It annoys me that the author doesn’t summarize the findings about how to prevent a school shooting in the first paragraph. I read for several minutes and finally gave up. Journalists should realize that the point isn’t to get me to read more — the point is to convey information.
Isn't the issue that the shooters have been bullied for years? And that bullying is naturally occurring in these forced enclosures that schools are. Similar to how chickens will choose a victim to peck when they're locked in a cage.
If the school shooters were instead using grenades or rocket launchers, would you still think “the issue” was bullying? No, you would ban grenades in a heartbeat. They are in fact banned in the US.
The shooters are using weapons of war already. Assault rifles are for soldiers. You’ve just been convinced to turn a blind eye to that. And you’re coming up with ridiculous metaphors to describe this as an inevitable force of nature, as if there is no man-made highly efficient killing machine involved. (Edit, sorry for venting, the article also seems to ignore the part about the guns.)
> "The shooters are using weapons of war already. Assault rifles are for soldiers."
This is the kind of ignorance, in as non-pejorative sense as possible, that actually makes it harder for knowledgeable advocates of gun control to succeed. Repeating this is viewed akin to how we on HN would view anyone repeating the unintentionally hilarious "11 Signs Your Child Is A Hacker" (https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/signs-yo...).
At the distances involved and against untrained and unprotected victims, pistols (much easier to aim than a long arm), shotguns (more lethal), and hunting rifles (which use larger, more powerful bullets than assault rifles; look up "battle rifle") are just as effective at creating carnage. (Every last one of these types of firearms have been extensively used by soldiers in wartime as well, so the "weapons of war" fearmongering just sounds, well, ignorant and who takes uninformed opinions seriously?) So, to the point, what exactly do people think banning assault rifles will do other than cause the deranged to switch to one of these other types? It is pure security theater that is obvious even to non-firearms owners.
Ban the other types as well, you say? While some might wish otherwise, even less public support exists in the US for that since those are commonly owned for self-defense and for sport.
But there’s two issues here … inappropriate levels of access to guns… and mental health problems that lead these people to commit acts of violence against others.
While it’s obviously not easy to predict the future on something like this. I personally would be completely unsurprised if should they manage to take away the guns, the “school shooting by someone attending that school” simply transformed into a smaller number of axe/machete/knife attacks.
>I personally would be completely unsurprised if should they manage to take away the guns, the “school shooting by someone attending that school” simply transformed into a smaller number of axe/machete/knife attacks.
That would still be a vast improvement over the status quo. Knives and other such weapons (unless you're stupid enough to throw them) limit the ability of an attacker to commit harm to arm's length and running speed. You can't snipe a crowd with knives from a hotel window, for example. Actually, I suppose you could, but the area of effect would still be smaller than with a gun. Running from someone with a knife is more effective than running from someone with a gun.
It's also easier to subdue someone with a knife than it is with a gun, and it doesn't require police armed to the teeth shooting to kill on a moment's notice. Even if they just decide to act like chickenshits like the Uvalde police, there would probably be more survivors.
Just not true. They are using civilian versions which are missing functionality. That is like saying when someone kills people with a car saying they are using a vehicle of war (tank). A car is missing functionality that a tank has.
No, that is a terrible comparison and a shitty argument. This is like saying we should let people drive unmodified T-72 tanks around, because they don’t have explosive-reactive armour or composite armour, and you probably couldn’t beat the US Army with them based on the results of Desert Storm. You could still destroy an entire unarmed neighbourhood in minutes, or level a hospital, killing hundreds. They are inherently capable of killing a lot of people quickly.
The “civilian” model AR-15s are simply M4 Carbines with with less automatic firing modes. If you go back 50 years and show an AR-15 to nearly any soldier, they’d happily swap you. They have large magazines, and can sustain a high rate of fire with very high accuracy. The way you use them is exactly how soldiers generally operate their M4s. Don’t take my word for it, listen to this soldier: https://twitter.com/pauldeaton52/status/1532492803271544833
>This is like saying we should let people drive unmodified T-72 tanks around...
