Another horrific school shooting

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

Oh, did the history of the 1800s change in the last 20 years?  I wasn't aware.  But I'm no historian. So please cite more up-to-date sources that have figures you agree with and see if it stands up to equal scrutiny.

This set of data has been around for a while, like you said.  And it has stood up in many arenas. The thing is that these are the data that our opponents are using to outline the problem that we already knew existed.  If our opponents agree with us on that data, then what you getting at?

And your take on what libertarians would accept or not is unfounded.  This is exactly a common talking point.  And the Mises Institute is a well revered libertarian think tank.

I found it disturbing that you made many accusations and characterizations (such as they outright lied on their "about us" page) without any specifics to back it up.  Can you?  Or is that all you've got to discredit the data?

Because even the liberal talking points agree that the US does not have the rates of literacy that they believe are in public schools.  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html

And 93275.pdf

or https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf

YES, our understanding of history DOES change in a period of 30 years, sometimes drastically.  Of course, in the instance of that article, as it misquotes to the point of aberration, they point out something that NEVER existed the way they actually present it.  So, yeah...I had a severe problem with that article which is what made me start questioning where they got this information to begin with.

AS for the Mises Institute, they made the exact claims I stated were outright lies on their webpage.  Their wording was that they are non-partisan and non-biased...which, once one understands who they are, is a flat out lie.  Not that I'm concerned about it as I really wouldn't use their information.  Do they research...absolutely.  It is biased to be done in a way that favors their argument towards their political viewpoints on their favored economic systems.  Nothing wrong with that, and it can be useful, but one MUST read it understanding the bias they are coming from and that this probably will skew some of the things they state.

I would absolutely NOT use them as a solitary source about literacy in the 19th or 20th century. 

I have nothing against home schooling, and nothing against those who choose to privately educate their children.  However, when one starts to say that North Eastern Farmers around the time of Joseph Smith and his children were far more literate than those we have today...contrary to quite a bit of evidence we possess...I'm probably going to start looking at the way they go about their history.

I get it that you are against public schools or government involvement in the education system. 

I also THINK (and this is where perhaps you should focus on your primary argument so I can understand it better) that you are arguing in favor of the 2nd amendment and the possession of guns.  In this you have stated that a bigger problem is the abuse of children, and that this is the bigger issue.  This is where the public vs. private education came in, where you said that 10% of children are abused by their teachers in the public school system.  Thus, your argument is that we should therefore have all children be privately educated or homeschooled.

This would have the effect of making it so that this abuse by teachers to students does not happen, and make it so that none of them could be shot in a school because none of them would be in a school of that sort.

Is that about the jist of it?  In which case, there is no reason to stand or fall upon a political-economic school of thought's website, which I think is a red herring among your discussion. 

I wonder if you are actually serious about this as a solution, or if you are over focusing on a certain arena to try to make a point?

It seems a tad extreme, to be honest, but I also may not understand what you are actually arguing for. 

 

 

 

[anatess2]

On 2/17/2018 at 8:35 AM, Godless said:

The "thoughts and prayers" criticism is mostly aimed at politicians. Shooting happens. "Thoughts and prayers". Some may even pay lip service to making legislative change, but that never goes anywhere and eventually everything blows over until the next mass shooting. And in the meantime those "thoughts and prayers" politicians continue to take millions of dollars from the NRA.

Politicians should stick to Thoughts and Prayers.  And that includes our old buddy old pal Mitt Romney.  Congress doesn't have to make new laws every time a mass shooting occurs.  They may go send their Oversight Committees out to figure out why existing laws did not get enforced.  Only Democrats believe the government is the solution to everything.  And only Democrats believe the solution to everything is gun control while keeping open borders.  Romney is now a Democrat.

And it's funny that you mention NRA as a lobbyist.  Good for them.  They need to do everything they can to keep Congress to thoughts and prayers.  If Democrats would stop  "not letting a crisis go to waste", you won't need the NRA.

Edited February 19, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

old buddy old pal

I can't believe I used that phrase...  I'm not THAT much of a fan of Rush Limbaugh!

[Traveler]

 

I ran across this interesting article:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/19/missing-fathers-and-americas-broken-boys-vast-majority-mass-shooters-come-from-broken-homes.html

As we consider gun control and other factors it appears we are glossing over perhaps the single most important factor in recent violence.  Starting with the woman’s liberation movement to the breakup of the core (man – woman) family marriage unit.  The author of the article draws some clear relationships to family values.  In support of this article I read an article many years ago about elephants.  It seemed that a herd of elephants were moved to a reservation to preserve them but not all the herd could be moved.  It was believed that the mature males were not so important so only the females and young were moved.  Some years later the young males became mature and violent – killing other species off (especially rhinos).

