+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Interesting research on mass shootings (/showthread.php?tid=276769)
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - kj - 05-02-2023
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=kj]
The reason I said that is because I actually am in the "where" they can't "afford" it. Yet they do. We also have band, choir, orchestra in the public schools, even elementary, even though we're in one of the "where's" that can't afford it. Maybe it isn't a function of "where", or of even money spent per student.
How do they "afford" services they "can't afford"??
If they do, then by definition, they can.
I think that assumes money is always spent wisely. It might be because they spend more money on the student than other bulljive. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say their priorities for spending are different. The fact is we spend less and get more of what most people would want. And at least for now, less is spent on bulljive.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Mr645 - 05-03-2023
Acer wrote:
[quote=Mr645]
I have been a strong proponent for mental health research for a long time.
That and economic opportunity in inner cities, provide a path to success that does not involved drugs, guns and gangs.
We need to stop blaming the rifle and put blame on the killers, then we can work to find solutions to end it
It's is my impression that the political forces that share your viewpoint on guns are not in a hurry to fund mental health research or improving economic opportunity in inner cities.
Generally true, however Trumps Economic Opportunity Zones I felt were a great start
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Mr645 - 05-03-2023
Ca Bob wrote:
So the study finds that when you look at people who actually did a mass shooting, you find seriously disturbed individuals who don't generally fit into the definition of insanity that would get them confined in an institution, largely because we don't generally do that sort of thing unless they commit some horrible crime first. Then they get "not guilty by reason of insanity" and go to the state hospital instead of prison.
But the really obvious alternative answer -- to limit gun possession -- is not even considered in the article up to the point I read. What's missing in the article is any quantitative argument: Just how many of these isolated, unhappy, potentially suicidal young people are there? A hundred thousand? A million? And even if we could identify them, what would we do, unless it's the idea of the red flag laws?
But serious reduction in high power, semiautomatic weapons would reduce the chance that any one of them would have the tools available at the time of the final crackup.
The continuing argument that we ought to look at the person, not the gun, is denial of the reality.
And of course there is the other point, that in most civilized countries in the industrial west, the mass homicide rate is low because the level of gun ownership is low in comparison to ours. It's interesting that the Swiss are more or less midway in the graph between other European countries and the US, almost exactly matching their higher level of gun ownership on the graph.
I think of Stoneman Douglas with Nick Cruz, who threatened to shoot up the school on social media, was known to be violent and had tried to bring weapons to the school prior.
We could try to limit high powered rifles, but those are rarely used in mass shootings, even low powered AR-15 rifles are rarely used. Handguns are the weapon of choice, and the worst school shooting, Virginia Tech, the killer used a Walther P22 firing .22LR which is about the smallest, weakest round in common use today. A pocket sized gun that holds ten rounds.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Racer X - 05-03-2023
accurate follow up shots are far easier with lower powered rounds. That's why you see air or .22LR rimfire in the Olympics.
One of the earliest school shootings, in Moses Lake WA in 1996, was a 30-30 bolt action or lever action rifle, and 2 pistols, one a .22LR revolver. "He was armed with a .30–30 caliber hunting rifle and two handguns (one a .22 caliber revolver) that belonged to his father" He was very troubled, had been for a year. People knew it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Middle_School_shooting 27 years later, and people still won't address the mental/emotional component, and expect gun bans to be the solution.
I'm far more worried about an autoloading shotgun with buckshot. 10 rounds of 00 is 90 33 caliber balls.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Acer - 05-03-2023
"No use trying to restrict high powered rifles because most murderers use handguns."
So we should.....um, gosh, what could we possibly do? I feel like it's pointing right at my nose, but I can't put my finger on it.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Racer X - 05-03-2023
Acer wrote:
"No use trying to restrict high powered rifles because most murderers use handguns."
So we should.....um, gosh, what could we possibly do? I feel like it's pointing right at my nose, but I can't put my finger on it.
Violate the Constitution and try and ban handguns? The 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right to own firearms for common defense, and personal defense. Banning handguns would violate the Constitution. It has already been tried and ruled on. But politicians keep on trying it. They want to be seen trying. Results are secondary. State office holders want to move up, AGs want to move up to governor, and governors up to federal officel. No respect for wasting tax payers money trying to defend their illegal legislation. They should be using that taxpayers' money for mental/emotional health awareness and treatment, free gun locks for those who didn't get one when they purchased their firearms, things like that, that will benefit everyone.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - macphanatic - 05-03-2023
kj wrote:
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=kj]
Our public schools are chock full of mental health practitioners, so I have no idea how other states/districts can't afford it.
It's a function of WHERE.
Some districts have the money and allocate it, some have the money but don't allocate it, and some simply don't have the money.
It’s about spending money wisely. Something that government at all levels has failed to do.
This chart appears to be from 2018.
https://www.basicknowledge101.com/resources/educationreform.html
The reason I said that is because I actually am in the "where" they can't "afford" it. Yet they do. We also have band, choir, orchestra in the public schools, even elementary, even though we're in one of the "where's" that can't afford it. Maybe it isn't a function of "where", or of even money spent per student.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Mr645 - 05-03-2023
Smote wrote:
[quote=Acer]
"No use trying to restrict high powered rifles because most murderers use handguns."
So we should.....um, gosh, what could we possibly do? I feel like it's pointing right at my nose, but I can't put my finger on it.
Violate the Constitution and try and ban handguns? The 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right to own firearms for common defense, and personal defense. Banning handguns would violate the Constitution. It has already been tried and ruled on. But politicians keep on trying it. They want to be seen trying. Results are secondary. State office holders want to move up, AGs want to move up to governor, and governors up to federal officel. No respect for wasting tax payers money trying to defend their illegal legislation. They should be using that taxpayers' money for mental/emotional health awareness and treatment, free gun locks for those who didn't get one when they purchased their firearms, things like that, that will benefit everyone.
A massive push toward mental health awareness would not work toward dividing the people and bolstering votes. Screaming to ban AR-15s works much better for political goals.
Free barrel or trigger locks would be easy, I have several, every gun comes with one, you can have mine.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - DeusxMac - 05-03-2023
Smote wrote:
Violate the Constitution and try and ban handguns? The 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right to own firearms for common defense, and personal defense.
No, the Second Amendment itself does NOT say that!
“II. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Further…
“Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power...”
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the “Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
“Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
Smote wrote: Banning handguns would violate the Constitution. It has already been tried and ruled on.
- The Roe v. Wade decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
- The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
District of Columbia v. Heller could ALSO be overturned!
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Ted King - 05-03-2023
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Smote]
Violate the Constitution and try and ban handguns? The 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right to own firearms for common defense, and personal defense.
No, the Second Amendment itself does NOT say that!
“II. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Further…
“Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power...”
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the “Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
“Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
Smote wrote: Banning handguns would violate the Constitution. It has already been tried and ruled on.
- The Roe v. Wade decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
- The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
District of Columbia v. Heller could ALSO be overturned!
It is true that how the Constitution is applied is determined by the Supreme Court so it isn't "wrong" to say that such and such is unconstitutional if a set of Supreme Court justices rule that such and such is not consistent with the Constitution. But you are wholly correct that saying such and such is Constitutional because a set of Supreme Court justices have ruled that way is not the same as saying such a ruling is objectively true independent of what a set of Supreme Court justices rule. If Smote is implying that it is objectively true that the Constitution says such and such then that is incorrect. In fact, there are no objectively true interpretations of the Constitution, there are only currently accepted interpretations by a set of Supreme Court justices. And those rulings can always be overturned by a future set of Supreme Court justices.