Lockdown drill sadness

My kids were discussing their first lock down drill of the year last night at dinner and I'm just so depressed about it all. They were making some funny little jokes (funny to them) about what happens if they're in the hall or bathroom or somewhere other than their class when someone breaks in with a gun. I want them to take it seriously but at the same time they're 6 and 8, I don't want them thinking they're going to get shot at school at all. If they want to make silly jokes about the drills to lighten it up then so be it.

I made sure to tell them over and over, you don't know who is struggling or in a bad place so just be nice to everyone, ok kids. Of course they'd say. We are nice.

So, we have guns at our house but I wish there was better gun control. I don't want to have to worry about my kids being shot at school. No one should.

My kids have not started school yet, here they do not start until after Labor Day, but they have those drills too.

At our school, they have some "security" in place, but it is pretty weak. You have to be let in by the school adminsistration, but if they let one parent in, that one just holds the door for the next, who holds it for the next, who holds it for the next, etc. They do have a Deputy Sheriff at school at all times, and that is a real help. Not so much with shooters, but in working with the kids. He is really good with kids, so he tries to get to the the kids as they are on the bench waiting for the principal and defuses a lot of problems before they get to the principal.

They also make the kids feel safe too because my foster daughter; who was a victim of gang-rape, told me with him there, she knew she could always go for help. So I am a huge proponest on having a deputy sheriff at school, and have said so at town meeting, and to the sheriff (who is a really good friend of mine) to make sure his position is funded. But it has to be the right person; they must love kids or it just does not work.

Buying an AK-47 has been on my "buy" list for awhile now, but it is getting really close to the top of the list now. I shot my first deer with one as a kid, so I have always liked the rifle anyway, but with them threatening to ban them, it is time for another. I just like how many rounds they hold, they say it takes 3 rounds to stop a bad guy on average, and most of my guns only hold a few. And it really irks me that the same guns some people want to ban, are the same guns they have protecting their families. While I can still get one, I want one protecting my family.

I'm sad that we have to worry about children being shot anywhere, but I'm also one of the people that doesn't think more laws are the answer.  Anyone that is reasonably handy, has access to a few hand tools, and has an internet connection, can build a full-auto 9mm pistol in their garage or shop in half a day.  If a person wants to kill a large number of people and can't buy, steal, or make a gun, they will use a bomb, or poison, or fire, or an automobile.  My own feelings are that we need better screening, care, and programs for the mentally ill.  Most, if not all, mass shooters have presented many, many signs that they were suffering from mental illness long before they took a life.  I would like to see intervention at that point, rather than cries of "gun control" after a lot of innocent lives are lost.

I think it is sad, and it must be challenging for some parents. I don't have children, so I have a degree of disconnect from what life may be like for a child in this country today. I find it interesting how times have changed just in my lifetime. When I was in high school in the early to mid 90's, some of the guys had gun racks in the rear window of their pickup trucks with a rifle in them, usually during hunting season but no one seemed to think twice if they had a gun in their truck at any time. One guy brought a pistol to school, everybody knew, and the principal told him don't do it again; no suspension, no expulsion, no police, no counseling. I, and many other guys, carried a pocket knife, every day. Sure there were disagreements resulting in fistfights, but it seemed no one was trying to kill anyone.

I'll chip in my two cents. I whole heartedly agree with trace:

Trace Oswald wrote:My own feelings are that we need better screening, care, and programs for the mentally ill

It appears to me, that sane people who have all their faculties about them don't commit the kind of atrocities that have occurred at places of education in this country. I don't have the answers on how to identify and aide people with mental illness. It appears they tend to not be forthcoming of requesting help on their own, but I do think mental health is indeed the underlying cause and I believe policies and politics will have little, if any, affect on providing the care needed for those who are mentally unstable and seeking reprisal.

Please delete this if it ventures too far into cider press territory. Gun control and dead kids bring out some pretty strong emotions.

I remember practicing lock downs-  and yes, it does bring out some crazy thoughts in parents, teachers, and kids.

As a gun licence posessing person from a country that had our last school shooting in 2016, with the largest massacre in 25+ years being 10 people dead in a van attack, I am fairly content with the current state of gun control in my country. It is not perfect, and yes, there is still an underground market from preexisting weapons and propped up by illegal imports from the US, but it has been more or less working, making it a challenge for the average person to get a gun or ammunition without going through the system, while still allowing responsible gun ownership for hunters, farmers, and enthusiasts. And no,  for some reason, with gun control, we dont seem to have a corresponding increase in mass school poisonings or bombings or school vehicular manslaughter - not that i am saying no one will ever try, but i guess they lack the same easy gratification?

Every time the US has a shooting, I end up having to explain Canadian laws to Canadians who want to tighten our laws in reaction. Here's a summary of how it works for me, for anyone who is on the other side of the fence. I think a lot of the success in gun control is in reducing impulsive crimes, and making the level of effort and premeditation needed to kill higher.

My posession and aquisition licence doesn't allow me to possess restricted weapons like handguns or some semi automatic weapons, which require additional licencing, and i am pleased about that, because i don't have any need for them,  nor do i think most gun owners should have access to them. There are also strict limits on gun barrel length and the number of rounds a semi-automatic can be capable of firing(5). If I, as a PAL posessor, were to decide to go out tomorrow on a rampage, I would have a more challenging time with the guns easily accessible. But, if I decided to go on a groundhog hunting rampage or go deer hunting.... no issues. I also need to use my licence to purchase ammunition. Yes, taking the course, filling out the paperwork, and consenting to background checks and waiting took a long time.  But i am okay with that too. I am glad the police call to ask if an estranged spouse knows about a gun licence application or renewal.  And I am glad we had to have a course that taught the rules of gun safety and the laws regarding gun ownership- because not everyone who wants a gun knows how to safely use one!

Forgetting about school shootings, even strong regulations about gun storage (I could go to jail if I was found not storing or transporting my guns and ammunition properly, in a locked cabinet or with trigger locks- which means we are really careful about how the family's guns are stored) could save a lot of lives down south, as a shocking number of children die each year in the US from inappropriately stored guns, or shooters who steal guns from family members. I would  still argue background checks for those wanting to purchase weapons is a very good way to identify people who ought not own them- and maybe identify those who need to be watched or get help!

So... no, gun control is not the only solution or the only difference between the US and Canada. And no,  gun control has not eliminated 100% of Canadian gun violence.  But though we have 1/3 the guns per 100 people, we have 1/5 the gun deaths per 100 000 women, and<13% the gun deaths per 100 000 men. And my neighbours still hunt and feed their families and go to sunday gun shows, and i have a hand gun range down the street from me. So it seems we are doing something right.

Unless you classify racism and misogyny as mental illnesses, most mass shooters are not mentally ill. But it is disheartening that our children have to deal with this.

Stacy Witscher wrote:Unless you classify racism and misogyny as mental illnesses, most mass shooters are not mentally ill. But it is disheartening that our children have to deal with this.

I don't classify racism and misogyny as mental illnesses, but if your point of view is that most mass shooters are not mentally ill, my own viewpoint is very much the opposite. I personally think that a person has to be deeply and profoundly mentally ill to kill a bunch of random people, not matter what reason they give for doing so. Frankly, before you stated it, I wouldn't have thought there was any disagreement that mass shooters suffer from mental illness.

SSRI info  

Many of the mass shootings have been linked to SSRI use.