Who would have thought that focus on women’s rights – especially with reparations over men’s rights would have consequences – both in the Las Vegas and the recent Florida shootings.  What the article does not address but is obviously related is same sex marriage as well as a liberal view of devorce.   

 

The Traveler    

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

 In support of this article I read an article many years ago about elephants.  It seemed that a herd of elephants were moved to a reservation to preserve them but not all the herd could be moved.  It was believed that the mature males were not so important so only the females and young were moved.  Some years later the young males became mature and violent – killing other species off (especially rhinos).

The Traveler    

I would be curious to read this article about these elephants.

The disintegration of the family, and Godly mores, are at the head of these unfortunate events.

EDIT: Seems I found it. http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/in-the-absence-of-fathers-a-story-of-elephants-and-men/

Edited February 20, 2018 by Anddenex

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, Anddenex said:

 

The disintegration of the family, and Godly mores, are at the head of these unfortunate events.

Amen to that. 

[JohnsonJones]

Well, I'm a  tad unhappy.

I got a call from one of my kids today.  Apparently someone has made threats to shoot up the school one of my grandkids attends.  They told me that there were a lot of kids that did not attend school today.

I can understand how parents my feel powerless in the face of something like this.  The media says it is copy cats...but to me it seems MORE like some anti-gun freak who is trying to force their opinion and ideas on everyone else.

If anything, it's made me MORE convinced that the best solution is to have ARMED security in the schools.  If the school can't afford armed security, find three or four responsible teachers that have steady heads and have them undergo CCW training and have them ready to respond if anything ever happens. 

It upsets me off that someone is so sick as to talk about shooting up a school, especially one with a grandkid of mine in it. 

I hope they find the individual making such sick threats and that there is a law that lets them put that individual away for a VERY long time.  If the individual is serious, it is better to get them before they enact upon their threats, and even if they were not serious, such threats should be treated as being serious.

I find it hard to understand why people call for the banning of guns in these instances...that's not going to get rid of these guns we have in our nation over night or even anytime soon.  Better to have individuals who are armed and can shoot back at anyone who thinks that they are just going to shoot up a defenseless school, rather than rely that a sign that says a gunfree zone is going to protect anyone.

Just my thoughts in the past five minutes after finding out the threats to my grandkid's school (and thus my grandkid as well).

[NightSG]

56 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I find it hard to understand why people call for the banning of guns in these instances...that's not going to get rid of these guns we have in our nation over night or even anytime soon.

Or ever.  I guarantee you within a couple hours of asking around (and without mentioning guns) I can find someone with everything I'd need to make a submachine gun along the lines of a German MP 3008 (suppressor adds an hour or two, but not much technical difficulty) sitting in their garage.  Probably several people, though really, I could manage most of the process with common hand tools.  Rifling the barrel is a pain, but not necessary if you're just planning to use it to sweep crowds at close range.  Reliable, accurate weapons are far more of a concern when you're trying to defend yourself and others without harming innocent bystanders than if you're just going for maximum body count in an officer-assisted suicide.

Ammo?  I've got a couple big Rubbermaid containers of 9mm brass in storage, and probably a brick of small pistol primers.  Lead is easy enough.  Powder is simple; for a pretty much single-use gun, black powder is perfectly functional.  (Actually, I tried several semiauto pistols with BP loads out of curiosity, and even the fairly picky Beretta only started jamming after about 40 shots.  The 1911 ran fine until I was out of ammo.)  Stable primers can be tricky, but small rifle primers can be used as long as the firing pin spring is strong enough, and mercury fulminate isn't rocket science.

If someone is violent and suicidal, you're not going to stop them without superior firepower and good tactics.  The only good solution is to keep them from getting to that point, but modern society promotes the mentalities that lead to that situation.

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Or ever.  I guarantee you within a couple hours of asking around (and without mentioning guns) I can find someone with everything I'd need to make a submachine gun along the lines of a German MP 3008 (suppressor adds an hour or two, but not much technical difficulty) sitting in their garage.  Probably several people, though really, I could manage most of the process with common hand tools.  Rifling the barrel is a pain, but not necessary if you're just planning to use it to sweep crowds at close range.  Reliable, accurate weapons are far more of a concern when you're trying to defend yourself and others without harming innocent bystanders than if you're just going for maximum body count in an officer-assisted suicide.

