School shooting near Seattle.

[Ranb]

That's a bit extreme. People who have guns in their homes when they have kids maybe don't fully grasp the risk they are taking.

I did. I always had mine in safes, still normally do even after the kids have grown and left.

They certainly buy into the myth that the gun makes them safer. Not fully understanding the ramifications of their actions doesn't translate into parents not caring.

I never thought I was safer with a gun in the house. Most of my time with kids at home was on a military reservation, never heard of any one getting shot by intruders when I was there.

Ranb

 

[LTC8K6]

I have guns in my house because I own guns.

They have nothing to do with my safety.

I suppose they could, but that's not what they were purchased for, and they are not kept in a manner where they would be quickly useful anyway.

 

[Dissolution]

"Women do what I want them to do or I'll hurt them."

Shouldn't that be people? He appears to have shot 3 girls and 2 boys, plus himself.
That's a balanced number of each gender, so I'm not sure how this is about controlling members of one.

 

[Corsair 115]

"Women do what I want them to do or I'll hurt them."

So you know for a certainty that that is the root psychology at work as opposed to something like "That person has wronged me and I want revenge"? I'll point out again that the perpetrator reportedly also shot his own cousin. In which case you need to add "Men do what I want them to do or I'll hurt them" to your "bigoted cultural ideal".

I am not aware of evidence which suggests that this perpetrator was "mentally unstable".

Do rational and otherwise mentally healthy individuals typically pick up a weapon and use deadly violence to resolve an interpersonal dispute and then commit suicide?

yeah it's almost like disrespect for a woman's right to self-determination is something that's existed in some form or another throughout every culture in human history or something

You seem to be operating under the impression that women have never committed violence when part of a love triangle, or there have never been cases of women who have been spurned by a prospective love interest turning to violence. I think history would disagree with you.

 

[Lerxst]

I did. I always had mine in safes, still normally do even after the kids have grown and left.


I never thought I was safer with a gun in the house. Most of my time with kids at home was on a military reservation, never heard of any one getting shot by intruders when I was there.

Ranb

Interesting to see the stereotypes and prejudice so often thrown at anyone that owns guns. I came into my collection by default, inherited them when my father in law died. I immediately purchased a gun safe, and my 7yr old was the primary reason for that.

If I'm ever in a situation where I really need one of the pistols, I'm not going to be able to get it in time. Neither will anyone else though.

 

[colander]

Shouldn't that be people? He appears to have shot 3 girls and 2 boys, plus himself.
That's a balanced number of each gender, so I'm not sure how this is about controlling members of one.

I don't see how the gender ratios of the victims has anything to do with anything. If I kill a black man for dating my white wife, and then I also go ahead and kill my wife for dating a black man, does the fact that I've killed as many white people as black people mean that my murder spree can no longer be said to have been "about" racism?

This guy felt he had a permanent claim to the life of this girl because they'd been dating and that made her "his". He killed her because she stopped following orders, and he killed his cousin because his cousin knowingly stole the thing that was "his".

 

[BStrong]

The question after all of these school shootings is how did the shooter get a gun? Is it legal for kids under 18 to own them? And if not, then do the parents who let their teen have easy access to a gun deserve some jail time for their part in the death and maiming of innocent kids? Perhaps if the parents got a good 20 year stretch, other parents may think twice about leaving their guns lying around where anyone can grab them.

I agree 100%.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't see how the gender ratios of the victims has anything to do with anything. If I kill a black man for dating my white wife, and then I also go ahead and kill my wife for dating a black man, does the fact that I've killed as many white people as black people mean that my murder spree can no longer be said to have been "about" racism?

But if someone kills a white wife and her black lover, is that evidence that it's about racism? It would be consistent with racism, but it is not in and of itself evidence of it. I do believe that is the point others were trying to make.

This guy felt he had a permanent claim to the life of this girl because they'd been dating and that made her "his". He killed her because she stopped following orders, and he killed his cousin because his cousin knowingly stole the thing that was "his".

None of that requires misogyny as a basis, although it could still be the basis, any more than if the genders were reversed would require misandry. Control and entitlement issues divorced of gender issues could be the basis as well. They might all contribute. Can't tell yet for this specific case.

 

[Meed]

Yeah, I mean a problem that would require medication or observation.

Medication possibly could have helped stabilize his emotions after the breakup. I don't know that there's a medication that makes people less violently inclined. It doesn't seem that any sort of psychosis was involved, just emotional problems and inclination/willingness to commit violence.

I am not aware of evidence which suggests that this perpetrator was "mentally unstable".

Committing murder-suicide is a sign of mental instability.

Indeed, as long as that mindset continues, we'll never have a intelligent, honest discussion regarding how to reduce gun violence in this country.

"Clearly gun owners don't care about the welfare of their children" is what's not honest. I'm highly skeptical that anyone here actually believes that the majority of gun owners wouldn't care if their child shot themselves and/or other children.

 

[Lerxst]

"Clearly gun owners don't care about the welfare of their children" is what's not honest. I'm highly skeptical that anyone here actually believes that the majority of gun owners wouldn't care if their child shot themselves and/or other children.

As a parent and a gun owner, I find this notion insulting. But it's okay, this is just an anonymous internet forum.

 

[DavidJames]

"Clearly gun owners don't care about the welfare of their children" is what's not honest.