So sad.  

Mike Barkley wrote:SSRI info  

Many of the mass shootings have been linked to SSRI use.

So sad.  

They have been linked, but since SSRI's are used to treat mental illnesses, it isn't hard to believe that they would be.

I think that classifying them as mentally ill takes away from the real problems - they are full of hate. Hate is tolerated much more than it should be. Empathy is important.

Saying that they are mentally ill in some ways excuses them from their behavior, at least morally, and lays it on the feet of the people that knew them. I'm not against guns and I'm definitely not for cops. We keep each other safe. We keep our communities safe. I will attend school daily with my grandson if that's what's required to keep him safe, or pull him out and homeschool him. I will not tolerate bad behavior from schools, teachers, students, anyone.

Stacy Witscher wrote:I think that classifying them as mentally ill takes away from the real problems - they are full of hate. Hate is tolerated much more than it should be. Empathy is important.

Saying that they are mentally ill in some ways excuses them from their behavior, at least morally, and lays it on the feet of the people that knew them. I'm not against guns and I'm definitely not for cops. We keep each other safe. We keep our communities safe. I will attend school daily with my grandson if that's what's required to keep him safe, or pull him out and homeschool him. I will not tolerate bad behavior from schools, teachers, students, anyone.

I think your first sentence sums up our  difference in opinion.  My opinion is that mental illness is the real problem.  Rage is a manifestation of the problem.  Killing rage is not the sane response to some perceived slight.  If we acknowledge that mental illness is the cause of mass shootings, far from excusing them, it gives us a path forward to stopping them.  If people exhibit signs of mental illness, steps can be taken then, rather than waiting until they have broken some law like killing a bunch of kids.  If your idea is correct and people are committing mass murder just because they hate other people, what is the path forward?  You can't arrest people for hating some other group of people. You can't remove from society every possible tool they can use to kill someone.  As far as accompanying your grandchild to school to protect him, how are you going to protect him from a mass shooter?  I wouldn't classify mass murder as bad behavior, I would call it psychopathy.

I can understand US citizens being concerned about mass shootings and I have long struggled to understand why mass shootings are so much more common in the US than other countries. That said, far more people die from using guns on themselves than from random acts of violence. Following a mass shooting in Australia, the police ran a gun amnesty program. The drop in suicide deaths by gun was extremely significant. That alone is a good reason to not own a gun unless you have a reason for doing so, such as hunting. It is also a good reason to follow best practices in storing both gun and ammo.

Considering how many mass shooters end their own lives, I agree that more accessible counselling, stronger communities, and sustainable economic practices that give people a sense that the world is a safe and caring place, is the permaculture way forward.

Trace Oswald wrote:

Stacy Witscher wrote:Unless you classify racism and misogyny as mental illnesses, most mass shooters are not mentally ill. But it is disheartening that our children have to deal with this.

I don't classify racism and misogyny as mental illnesses, but if your point of view is that most mass shooters are not mentally ill, my own viewpoint is very much the opposite. I personally think that a person has to be deeply and profoundly mentally ill to kill a bunch of random people, not matter what reason they give for doing so. Frankly, before you stated it, I wouldn't have thought there was any disagreement that mass shooters suffer from mental illness.

I don't have enough information on the mass shooters' profiles to comment on their mental states, and I stay away from the news for my own mental health, but I think you both have good points.

I would agree that you must be in an altered mental state to kill someone, you must think that it is acceptable, have a legitimate reason. But I think you can get there without a mental disorder. The same way war crimes or genocide seem justified to the perpetrators.

I agree that probably most mass shootings could have been prevented with proper mental health care and interventions. I hope that someday Mental Health is a required class in school where kids learn not only about disorders, but also about what's normal. I hope they can learn about each of their emotions and how to handle them in a healthy way, how external factors like sunlight affect their mood, how internal factors like hormones affect their mood. How to cultivate empathy, notice when someone is struggling, and reach out.

I would also like to see psychology as a required class where students learn about the slippery slope that starts with "othering" a group and ends where killing that group seems justified. I hope they could learn about their own biases and learn the tools to overcome them. Learn conflict resolution.

I think it's wise to have mass shooter drills in school since there is a risk now, much like you would a fire drill. But yeah most of societies reaction has been to bandaid the symptoms: control guns, add security, drill, rather than focus on prevention.

I don't think we will see a real change until we can address the root, societal causes. But to do that we would have to completely overhaul the education system, healthcare system, and destigmatize mental illness. The latter made harder by focus on the shooters' common trait of being mentally ill.

Mike Barkley wrote:
Many of the mass shootings have been linked to SSRI use.

Finally, a quick note that SSRI's are generally prescribed for depression, a complicated illness with many causes sometimes environmental and not always genetic. SSRI's can be very tricky and take many tries at many doses before the right one for the patient is found. SSRI's can increase suicidal thoughts and change behavior drastically in the first few weeks and on changing dosage or drug. It is important for patients to be monitored more closely during these times. As is stated on the patient insert.

I think there is a tendency to rely solely on medications to treat mental illness in the US. Good talk therapy and removal from triggers are often impractical and expensive, but very much needed.

Some years ago I brought my daughter up to the US to do a year of school before starting high school (to see if maybe she wanted to stay up there, after all she is an American who grew up abroad).
The drills had police showing up with weapons, and as readiness drills it wasn't clear til after they were over whether it was just a drill or a real lockdown/active shooter. I didn't see the point of subjecting my kid to this level of stress/trauma on a regular basis, and we left early. (to come back to a country with crazy levels of gun crime, but at least you know more or less where to expect it and you can defend yourself)

I have kid who goes through these drills.
She doesn't seem stressed by it.
Truth is,  we could have triple the numbers of school shootings, and they still would be rare as hens teeth,  compared to other kinds of hazards, including other gun violence.

Some have rightly noted that in places with near total gun bans,  murder and mass murder still happen.
The incidence and severity of the violence goes down,  because guns are the better tool for the job.
The simplicity of use and efficacy of guns, lowers the barrier to killing.

I believe limiting access to certain classes of weapons makes a difference
One if the earliest school shooters, Kip Kinkel, wounded 25 but "only" killed 4, because he was using a  rifle meant for killing small game.
He was taken down, while reloading,  by someone he had already shot.
I think he began his attack with the .22 rifle because it had a larger magazine.
Had he begun his rampage using the 9 millimeter handgun he also brought with him, he would have probably incapacitated his initial targets entirely and thus gotten further in his attack.
He brought and used inferior weapons,  because that was the best he could get a hold of.
I believe this resulted in fewer fatalities.

Even though there is every indication he could have acquired real, fully automatic weapons, the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks.
There are barriers to getting fully automatic weapons but he had a clean background and plenty of money, so I'm not clear as to why,  but I'm glad he settled for an inferior tool.



Kip Kinkle's fascination with guns was addressed by his parents by buying him weapons and training him to shoot.
He was receiving mental health care when he committed the school attack, an attack that was preceded by the murder of his parents.
For fear of being labeled as abnormal Kip hid the worst symptoms of his mental illness.
The stigma of being different encouraged him to hide his disease.