Ammo?  I've got a couple big Rubbermaid containers of 9mm brass in storage, and probably a brick of small pistol primers.  Lead is easy enough.  Powder is simple; for a pretty much single-use gun, black powder is perfectly functional.  (Actually, I tried several semiauto pistols with BP loads out of curiosity, and even the fairly picky Beretta only started jamming after about 40 shots.  The 1911 ran fine until I was out of ammo.)  Stable primers can be tricky, but small rifle primers can be used as long as the firing pin spring is strong enough, and mercury fulminate isn't rocket science.

If someone is violent and suicidal, you're not going to stop them without superior firepower and good tactics.  The only good solution is to keep them from getting to that point, but modern society promotes the mentalities that lead to that situation.

Uhmmm, maybe you've thought about how to do this a weeee bit too much?  Your statements are a tad more scary than comforting to be honest.

On the topic, after thinking a little more about it...if I were a teacher and I had a gun man at the door of my classroom, I don't think my thoughts would be...man...I sure wish that they would change the law in the future...

I think it would be more of...I wish I had a gun right now so I at least have a chance to defend myself when he comes through that door...

I really hope that they allow the teachers to have CCW's in my grandkid's school.  I'd actually feel a LOT happier and feel that child was a LOT safer if they had several who had CCW's when they go to school tomorrow.  It's odd how your thoughts race when it is one of your own grandkids that are part of the ones being threatened. 

Part of me just wishes that they find whoever leveled the threats so they can arrest whoever it is and put my mind (and probably every parent of every child who goes to that school) to rest.  I'd feel a LOT happier if they found the person (or people) and arrested them and put them away for several years.  I should be more forgiving, but right now, I just want that individual caught and punished.  This is probably terrible for me in trying to be more like Christ.  In all honesty though, I really want them to find this individual (s) and make them an example so no one will ever think about even making such a threat like this again, much less carry something like this out.

Even if they passed a gun restriction law, that's not going to help the children in this situation if the threat is serious, right now I'm in favor of something that is an immediate action that can prevent whoever this crazy individual is from making these threats, or if they are serious, carrying them out. 

It is seriously upsetting me that anyone would do something or say something like that about a school of children...probably FAR more because it is a child that is personally related to me.

[Guest Godless]

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, I'm a  tad unhappy.

I got a call from one of my kids today.  Apparently someone has made threats to shoot up the school one of my grandkids attends.  They told me that there were a lot of kids that did not attend school today.

I can understand how parents my feel powerless in the face of something like this.  The media says it is copy cats...but to me it seems MORE like some anti-gun freak who is trying to force their opinion and ideas on everyone else.

If anything, it's made me MORE convinced that the best solution is to have ARMED security in the schools.  If the school can't afford armed security, find three or four responsible teachers that have steady heads and have them undergo CCW training and have them ready to respond if anything ever happens. 

It upsets me off that someone is so sick as to talk about shooting up a school, especially one with a grandkid of mine in it. 

I hope they find the individual making such sick threats and that there is a law that lets them put that individual away for a VERY long time.  If the individual is serious, it is better to get them before they enact upon their threats, and even if they were not serious, such threats should be treated as being serious.

I find it hard to understand why people call for the banning of guns in these instances...that's not going to get rid of these guns we have in our nation over night or even anytime soon.  Better to have individuals who are armed and can shoot back at anyone who thinks that they are just going to shoot up a defenseless school, rather than rely that a sign that says a gunfree zone is going to protect anyone.

Just my thoughts in the past five minutes after finding out the threats to my grandkid's school (and thus my grandkid as well).

 

That's horrible. When I was in high school, we had bomb threats a couple of times a month. I guess false shooter alarms are the new thing. It's truly despicable. We used to laugh and joke about it as teens, but it's a different story now that I have a 4 year-old. I hope they find the you-know-what responsible for causing so much fear and anxiety in kids, parents, and grandparents.

 

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Uhmmm, maybe you've thought about how to do this a weeee bit too much?  Your statements are a tad more scary than comforting to be honest.

On the topic, after thinking a little more about it...if I were a teacher and I had a gun man at the door of my classroom, I don't think my thoughts would be...man...I sure wish that they would change the law in the future...

I think it would be more of...I wish I had a gun right now so I at least have a chance to defend myself when he comes through that door...

