 80s. Why? Because the gun manufacturers saw dwindling sales and needed to get their consumers excited. Voila. Mashed elementary students.

There have been plenty of cases of people committing school shootings with pistols, like Virginia Tech. Don’t be obtuse yourself. You know it is deeper than gun ownership. John Wayne was an American icon and people idolized guns in a time period that had hardly any school shootings at all. Why?

Rifles and handguns do different things to the body, even with the same caliber.

I read that Washington Post story as well, but let’s continue to think for ourselves.

Mass shootings were nonexistent before the mid-80s. America has been a nation of gun nuts since it’s inception. Yet mass shootings, especially at schools, are a relatively recent phenomenon. Why? People weren’t shooting up schools in the Wild West, yet you want me to believe that regulating the sale of a certain type of gun is going to stop people from A) using illegally obtained guns, B) legal guns, or C) other weapons to slaughter innocent children in schools?

That seems completely illogical to me. A better, more sensible and immediate solution would be to protect our children like we protect our money at banks. It seems almost callous to do otherwise.

How many AR-15’s were around in the 60’s and 70’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mass school shootings were virtually nonexistent before the mid-80s, and a rare occurrence before Columbine. There were a lot of guns around then, but no mass shootings. A sensible person would look deeper into why this was the case instead of throwing out irrational solutions like confiscating 400 million guns in this country through police and FBI raids, which would obviously lead to mass unrest of a level that this country has never seen.

this has been well studied. I think this article should be required reading for all: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOP to parents - Homeschool them!

Of course, because they hate public schools AND believe moms shouldn't work