I'm not afraid of mass shooting incidents.
I am afraid of militias,  the military, and the police.
Some people will never be dissuaded from violence ,  no matter what the consequences.
Some have carte blanc to commit violence, with no consequence.
I don't think that the military and paramilitary organizations in my country have more moral right to weild weapons than a private citizen.
I don't think having a gun or twenty guns will keep me safe from most of the violence in my world,  but I do think it would bring more potential for violence into my life.
I have witnessed a life being saved by a firearm.
That same firearm later put innocent life at risk.
I believe any moral right to bear arms should be inextricably tied to a responsibility for that firearm.
I don't see that happening without mandatory registration of firearms, with universal background checks for gun sales, and including straw buyers as defendants on gun crime cases.


I believe access to guns makes killing easier, and more likely.
I believe access to better guns makes killing even more efficient, and therefore more likely.
I believe proper mental health care is a necessary but insuffient response to gun violence.
I believe blaming mass shooting on mental illness will drive sufferers of mental illness further from treatment.
I believe having a gun will not protect you from the government, might protect you from crime,  could endanger anyone around you,  and should be your responsibility, as much as it is your right.

Catie George wrote:Please delete this if it ventures too far into cider press territory. Gun control and dead kids bring out some pretty strong emotions.

I remember practicing lock downs-  and yes, it does bring out some crazy thoughts in parents, teachers, and kids.

As a gun licence posessing person from a country that had our last school shooting in 2016, with the largest massacre in 25+ years being 10 people dead in a van attack, I am fairly content with the current state of gun control in my country. It is not perfect, and yes, there is still an underground market from preexisting weapons and propped up by illegal imports from the US, but it has been more or less working, making it a challenge for the average person to get a gun or ammunition without going through the system, while still allowing responsible gun ownership for hunters, farmers, and enthusiasts. And no,  for some reason, with gun control, we dont seem to have a corresponding increase in mass school poisonings or bombings or school vehicular manslaughter - not that i am saying no one will ever try, but i guess they lack the same easy gratification?

Every time the US has a shooting, I end up having to explain Canadian laws to Canadians who want to tighten our laws in reaction. Here's a summary of how it works for me, for anyone who is on the other side of the fence. I think a lot of the success in gun control is in reducing impulsive crimes, and making the level of effort and premeditation needed to kill higher.

My posession and aquisition licence doesn't allow me to possess restricted weapons like handguns or some semi automatic weapons, which require additional licencing, and i am pleased about that, because i don't have any need for them,  nor do i think most gun owners should have access to them. There are also strict limits on gun barrel length and the number of rounds a semi-automatic can be capable of firing(5). If I, as a PAL posessor, were to decide to go out tomorrow on a rampage, I would have a more challenging time with the guns easily accessible. But, if I decided to go on a groundhog hunting rampage or go deer hunting.... no issues. I also need to use my licence to purchase ammunition. Yes, taking the course, filling out the paperwork, and consenting to background checks and waiting took a long time.  But i am okay with that too. I am glad the police call to ask if an estranged spouse knows about a gun licence application or renewal.  And I am glad we had to have a course that taught the rules of gun safety and the laws regarding gun ownership- because not everyone who wants a gun knows how to safely use one!

Forgetting about school shootings, even strong regulations about gun storage (I could go to jail if I was found not storing or transporting my guns and ammunition properly, in a locked cabinet or with trigger locks- which means we are really careful about how the family's guns are stored) could save a lot of lives down south, as a shocking number of children die each year in the US from inappropriately stored guns, or shooters who steal guns from family members. I would  still argue background checks for those wanting to purchase weapons is a very good way to identify people who ought not own them- and maybe identify those who need to be watched or get help!

So... no, gun control is not the only solution or the only difference between the US and Canada. And no,  gun control has not eliminated 100% of Canadian gun violence.  But though we have 1/3 the guns per 100 people, we have 1/5 the gun deaths per 100 000 women, and<13% the gun deaths per 100 000 men. And my neighbours still hunt and feed their families and go to sunday gun shows, and i have a hand gun range down the street from me. So it seems we are doing something right.

“Please delete this if it ventures too far into cider press territory. Gun control and dead kids bring out some pretty strong emotions.”

This forum is in the cider press, so at least we have that covered 😊

“I remember practicing lock downs-  and yes, it does bring out some crazy thoughts in parents, teachers, and kids.

As a gun licence posessing person from a country that had our last school shooting in 2016, with the largest massacre in 25+ years being 10 people dead in a van attack, I am fairly content with the current state of gun control in my country. It is not perfect, and yes, there is still an underground market from preexisting weapons and propped up by illegal imports from the US, but it has been more or less working, making it a challenge for the average person to get a gun or ammunition without going through the system, while still allowing responsible gun ownership for hunters, farmers, and enthusiasts. And no,  for some reason, with gun control, we dont seem to have a corresponding increase in mass school poisonings or bombings or school vehicular manslaughter - not that i am saying no one will ever try, but i guess they lack the same easy gratification? “
The largest school massacre in US history was in Bath, MI, and the murderer used explosives, killing 38 children, 6 adults, and injuring 58 other people.  It may not be common, but if guns disappeared tomorrow, I’m not convinced that killing would stop.  I am convinced that guns are a tool, like many others, that can be used responsibly, or not.

“Every time the US has a shooting, I end up having to explain Canadian laws to Canadians who want to tighten our laws in reaction. Here's a summary of how it works for me, for anyone who is on the other side of the fence. I think a lot of the success in gun control is in reducing impulsive crimes, and making the level of effort and premeditation needed to kill higher. “

I have to do the same here, with regards to US laws.

“My posession and aquisition licence doesn't allow me to possess restricted weapons like handguns or some semi automatic weapons, which require additional licencing, and i am pleased about that, because i don't have any need for them,  nor do i think most gun owners should have access to them. There are also strict limits on gun barrel length and the number of rounds a semi-automatic can be capable of firing(5). If I, as a PAL posessor, were to decide to go out tomorrow on a rampage, I would have a more challenging time with the guns easily accessible. But, if I decided to go on a groundhog hunting rampage or go deer hunting.... no issues. I also need to use my licence to purchase ammunition. Yes, taking the course, filling out the paperwork, and consenting to background checks and waiting took a long time.  But i am okay with that too. I am glad the police call to ask if an estranged spouse knows about a gun licence application or renewal.  And I am glad we had to have a course that taught the rules of gun safety and the laws regarding gun ownership- because not everyone who wants a gun knows how to safely use one!


Forgetting about school shootings, even strong regulations about gun storage (I could go to jail if I was found not storing or transporting my guns and ammunition properly, in a locked cabinet or with trigger locks- which means we are really careful about how the family's guns are stored) could save a lot of lives down south, as a shocking number of children die each year in the US from inappropriately stored guns, or shooters who steal guns from family members. I would  still argue background checks for those wanting to purchase weapons is a very good way to identify people who ought not own them- and maybe identify those who need to be watched or get help! “

We have many of those same laws here.  We have laws regarding weapon storage, mandatory classes for carrying a weapon, background checks, waiting periods…  Bans of large magazines and “assault weapons” that we had in the past didn’t seem to make an appreciable difference.  It seems that people that are willing to murder children are equally willing to ignore laws against stealing weapons and carrying concealed without a license.

“So... no, gun control is not the only solution or the only difference between the US and Canada. And no,  gun control has not eliminated 100% of Canadian gun violence.  But though we have 1/3 the guns per 100 people, we have 1/5 the gun deaths per 100 000 women, and<13% the gun deaths per 100 000 men. And my neighbours still hunt and feedtheir families and go to sunday gun shows, and i have a hand gun range down the street from me. So it seems we are doing something right.”