You can literally own a tank in the US. Tanks probably weight to much to be street legal, but you might be able to trim off some weight and make it street legal. You can drive armored humvees with guns on top on the street.
>They are inherently capable of killing a lot of people quickly.
And? So are cars.
>The “civilian” model AR-15s are simply M4 Carbines with with less automatic firing modes.
Most AR15s cannot fire 5.56 due to the extra pressure and can only fire .223. So most of them are a bit more different than just firing modes.
>If you go back 50 years and show an AR-15 to nearly any soldier, they’d happily swap you.
Which means nothing? They don't use AR15s in wars. I'm sure you could find a soldier to trade knives with. Would you suggest banning knives since they are a weapon of war.
Regardless, a solider almost certainly wouldn't trade their gun for an AR15 because the ammo didn't exist, they wouldn't know how to repair the gun, and they can't get replacement parts. All of those are necessary for weapons of war.
>Don’t take my word for it, listen to this soldier
If you really want me to I can find a solider that says the opposite. A weapon of war isn't really a weapon of war if it isn't used by militaries.
Even if something is used by militaries it can't always be classified as a weapon of war. Soldiers have killed others with a headbutt during war so let's decapitate everyone so they can't use their weapon of war.
Regardless, the whole thing is moot. The US Constitution allows civilians to own real weapons of war. During the time of the writing of the Constitution individuals were allowed to own warships, cannons, machine guns (yes you read that right), rifles, hand guns, swords, and anything else I forgot. The idea that automatic weapons are banned now is highly questionable since it was allowed at the time of the Constitution.
You are allowed to own a tank IF YOU FILL THE GUN WITH CONCRETE. You are not allowed to own a tank that has an operational gun. It boggles the mind to think you believe people are allowed to own a tank with an operational gun.
And I challenge you to destroy a 10-storey building in ten minutes with a car, dude. The gun is the bit of the tank that is for killing people and destroying other tanks.
I am not sure what the rules are around this, but I never claimed you could own a tank with an operational gun. Please reread what I wrote.
Regardless of the rules, I think this proves my point. You can own a tank without the weapon of war part. You can own a rifle without the weapon of war part. A rifle without the weapon of war part can be an AR15.
You can run over a huge number of people with a car. You can put a bomb in a car and blow it up and potentially take down a 10 story building.
I’ve heard that in some countries the teachers are every year changing the classes so as to create more harmonious groups. This means breaking up groups that are bullying and keeping the bullies and the bullied apart. Also keeping “good” friend groups together as much as possible.
Seems like a good system to me.
A key commonality among these student mass shooters is that no one is really paying attention to them at home and they are ostracized at school.
There is something wrong with how Americans are raising children starting some time in the 90s. A lot of freedoms pre-teens and teens of prior generations enjoyed no longer seem available and yet parent a seem less present then ever.
> is crucial to set up systems that spot teens who are struggling and may become dangerous. You can’t predict violent events or who will go from threatening behavior to murder, O’Toole said. But it is possible for us to look around and see the people who are having problems and need intervention. Interventions can prevent violence, even if we can’t predict it.
Yea so i am skeptical. The problem seems to be similar to many rare events: false positives. It's just so rare, that any signs or interventions are going to apply mostly to people who have done nothing wrong.
And even if you do suspect someone is going to start killing... What are you going to do? It's a free country, and we are not yet living in Oceania. Most people will tell you to... 'go away' if you offered some intervention (I would too).
We cannot even prevent suicides, which are 1000 times more common.
Your understanding of the trend is flat wrong. Check out sources via your favourite search engine to see the actual trend of school shootings in the US. (and then check them out for the developed world, too if you want your eyes to pop)
Most likely it's selective reporting, but I wouldn't dismiss the more grim explanation For example Axios (which should be called Anxios) devoted 4 posts out of 20 on its front page to gun control. On other days it looks similar. If forgot to report that today 100 people died in car accidents, 5000 died from cancer and heart issues, a few multiples of that went bankrupt from "treatment" that disn't cure their cancer, but made disabled and miserable. Yet they devote 20% of their attention to a microscopic issue that coincidentally builds political capital for one party.