What's not honest is you suggesting anyone actually said that.

See what I mean, it's hopeless.

 

[tyr_13]

What's not honest is you suggesting anyone actually said that.

See what I mean, it's hopeless.

We will have to disagree. People who choose to have guns in their house clearly care nothing about the welfare of their children.

Although it does leave out people who own guns but don't keep them in their house.

 

[12AX7]

How many mass shootings has Texas endured since the 1991 Luby's massacre spurred Texas to pass concealed carry laws? .

Well let's see. Google is your friend.


The List: The deadliest mass shootings in Texas history

Since 1991?

Nov. 5, 2009: Thirteen soldiers and civilians were killed and more than two dozen wounded when a gunman walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and opened fire. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

Sept. 15, 1999: Seven people were killed and seven others injured when a gunman opened fire inside a crowded chapel at Fort Worth’s Wedgewood Baptist Church. Some worshipers believed that Larry Gene Ashbrook was pulling a prank and continued singing after the shooting began. The murderer killed himself.

On July 9, 2014, a mass shooting occurred in a home located in the town of Spring, Texas, a suburb of Houston, leaving six family members dead, four of them children, and a lone survivor.

Yessiree. CCW'ers keeping Texas safe.

 

[WildCat]

Well let's see. Google is your friend.


The List: The deadliest mass shootings in Texas history

Since 1991?







Yessiree. CCW'ers keeping Texas safe.

Oh, if we're going to count domestic stuff now Australia has those too. Here's one just last month: Family of five dead in apparent murder-suicide in Australia

Gun bans, keeping Australia safe!

Silly me, I thought we were talking about spree killers.

 

[Lerxst]

I just wanted to point out that although geographically located in Texas, Fort Hood is actually US Government property and not part of Texas. Still though, the remaining incidents are 15 years apart. We should get some sort of award for that.

 

[WildCat]

I just wanted to point out that although geographically located in Texas, Fort Hood is actually US Government property and not part of Texas. Still though, the remaining incidents are 15 years apart. We should get some sort of award for that.

Well I'm unaware of any gun control proposals that call for disarming the military.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

We will have to disagree. People who choose to have guns in their house clearly care nothing about the welfare of their children.

And you know this how? I grew up in a community where the presentation of a rifle(usually a .22) was a rite of passage for every 12 year old boy. Every house in my neighborhood had at least one firearm and most had several. A man who didn't have a firearm to protect his family was looked at with suspicion. In my home we had 2 shotguns (one a Winchester '97 riot gun), a Springfield M1903, my Dad's S&W .38, and my Grandma's Iver Johnson "Owlhead". The things we didn't have were gun locks or gun safes, even though every kid knew exactly where they were located.
Rather than hide them away and pretend the world was all candy cakes and ice cream, they taught us that guns are not toys and must be respected at all times. Anyone who handled a gun in an improper manner or for an unethical purpose was less than a man, and the consequences for such behavior would be swift and unpleasant. No excuses, no second chances, no do overs.
In the 100 plus year history of my town no murders occurred, and no child was harmed by a firearm.
I'm really interested in your justification for making that statement.

Really? How many mass shootings in schools has Scotland endured since Dunblane?

How many were there before Dunblane?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

**** happens. Who cares about dead kids? Someone has to pay that price for freedom. And upon this news, the gun fetishists will stroke their guns, oblivious and happy, and shower us with stories of cars, pools, knives, bleach, etc.

Nothing changes.

I beg to differ. We don't need to shower you with anything. The right to own a firearm is already the law, and has been for quite some time.
If you want to convince anyone that the law needs to be changed, the burden of proof is on you.
Even though I understand it passes for reason in the "progressive" world, hysterical references to anecdotal evidence, snarky comments and boorish behavior does not clear the bar.

 

[angrysoba]

And you know this how? I grew up in a community where the presentation of a rifle(usually a .22) was a rite of passage for every 12 year old boy. Every house in my neighborhood had at least one firearm and most had several. A man who didn't have a firearm to protect his family was looked at with suspicion.

Why were they looked at with suspicion?

In my home we had 2 shotguns (one a Winchester '97 riot gun), a Springfield M1903, my Dad's S&W .38, and my Grandma's Iver Johnson "Owlhead". The things we didn't have were gun locks or gun safes, even though every kid knew exactly where they were located.

Rather than hide them away and pretend the world was all candy cakes and ice cream, they taught us that guns are not toys and must be respected at all times. Anyone who handled a gun in an improper manner or for an unethical purpose was less than a man, and the consequences for such behavior would be swift and unpleasant. No excuses, no second chances, no do overs.

Were only men permitted to handle guns? I wonder because it surely makes no sense to say that women who handled a gun in an improper manner were "less than a man". And what exactly were these "swift and unpleasant" consequences?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

You need to look outside your echo chamber:



Wikipedia link that I got that quote from.



Peer-reviewed article that the above Wikipedia article cites.

You seem to have overlooked the many other studies and expert opinions listed in that article, all of which state that there is little if any evidence to support your position.
I think this quote is most appropriate:
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn. .. responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.

You also neglected to mention New Zealand:

That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand.

You're beginning to sound like the poster who mentioned Dunblane, using it as proof of the efficacy of the law even though, inasmuch as no massacres of this type had occurred before Dunblane, the law somehow is proved by a return to the norm.