My own thinking is that there are such huge cultural differences between countries, it’s very hard to make comparisons.

William Bronson wrote:
I'm not afraid of mass shooting incidents.
I am afraid of militias,  the military, and the police.
Some people will never be dissuaded from violence ,  no matter what the consequences.
Some have carte blanc to commit violence, with no consequence.
I don't think that the military and paramilitary organizations in my country have more moral right to weild weapons than a private citizen.

Without touching on all your other points, this is the very reason that the 2nd amendment was written.  The purpose of that amendment was to allow the citizens of this country to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, not for hunting, and not for self defense, although historically, those rights were a given.  It seems nearly impossible to explain that point to people within this country, let alone to people of other countries.  

William Bronson wrote:
Some have rightly noted that in places with near total gun bans,  murder and mass murder still happen.
The incidence and severity of the violence goes down,  because guns are the better tool for the job.
The simplicity of use and efficacy of guns, lowers the barrier to killing.

True.  Here in Japan there are almost no guns. I don't think I've even seen one since moving back a year ago. Most of the police don't even carry.

It takes thousands of dollars and at least a year long wait with many classes you have to attend before you can own a gun for hunting and from a very short list. After ten years you can upgrade to a more accurate rifle or shotgun. Even then, your gun must be stored at the police station when not in use.

I haven't heard of any gun deaths in the last year. But still there were two incidents of mass murder that I remember hearing about. One was arson (33 killed, 34 injured), very sad I won't regale you, the other was stabbing with kitchen knives (3 killed, 16 injured). In fact most would-be mass murders try to use kitchen knives as it's the best weapon they can get. I remember both being reported as having mental health issues. So yeah it will still happen, but you don't get as far with just a knife.

At the same time, there is mandatory national healthcare and mental help is readily available. Most people I know my age speak freely about their mental health issues those that have them. I can't imagine anyone committing mass murder at a school in Japan. It's a luxury for me to not worry about my child being killed at school, and my heart goes out to anyone with kids in the US system.

Tereza Okava wrote:Some years ago I brought my daughter up to the US to do a year of school before starting high school (to see if maybe she wanted to stay up there, after all she is an American who grew up abroad).
The drills had police showing up with weapons, and as readiness drills it wasn't clear til after they were over whether it was just a drill or a real lockdown/active shooter. I didn't see the point of subjecting my kid to this level of stress/trauma on a regular basis, and we left early.

However we will still visit the grandparents in America and at some point I imagine my daughter wanting to try American school. That is years away and hopefully the landscape will have changed, but it will be stressful for me either way.

Sending your kids to school, you are entrusting there physical safety and mental well-being to other people, sometimes for the first time in their lives. My daughter is expected by the village to start preschool in six months, because that's what you do. I can't imagine leaving her there. I remember being so stressed all through school and this was before lockdown drills. And now I think just why? What was the benefit really? School is definitely optional for my kid.

While school shooting are truly horrific, they need to be kept in context in an age where the media mongers fear extensively.  Here is the link to a Washington Post article that outlines the chances of a child being shot in a school shooting.  Post article  A quote follows.

"The Education Department reports that  roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala., on Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.

The chance of a child being shot and killed in a public school is extraordinarily low. Not zero — no risk is. But it’s far lower than many people assume, especially in the glare of heart-wrenching news coverage after an event like Parkland. And it’s far lower than almost any other mortality risk a kid faces, including traveling to and from school, catching a potentially deadly disease while in school or suffering a life-threatening injury playing interscholastic sports."

In comparison, the chances of winning the lottery: "According to Lottery USA, the odds of winning the Mega Millions jackpot are 1 in 302.6 million and the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are 1 in 292.2 million."  So, your chances of winning the lottery are twice as good as the chance of your child being shot in a school shooting.

Trace Oswald wrote:That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000.

Yes, for "any given day" the odds are extremely low.  Now multiply that by 12 years of school days and the number isn't quite as high.

So my perspective, after 10 years in criminal defense, is way different than most. Guess where the "criminals" get all their guns. They steal them. They steal them from "good" citizens. I have that in quotes because a lot of these guns are stolen from cars. At this point in time I think leaving a gun in a car is the stupidest thing you can possibly do. I'm also not worried about 90% of the people that come through our office. Most of them are more interested in hurting themselves than the rest of us. The ones that worry me heavily are the ones who want to protect their gun rights the most. Why they worry me is the incredible narcissism that seems to go hand in hand with this "don't take my guns" mentality. I speak to these people, a lot. They are full of hate for everyone. They think they are somehow superior to other people. You try to say anything against it and they've got a reason you are so, so wrong. Then, when they get their guns taken, because they actually do threaten to shoot a place up, they want to sue someone. Because how dare we take their guns away. They got RIGHTS man. These are people who are incapable of acknowledging that they may ever think, say or do anything wrong, ever. Those are the scary people. Give me your schizophrenic, rapist, murderer or addict, those people are fine. Send me a narcissist and I'm terrified.


I also have an incredibly personal opinion on this. My sister married a loser. 8 years they've been married, he's not worked. He lives off her and her oldest two kids social security (they aren't his kids). He's gone on racist rants against my husband and declared that anyone muslim should be executed on the spot. God tells him he's right and the rest of us are wrong. He was just sentenced for beating the living crap out of those kids. He has an automatic rifle and a flak vest. He brags about them and puts pictures of them on Facebook. Now he shouldn't have these things, because he's a felon, but there are workarounds. My sister, the idiot, bought them under her name. He declares them "his" but he got them through her. He's one of those narcissists I spoke of. Doesn't think he did anything wrong in "disciplining" the girls. I mean yeah, I can see why choking and kicking a 9 year old in the chest are totally called for disciplinary actions, amirite. My husband and I decided that this guy was a huge risk to public safety. When we couldn't get the guns taken from him, again because they aren't "his", we decided we were not going to be public in our support of the girls or his criminal trial. We wouldn't go to hearings. We wouldn't do anything he could trace back to us. No way do I want that crazy man putting on his flak vest and grabbing his AK to come teach us a lesson.


I see no reason for anyone in the US to have access to an automatic weapon or the tools to make/modify one. It is, imo, the only way to keep them out of the hands of the deeply disturbed. You can say, have a mental health condition and no gun, but they'll just steal it or have an idiot they know buy it for them.


I agree with others as well on hate being a cause. Media coverage being a cause and the simple mind set of one individual being better than another being a factor.


and I do want to say that we do have guns in our house. We use them. We plan to shoot the pigs when it comes time to butcher. I would be against anyone taking those guns from us. They are farm tools. They feed us. I think that's different than most.


Oh and I also hate the, "I have a conceal carry and a gun because I want to be able to stop a public shooting" mantra. My sister does this. God help us if she ever feels the need to pull that thing out. There are immense studies showing highly trained people react poorly to high stress/adrenaline situations. I don't trust the average person with a concealed carry to defend me. I'm more frightened they'd shoot me. Like the 18 year old who dropped her purse at Starbucks, her gun went off and the bullet barely missed my mothers head. That crap, right there, is why people don't need to be toting guns around for no good reason.

Trace Oswald wrote:While school shooting are truly horrific, they need to be kept in context in an age where the media mongers fear extensively.  Here is the link to a Washington Post article that outlines the chances of a child being shot in a school shooting.  Post article  A quote follows.