I really hope that they allow the teachers to have CCW's in my grandkid's school.  I'd actually feel a LOT happier and feel that child was a LOT safer if they had several who had CCW's when they go to school tomorrow.  It's odd how your thoughts race when it is one of your own grandkids that are part of the ones being threatened. 

Part of me just wishes that they find whoever leveled the threats so they can arrest whoever it is and put my mind (and probably every parent of every child who goes to that school) to rest.  I'd feel a LOT happier if they found the person (or people) and arrested them and put them away for several years.  I should be more forgiving, but right now, I just want that individual caught and punished.  This is probably terrible for me in trying to be more like Christ.  In all honesty though, I really want them to find this individual (s) and make them an example so no one will ever think about even making such a threat like this again, much less carry something like this out.

Even if they passed a gun restriction law, that's not going to help the children in this situation if the threat is serious, right now I'm in favor of something that is an immediate action that can prevent whoever this crazy individual is from making these threats, or if they are serious, carrying them out. 

It is seriously upsetting me that anyone would do something or say something like that about a school of children...probably FAR more because it is a child that is personally related to me.

 

Believe it or not, I've come around to the armed teachers approach to this in recent years. I don't believe that the government should fund licensing, training, and weapons for teachers when they won't even give them money for pencils, but I believe that teachers who are already licensed, trained, and armed should be able to carry in school. It's not the ideal solution, but it's a realistic one that could save lives. And it's a good short-term solution while we work on some of the other things like universal background checks (with accurate reporting), mental health standards, and possible restrictions on high capacity weapons. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Godless

[NightSG]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Uhmmm, maybe you've thought about how to do this a weeee bit too much?

Used to work in a couple different machining facilities where the occasional custom parts got made (legally) after hours.  As for ammo, that was a long discussion on what could be done once the ammo runs out in a survival situation.  Never tried to make primers, though.

The short version is that anyone who wants a gun badly enough and isn't concerned with legalities will get one, no matter what the law says.

[Guest Godless]

7 minutes ago, NightSG said:

The short version is that anyone who wants a gun badly enough and isn't concerned with legalities will get one, no matter what the law says.

I'd probably smoke more weed if it was legal. The fact that criminals break laws does not mean that laws shouldn't exist. Legal barriers won't stop all mass shootings, but if it can stop a few of them then I'll call that a major victory. 

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, Godless said:

Believe it or not, I've come around to the armed teachers approach to this in recent years. 

@Godless, as someone who has honorably served our country and has been trained with firearms, do really think this will work, or is it more of a deterrent? After all, it takes years of training to become proficient at firing a gun, much less under great stress like an active school shooting would certainly create.  

Don't get me wrong-I'm sort of for that too. But I'm not naive. This isn't the movies.

 @mirkwood and @Carborendum, your thoughts on this too please. 

[NightSG]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'd probably smoke more weed if it was legal. The fact that criminals break laws does not mean that laws shouldn't exist. Legal barriers won't stop all mass shootings, but if it can stop a few of them then I'll call that a major victory. 

How many school shootings were there prior to 1968?  Until then, anybody with $80 could mail order a Garand or an M1 Carbine with no restrictions.  Seems the more legal restrictions that are put in place, the worse the problem gets.

[Guest Godless]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Godless, as someone who has honorably served our country and has been trained with firearms, do really think this will work, or is it more of a deterrent? After all, it takes years of training to become proficient at firing a gun, much less under great stress like an active school shooting would certainly create.  

Don't get me wrong-I'm sort of for that too. But I'm not naive. This isn't the movies.

I've been very conflicted on the "good guy with a gun" idea for a long time for that very reason, and still am a little bit. Even with proper training, it's hard to predict how someone will react when there is a real threat. But that training can nonetheless save lives. And FWIW the training required to get a CCL is more extensive than a lot of people realize and covers many of the concerns liberals bring up like recognizing when use of a firearm is necessary (and more importantly, when it's not) and how to not get shot by the cops.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

I've been very conflicted on the "good guy with a gun" idea for a long time for that very reason, and still am a little bit. Even with proper training, it's hard to predict how someone will react when there is a real threat. But that training can nonetheless save lives. And FWIW the training required to get a CCL is more extensive than a lot of people realize and covers many of the concerns liberals bring up like recognizing when use of a firearm is necessary (and more importantly, when it's not) and how to not get shot by the cops.

Agree 100%. I had a CCW up north. It was easy to get, too easy actually. I never carried though because I felt like I lacked the proper training. 
 