"The Education Department reports that  roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala., on Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.

The chance of a child being shot and killed in a public school is extraordinarily low. Not zero — no risk is. But it’s far lower than many people assume, especially in the glare of heart-wrenching news coverage after an event like Parkland. And it’s far lower than almost any other mortality risk a kid faces, including traveling to and from school, catching a potentially deadly disease while in school or suffering a life-threatening injury playing interscholastic sports."

In comparison, the chances of winning the lottery: "According to Lottery USA, the odds of winning the Mega Millions jackpot are 1 in 302.6 million and the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are 1 in 292.2 million."  So, your chances of winning the lottery are twice as good as the chance of your child being shot in a school shooting.

Alright but I should be worried about my kid getting hit by a drunk driver or taken by a pedophile, not some whacko going into the school with a gun. Such a thing shouldn't even be on my radar. Any chance of that happening is sickening to me. Any discussion my kids have of such a thing happening is sickening to me.

elle sagenev wrote:So my perspective, after 10 years in criminal defense, is way different than most. Guess where the "criminals" get all their guns. They steal them. They steal them from "good" citizens.

What gun control law would you enact that will keep people from being able to steal a gun?  Say the one in your house.

elle sagenev wrote:He has an automatic rifle and a flak vest. He brags about them and puts pictures of them on Facebook.

I can almost absolutely guarantee he does not have an automatic weapon, and if he does, a picture of it will guarantee the owner a very long prison sentence, be it him or your sister.

elle sagenev wrote:I see no reason for anyone in the US to have access to an automatic weapon or the tools to make/modify one. It is, imo, the only way to keep them out of the hands of the deeply disturbed. You can say, have a mental health condition and no gun, but they'll just steal it or have an idiot they know buy it for them.

It is nearly impossible to get an automatic weapon in this country.  An automatic weapon generally sells for approximately $20,000, you have to get it through an FFL dealer that is specially licensed to sell them, you fill out an application 20 or so pages long that goes the the FBI and the ATF, along with your fingerprints, your house is inspected.  It is, for all intents and purposes, illegal to have an automatic weapon in this country.

elle sagenev wrote:There are immense studies showing highly trained people react poorly to high stress/adrenaline situations.

I can't say for certain that isn't true, but I've never seen one.  Poorly trained people certainly, but highly trained people?  If that were true, we should be very fearful that our highly trained military and SWAT teams have access to automatic weapons.  They train in high stress/adrenaline situations specifically because that allows them to react well in those situations.

elle sagenev wrote:Alright but I should be worried about my kid getting hit by a drunk driver or taken by a pedophile, not some whacko going into the school with a gun. Such a thing shouldn't even be on my radar. Any chance of that happening is sickening to me. Any discussion my kids have of such a thing happening is sickening to me.

I don't really understand your thoughts here regarding certain things that you should have to worry about and things you shouldn't.  Personally, I'm far more concerned about drunk drivers and pedophiles, and the chances of a child encountering one or both of those things is so far greater than encountering a school shooter, there is no real comparison.  

I don't trust the average person with a concealed carry to defend me.

The average person who carries in public doesn't do so to protect YOU. In fact, that is highly discouraged during mandatory training & certification.

In my opinion the problem is not the laws or the guns. The problem is people with very serious mental problems & evil intentions in their hearts.

If I hear of a mass shooting type thing going on nearby I'll be rushing there to end it. No kid or any other innocent person deserves to die like that. Not on my watch.

The largest school massacre in US history was in Bath, MI, and the murderer used explosives, killing 38 children, 6 adults, and injuring 58 other people.  It may not be common, but if guns disappeared tomorrow, I’m not convinced that killing would stop.  I am convinced that guns are a tool, like many others, that can be used responsibly, or not.

Guns are a tool- but they are also a weapon designed to kill people and things. I strongly believe the difference between a tool designed to kill things, and a tool designed to kill many things quickly, needs to be considered. My grandfathers old single shot .22 rifle is quite good for killing farm pests. It would not be particularly efficient in a mass shooting. An AK 47 with a large magazine would work just fine to kill farm pests, but would also be quite well suited for a mass shooting. Both are potentially deadly. But I strongly believe the latter is more dangerous and has no legitimate or necessary use in the hands of civilians, and should be regulated differently. Where you draw the line in between the two for what is acceptable is a matter of judgement.  

No, all killing isnt going to stop with gun control, but death toll should be reduced. Guns are the 3rd leading cause of death in  children under 17 in the US!  If cars (which I also consider a tool and a weapon)  were the third leading cause, I would expect stronger regulations for car ownership and more safety standards. Sometimes I feel like people focusing on school shootings, although horrific, miss the bigger issue.

Back to massacres.... if the frequency of mass killing attempts remains the same, the number of people per incident on average should decrease. Yes, explosives can kill more people than guns - that's why we regulate explosives, and monitor to see if people are buying the supplies to make them!  And why, if explosives are so much more effective, do people use guns instead? No, explosives regulation isn't 100% effective- but imagine if we didn't have it!  Drunk driving laws haven't stopped all drunk drivers, but I am not going to suggest those laws shouldn't exist either. I also find it interesting to look at death tolls for various tragedies in different countries... Canada has had our share in my life time, but the numbers of dead probably would be forgotten in 2 days on a US network. Why haven't Canadian killers innovated and become more successful?

If gun deaths could be reduced by 10% over the next 20 years, would that be enough to sway you?  25%? 50%? What amount of reduction would be necessary to make it worthwhile? What if school massacres remained at the same levels, but deaths from domestic violence and accidents dropped?

We have many of those same laws here.  We have laws regarding weapon storage, mandatory classes for carrying a weapon, background checks, waiting periods…  Bans of large magazines and “assault weapons” that we had in the past didn’t seem to make an appreciable difference.  It seems that people that are willing to murder children are equally willing to ignore laws against stealing weapons and carrying concealed without a license.

Maybe??? Or perhaps laws are not national enough, or dont have enough teeth. Here's a good comparison of the  two sets of laws. https://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7047547/canada-gun-law-us-comparison if you are interested. I see a lot of loopholes in the US laws, and a lot of regional variation. I know of people who have been charged simply for having unattended firearms visible in their locked truck. It's really hard to steal something you can't see! We had a gun on display here for a while... pretty useless if stolen without the bolt! The police call your references, including ex spouses when you apply or renew a gun licence. If you are arrested for domestic violence, the police can seize your guns from your house. This is a very good thing.

The US  ban did nothing to touch existing guns. Canadian gun laws do. Some argue they arent strict enough, but  i think its a reasonable compromise. I know few people willing to spend 6 months in jail for improper firearm storage, and accept the liability for negligence if someone accesses your firearms and hurts themselves or others. There are also consequences to all adult members of a household who knowingly have illegal weapons on the premises. One thing Canada did right is gun amnesty periods where you can give up guns in your house or that you have inherited that are illegal or you no longer want to be destroyed without criminal consequences, prvoided they havent been used in a crime.

It is a task of decades to reduce blackmarket and illegal gun levels in Canada, and i imagine it would be several decades in the US. But would having your grandkids safer be worth it?

“So... no, gun control is not the only solution or the only difference between the US and Canada. And no,  gun control has not eliminated 100% of Canadian gun violence.  But though we have 1/3 the guns per 100 people, we have 1/5 the gun deaths per 100 000 women, and<13% the gun deaths per 100 000 men. And my neighbours still hunt and feedtheir families and go to sunday gun shows, and i have a hand gun range down the street from me. So it seems we are doing something right.”

My own thinking is that there are such huge cultural differences between countries, it’s very hard to make comparisons.

I think there are cultural differences in all countries, but looking at dozens of countries around the world, it's clear where gun control has been implemented, gun deaths have fallen. I don't know of a good example where gun levels have remained the same but better mental health initiatives have reduced gun violence. I would be very interested if anyone has any examples of this that the US could be drawing from (or Canada for that matter, as I would be happy to reduce violence here, too).  

A main cultural difference i see is that most people i know consider gun ownership a responsibility and a privilege rather than a right. Privileges can be taken away. Another one is a difference in fear levels. I have never, ever, even when living alone in poor areas of cities, felt the need own a gun to keep myself safe- my gun is kept at my fathers house on his acreage, as its the only place i would ever think to use it.  I genuinely know  only one other person in the city who owns a gun ( an older man who had a restricted licence but told me he has given up his handguns because the consequences if he were to use them even for self defence are too high, and he doesn't want them around his grandkids). Pretty much all of my neighbours in the country have several guns- for hunting, target shooting, etc.

There are many comments about mental illness. Yes, some school shooters have serious mental illnesses.  But many of them  I would not consider to have mental illness, as  extreme hatred and differing from societal norms and accepted behaviour is not a mental illness. Sociopathy/psychopathy are some of the easiest personality traits to hide, and cannot be treated. What would you do, drug and brainwash all potential mass murderers? That seems like far more of an invasion of rights than denying them access to guns, and very challenging to implement. What form of treatment would help? I frankly think a desire to kill is a human trait, and well within the rage of "normal".  It's only in the last 100 years or less that willingness to kill for your beliefs wasn't really considered an acceptable and occasionally admirable trait in general society. Genocides around the world, wartime massacres of whole villages, gang and drug war killings, various wars and civil wars, etc  were not just committed by those with mental illness!

I think my main point here is that it is possible to have sane gun control that is a reasonable compromise between having guns available as tools and having easy access to the most dangerous guns, or many, many loopholes.  

If there had been the number of mass murder school shootings when our sons were in school I would probably have taken them out of school....I'm not sure I could have lived with the uncertainty every day?  
Back then we were going to large craft shows with large groups of people...I might have backed out of them also....I don't know.  The whole scenario makes me feel ill and I don't have simple thoughts about it.  Yes, of course someone who would do that has some sort of serious mental problems...but in my mind, it all hinges on easy access to guns....and easy access to guns that are only intended to kill humans...and to kill a lot of humans in seconds.

I don't feel safer because more people have guns.  
I now feel much less safe in large groups of people.
I do not feel safer knowing those around me might be carrying legally and that they have every intent of pulling out a gun to 'protect' those around them.  

In many of these mass murders I don't think that more guns would have saved lives, especially more guns in the hands of untrained and panicked folks.

Trace Oswald wrote:

elle sagenev wrote:So my perspective, after 10 years in criminal defense, is way different than most. Guess where the "criminals" get all their guns. They steal them. They steal them from "good" citizens.

What gun control law would you enact that will keep people from being able to steal a gun?  Say the one in your house.

elle sagenev wrote:He has an automatic rifle and a flak vest. He brags about them and puts pictures of them on Facebook.

I can almost absolutely guarantee he does not have an automatic weapon, and if he does, a picture of it will guarantee the owner a very long prison sentence, be it him or your sister.

elle sagenev wrote:I see no reason for anyone in the US to have access to an automatic weapon or the tools to make/modify one. It is, imo, the only way to keep them out of the hands of the deeply disturbed. You can say, have a mental health condition and no gun, but they'll just steal it or have an idiot they know buy it for them.

It is nearly impossible to get an automatic weapon in this country.  An automatic weapon generally sells for approximately $20,000, you have to get it through an FFL dealer that is specially licensed to sell them, you fill out an application 20 or so pages long that goes the the FBI and the ATF, along with your fingerprints, your house is inspected.  It is, for all intents and purposes, illegal to have an automatic weapon in this country.

elle sagenev wrote:There are immense studies showing highly trained people react poorly to high stress/adrenaline situations.

I can't say for certain that isn't true, but I've never seen one.  Poorly trained people certainly, but highly trained people?  If that were true, we should be very fearful that our highly trained military and SWAT teams have access to automatic weapons.  They train in high stress/adrenaline situations specifically because that allows them to react well in those situations.

elle sagenev wrote:Alright but I should be worried about my kid getting hit by a drunk driver or taken by a pedophile, not some whacko going into the school with a gun. Such a thing shouldn't even be on my radar. Any chance of that happening is sickening to me. Any discussion my kids have of such a thing happening is sickening to me.

I don't really understand your thoughts here regarding certain things that you should have to worry about and things you shouldn't.  Personally, I'm far more concerned about drunk drivers and pedophiles, and the chances of a child encountering one or both of those things is so far greater than encountering a school shooter, there is no real comparison.  

1) I don't keep guns in the cars. They're in our house. Our house is as secure as it can be. The guns aren't kept out. We do have kids after all. It's not impossible to steal  the guns.
2) I don't know what legislation we should have honestly. All I'm saying is what we got, ain't working.
3) Look up the Fear/Threat Experience and fear stressors. Law enforcement and military personnel experience these events during shootings.
4) I'll be honest here, I can't tell guns apart. It's just not my interest. Hubs does guns, I do knives. Equal division of butchery. Plus brother in law has me blocked on his Facebook because he's a racist and I didn't marry a white guy. I was told of the pictures from my father, who couldn't believe the idiot had all this crap.
5) Most people carrying concealed around here do it for protection, of themselves and others. That's the claim at least. If someone starts shooting, I'm going to stop them. Right? Except are you, are you really? I have serious doubts. I'd also not like to be stuck in that crossfire.
6)My state has tons of vehicle deaths and a lot of them are alcohol related. We're the #2 state for vehicle deaths actually. Not bragging, just stating fact. So being hit by a drunk driver, not that far out there. Ashamed to say we've had several pedophiles in the office. So, for me, not that far out there. Why do I have to add getting shot at school to the list of awful things that can happen to my babies?

I'm sorry that you're sad about the lockdown drills, elle. I'm glad your kids' school is being proactive. I remember when my parents though tornado and fire drills were a waste of time - quite honestly, most of the kids in my class thought they were a joke, but a great way to not have to sit through grammar diagramming. These drills are to protect against the psychopaths, not the guns. Guns are tools. Frankly, I'm glad they're teaching these drills, because it will raise the kids awareness of what's going on around them, too.

I'm one of those who fights staunchly for our right to keep and bear arms. I spend my money, cast my votes, and speak out, on pretty much a daily basis, in favor of 2A. Interestingly, I've never been called a narcissist - well, until now. Our 1A rights will only be kept, while our 2A rights are kept, because once 2A is gone, there is no forcible means to keep our - or any other - government from eliminating 1A. Or 4A. Or 6A... If you see a pattern here, it's because there is one. It's distinct. King George may be gone, but far worse, far more insidious, far more deceptive, and far more violent are watching, waiting, and vying to take his place. Venezuela is but one recent example.

Trace Oswald wrote:

William Bronson wrote:
I'm not afraid of mass shooting incidents.
I am afraid of militias,  the military, and the police.
Some people will never be dissuaded from violence ,  no matter what the consequences.
Some have carte blanc to commit violence, with no consequence.
I don't think that the military and paramilitary organizations in my country have more moral right to weild weapons than a private citizen.

L"



Without touching on all your other points, this is the very reason that the 2nd amendment was written.  The purpose of that amendment was to allow the citizens of this country to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, not for hunting, and not for self defense, although historically, those rights were a given.  It seems nearly impossible to explain that point to people within this country, let alone to people of other countries.  

I'm not interested in the "purpose" of the second amendment.
The men who wrote and signed the constitution have no moral standing in my mind,  I dint care about their intent.
I don't believe that firearms are a defense against government tyranny.
Every successful armed insurrection I am aware of has had outside assistance.
I don't believe the mujahideen would  have pushed back the Soviets without our aid, or even survived without aid from neighboring countries.

In this country, the actions of armed militias have largely been in the murder and oppression of religious , ethnic and racial minorities.
They have had the tacit approval of the government.
They have gone by many names, and the membership demographics has varied.
Every iteration treats their own equality under the law as oppression.
They use violence in the name of principles that to which they pay lip service.
Much like the founding fathers, they fight to maintain their defacto control.

Minorities have resisted oppression with violence.
When they don't have the support of the greater government/populance, they have been crushed and largely forgotten.
The Matewan Massacre comes to mind.

I believe the myth of resisting government oppression with firearms serves only the least oppressed among us.

Carla Burke wrote:I'm sorry that you're sad about the lockdown drills, elle. I'm glad your kids' school is being proactive. I remember when my parents though tornado and fire drills were a waste of time - quite honestly, most of the kids in my class thought they were a joke, but a great way to not have to sit through grammar diagramming. These drills are to protect against the psychopaths, not the guns. Guns are tools. Frankly, I'm glad they're teaching these drills, because it will raise the kids awareness of what's going on around them, too.

I'm one of those who fights staunchly for our right to keep and bear arms. I spend my money, cast my votes, and speak out, on pretty much a daily basis, in favor of 2A. Interestingly, I've never been called a narcissist - well, until now. Our 1A rights will only be kept, while our 2A rights are kept, because once 2A is gone, there is no forcible means to keep our - or any other - government from eliminating 1A. Or 4A. Or 6A... If you see a pattern here, it's because there is one. It's distinct. King George may be gone, but far worse, far more insidious, far more deceptive, and far more violent are watching, waiting, and vying to take his place. Venezuela is but one recent example.

And I guess the problem is you're defending guns that society really doesn't need out of fear. You can keep the second amendment while acknowledging that things have gotten out of hand and controlling some firearms.

I do not know you personally but yeah, the people in here (my workplace) ranting about their guns are scary narcissistic. That's my basis, my only basis for that statement.

I'd also like to say that law enforcement in my area DO carry automatic weapons in their patrol cars BECAUSE of the fire power (and distance between backup in certain areas of my big arse state) they are encountering out there.

elle sagenev wrote:

1) I don't keep guns in the cars. They're in our house. Our house is as secure as it can be. The guns aren't kept out. We do have kids after all. It's not impossible to steal  the guns.
2) I don't know what legislation we should have honestly. All I'm saying is what we got, ain't working.
3) Look up the Fear/Threat Experience and fear stressors. Law enforcement and military personnel experience these events during shootings.
4) I'll be honest here, I can't tell guns apart. It's just not my interest. Hubs does guns, I do knives. Equal division of butchery. Plus brother in law has me blocked on his Facebook because he's a racist and I didn't marry a white guy. I was told of the pictures from my father, who couldn't believe the idiot had all this crap.
5) Most people carrying concealed around here do it for protection, of themselves and others. That's the claim at least. If someone starts shooting, I'm going to stop them. Right? Except are you, are you really? I have serious doubts. I'd also not like to be stuck in that crossfire.
6)My state has tons of vehicle deaths and a lot of them are alcohol related. We're the #2 state for vehicle deaths actually. Not bragging, just stating fact. So being hit by a drunk driver, not that far out there. Ashamed to say we've had several pedophiles in the office. So, for me, not that far out there. Why do I have to add getting shot at school to the list of awful things that can happen to my babies?

1)  I think we agree here.People need to be responsible, they need to do everything they can to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them.  And yes, it's impossible to keep people from stealing guns.
2)  I don't know either, sadly.  I just don't think more gun control laws are the answer.
3)  Everyone experiences stress during these events.  I was in the military for many years, and trained for hundreds of hours on my own dime in very realistic weapons courses.  The stress will always be there but the only way to negate it is through highly intense, continuing training.  
4)  I understand, and it isn't necessary for you to know everything about guns, but in order to have a reasonable discussion about gun control laws, it is imperative that both sides understand what the actual, current laws are.
5)  I don't carry concealed much anymore.  I mostly stay on my land, plant trees, and live a quiet lifestyle.  If I still lived in a city or a high-risk area, I would carry all the time, as I did then, and yes, I absolutely carried for my protection as well as the protection of the people around me.  The other alternative during an active shooter scenario is to try to hide and wait for it to be over.  I prefer to have a more proactive approach to my own survival.
6)  We have plenty of vehicle deaths here too.  I want the punishments for drunk driving to be much stricter, the penalties for doing it much higher, but I don't want vehicles to be harder to buy, or outlawed, even if I knew it would cut drunk driving deaths by 100%.  I also don't want anything to happen to your babies, or anyone else's.  I don't want you to have to add another thing to worry about, and if I knew a way to keep your babies safe, I would be all for it.  I just don't know the answer to that.

Do those who worry about second amendment rights object to gun registration? and training? and licensing?    Similar to car ownership? or planes?

I think anyone who has resistance to a ban on assault rifles for the general public might gain some insignt by talking with parents who lost a child in a school mass murder.

I really don't think most discussions about gun control are talking about taking everyones guns away...just making it more difficult for those who might misuse them to gain access.
I just can't see the downside to that?

Trace Oswald wrote:
1)  I think we agree here.People need to be responsible, they need to do everything they can to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them.  And yes, it's impossible to keep people from stealing guns.
2)  I don't know either, sadly.  I just don't think more gun control laws are the answer.
3)  Everyone experiences stress during these events.  I was in the military for many years, and trained for hundreds of hours on my own dime in very realistic weapons courses.  The stress will always be there but the only way to negate it is through highly intense, continuing training.  
4)  I understand, and it isn't necessary for you to know everything about guns, but in order to have a reasonable discussion about gun control laws, it is imperative that both sides understand what the actual, current laws are.
5)  I don't carry concealed much anymore.  I mostly stay on my land, plant trees, and live a quiet lifestyle.  If I still lived in a city or a high-risk area, I would carry all the time, as I did then, and yes, I absolutely carried for my protection as well as the protection of the people around me.  The other alternative during an active shooter scenario is to try to hide and wait for it to be over.  I prefer to have a more proactive approach to my own survival.
6)  We have plenty of vehicle deaths here too.  I want the punishments for drunk driving to be much stricter, the penalties for doing it much higher, but I don't want vehicles to be harder to buy, or outlawed, even if I knew it would cut drunk driving deaths by 100%.  I also don't want anything to happen to your babies, or anyone else's.  I don't want you to have to add another thing to worry about, and if I knew a way to keep your babies safe, I would be all for it.  I just don't know the answer to that.

3) Not to get in an argument about #3 but it really is something that is studied and documented. We had an expert testify to it for a case. Training and actually having someone shoot at you, totally different. You can train to better handle it, but I don't know if you can ever 100% be ready for someone to try to kill you. The training does click in and all that but afterwards they may realize they shot way more bullets than they realized or that their perception of time during the event or their aim during the event is different. So my whole use of that is that if a trained professional has this reaction why on Earth do I want Joe Shmoe, untrained with a gun, wanting to jump in and "save" themselves/others in public places. It's a recipe for disaster!!!

4) I do work in criminal justice so I'm decently familiar with at least my state's gun laws. I'm also decently familiar with how criminals get and use them. I'd get myself way more familiar with federal laws if I were going to go lobby to change them though.

6) drunk driving, don't get me started. Makes me FURIOUS! My husband ran the chemical testing lab, so did all the DUI samples and all that. The amount of it, disgusting. People really don't care. Bah! And I think wanting harsher penalties for abusers is a great thing, me too. How is that way more different than wanting to regulate certain guns?

Judith Browning wrote:Do those who worry about second amendment rights object to gun registration? and training? and licensing?    Similar to car ownership? or planes?

I think anyone who has resistance to a ban on assault rifles for the general public might gain some insignt by talking with parents who lost a child in a school mass murder.

I really don't think most discussions about gun control are talking about taking everyones guns away...just making it more difficult for those who might misuse them to gain access.
I just can't see the downside to that?

Tracer bullets are becoming subject to regulation as massive forest fires are started by them far more regularly than people would think. I haven't heard an outcry about that, so why automatic weapons? True, only CA has made purchasing the rounds illegal, but the federal government has banned them from use on federal lands.

Tracer bullets aren't allowed to be used in fire season here. It's one of the things on the list.

I know plenty of mentally ill people that I would trust with a gun before I would trust the white supremacists down the street, and you better believe they have them. Most mentally ill people hurt themselves more than they hurt anyone else.

Around here, my main concerns are the white supremacists and the police. My grandson will be taught to never talk to police. They won't protect us, we protect us.

elle sagenev wrote:

Carla Burke wrote:I'm sorry that you're sad about the lockdown drills, elle. I'm glad your kids' school is being proactive. I remember when my parents though tornado and fire drills were a waste of time - quite honestly, most of the kids in my class thought they were a joke, but a great way to not have to sit through grammar diagramming. These drills are to protect against the psychopaths, not the guns. Guns are tools. Frankly, I'm glad they're teaching these drills, because it will raise the kids awareness of what's going on around them, too.

I'm one of those who fights staunchly for our right to keep and bear arms. I spend my money, cast my votes, and speak out, on pretty much a daily basis, in favor of 2A. Interestingly, I've never been called a narcissist - well, until now. Our 1A rights will only be kept, while our 2A rights are kept, because once 2A is gone, there is no forcible means to keep our - or any other - government from eliminating 1A. Or 4A. Or 6A... If you see a pattern here, it's because there is one. It's distinct. King George may be gone, but far worse, far more insidious, far more deceptive, and far more violent are watching, waiting, and vying to take his place. Venezuela is but one recent example.

And I guess the problem is you're defending guns that society really doesn't need out of fear. You can keep the second amendment while acknowledging that things have gotten out of hand and controlling some firearms.

I do not know you personally but yeah, the people in here (my workplace) ranting about their guns are scary narcissistic. That's my basis, my only basis for that statement.

2A is one of the rights our founders determined was fundamental, and many of us still consider it so. We also have actual need for them, in many cases, and certainly, in mine. Whether anyone thinks we defend it out of fear is irrelevant - but fear also is the ONLY driving factor in the push for gun control. It's a way of life, for many. Knowing *something* about guns should be an absolute requirement, imho, for every elected legislator wishing to change gun laws, so they can learn the difference between media hype and reality. Here are a couple examples:
*All the laws needed to achieve the very gun control (so many want) are already in place - they're just not enforced. Including so called 'red flag' laws. Adding new laws is a waste of tax payer money, and more importantly, innocent lives. Enforcement of the laws already on the books would solve the problems.
*It's already illegal for any private citizen to own an automatic firearm, unless it has historic value.  Universal federal background checks are already the law, and there are no loopholes - even at the ridiculously maligned gun shows.
*There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle' - the AR in AR15 stands for the company, Armalite, who invented it, and it has never been in military service.
*A 'semiautomatic' fires only one round, at a time, so it can only fire as fast as a human finger can pull the trigger.
*A .22 caliber round will not take down a human,  bear, bull, boar, or even a deer, without extreme closeness and accuracy that even the most experienced shooter can rarely manage. Said shooter would have to be so close, for most of these, that they shooter, especially in the case of the bear, boat, and human, that they are just as likely to be killed by their target, as the target would be.
*A charging bull, boar, bear, or even deer or human will not drop, but keep charging, often even after as many as a dozen rounds have been fired into vital organs, so larger magazines really are best.

Those things said, I grieve for the children who are killed, whether by someone with a firearm, knife, bomb, or fire & accellerant. I also grieve for the ones killed by drunk drivers and abortionists. But, children killed by firearms are, by far, the least number, of all of those. They just get more publicity, because of the media's political agenda. I think they ALL deserve better, more effective protection.

Elle, considering your work, I've no doubt, whatsoever, that your experiences with gun owners have not often been pleasant. Whether they're actually criminals, or law-abiding gun owners, I'm sure their emotions are high, and they're feeling very edgy and defensive, when you encounter them. That's a shame, too, because I can promise you, most of the gun owners I've known in my life have been upright, law abiding, kind, generous, hard-working, friendly, and helpful. Are there assholes and narcissists? Of course. But, not in any greater proportions than any other group.

Edited to add: the .556 is essentially a .22caliber round, and is used by our military, in war, but are restricted in type and use, because while they are small they are fast, have good range, are very cheap, lightweight, and are more easily treated wounds than others.

This topic is now locked.

At first, it seemed like a good thread about how to keep kids safe and prepare them for dangers that can happen at school.

Then it fell into the old discussion about guns, racism, insults, and a whole bunch of stuff (now removed) about who deserves to have one and insults about one side or the other - very polarizing stuff that is not in keeping with the kind of thing we publish on permies.

This thread is eating up way too much moderator time sorting through who's insulting whom and does that punctuation mark mean they are being mean, or is it a misplaced comma?  It's way too much work for volunteers!  If we had a highly paid staff of moderators then we could have this conversation.  But we don't.  (secretly, I think this place is better for it - we have a much better bunch of moderators than we could ever hire for money)

A few things:

edge case posts make more work for moderators.  Please ask your internal moderator to read your post before pressing that 'submit' button.

Some people on permies own and use guns.  Some people here use guns for their work.  Some people here have jobs that were insulted in this thread. - Please be careful when suggesting that other people may be less than perfect.  This does not meet publishing standards.

Some people on permies don't own or use guns.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Please be careful not to suggest otherwise at this might imply that these people are less than perfect.

I think it would be okay to start a new thread about keeping kids safe at school and the technical aspects of these drills so long as it doesn't degrade into name-calling.