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

I don't believe that the government should fund licensing, training, and weapons for teachers when they won't even give them money for pencils, but I believe that teachers who are already licensed, trained, and armed should be able to carry in school. It's not the ideal solution, but it's a realistic one that could save lives. And it's a good short-term solution while we work on some of the other things like universal background checks (with accurate reporting), mental health standards, and possible restrictions on high capacity weapons. 

Indeed.

And for those who believe such things would only lead to an increase in violence and accidents and bad things, just want to remind everyone that Utah has allowed teachers/staff/students/visitors/anyone with a permit to secretly and legally carry, for like almost two decades now. 

[NeuroTypical]

34 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Godless, as someone who has honorably served our country and has been trained with firearms, do really think this will work, or is it more of a deterrent? After all, it takes years of training to become proficient at firing a gun, much less under great stress like an active school shooting would certainly create.  

Well, bad guys, evil guys, even most types of crazy guys, look for soft targets.  John Lott's research speak to the near-universalness of all "mass shootings" (defined as more than one person shot, and not immediate family members) happen in gun-free zones.  That's sort of the textbook definition of deterrent - the bad guy is still out there, but he looks somewhere else.

Other research points to the near-universal truth that once a bad guy commits to start killing, the only thing that will stop him, is a good guy with a gun.  Notable exceptions include events like Columbine, where nobody tried to stop the killers, and they sat there and happily killed away until they were done with their killing, at which point they took their own lives. 

More research points to a large percentage of killers stop their killing once confronted by a good guy with a gun.   Just having an armed good person show up and fire back, tends to stop the killing then and there.  For example, the New Life Church shooting in my neck of the woods, where bad guy shot up Denver, drove to the NLC, shot people in the parking lot, went inside and commenced shooting people.  Random person with a conceal carry permit returned fire, bad guy immediately shot himself.

To answer your question, yes, yes, a thousand times yes - in a climate where bad guys have easy access to guns, absolutely more armed good guys reduce the damage they're able to inflict.

Edited February 22, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

To answer your question, yes, yes, a thousand times yes - in a climate where bad guys have easy access to guns, absolutely more armed good guys reduce the damage they're able to inflict.

Believe me Neuro, I am much more sympathetic to that argument than I am to the "ban AR-15s" from innocent people stuff-I'm just still a little nervous about arming teachers. Maybe we had different teachers in high school, but the thought of a few of them with guns makes me quite nervous! 

[Vort]

In my interactions with many public school teachers over the years, I have been underwhelmed by the maturity and judgment they often display. Some of them, of course, are among the best the human race has to offer; I count some of my own family among those. But one the whole, public school teachers as a group tend -- how do I say this non-offensively? Maybe I can't -- to be not very impressive, either for intellectual or emotional maturity.

To be blunt, I don't think most of the public school teachers I have met have honestly had my children's best welfare at the center of their decision-making. So while arming them might possibly be a reasonable step, I'm not crazy about the idea. If it were to happen, then it's only a matter of time before a student takes a teacher's bullet through the chest, with the teacher claiming self-defense -- which may or may not end up being the case.

[NightSG]

44 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

After all, it takes years of training to become proficient at firing a gun, much less under great stress like an active school shooting would certainly create.

How many LE have more than the bare minimum firearms training?  Aside from a few notable departments, they don't get any more high-stress training than you can get for a couple hundred bucks at many shooting ranges.  Certainly nothing like the stress of having crazy people shooting back.  

Repetition is the key to internalizing an action, and once you have it, you'll default to the same thing regardless of stress level.  Best thing you can do is a whole lot of 4x5 drills: 5 shots on a 5" target at 5 yards in 5 seconds, from whatever carry method you normally use.  It doesn't seem particularly hard, but if you can do it every time, you're better off than most police and armed guards.  If you want to improve it even more, try 5 separate 5" targets spaced 1-3' apart, varying position and spacing each session so you're forced to aim at each one individually, or three targets with two lateral and one above, representing a head shot so you can practice two-and-two with a failure to stop on one of the "opponents."  (Paper dessert plates are about 5" and you can generally find them in huge bulk packages under $5.)  If you really want to step it up, get a Texas Star:

 

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

 

That's horrible. When I was in high school, we had bomb threats a couple of times a month. I guess false shooter alarms are the new thing. It's truly despicable. We used to laugh and joke about it as teens, but it's a different story now that I have a 4 year-old. I hope they find the you-know-what responsible for causing so much fear and anxiety in kids, parents, and grandparents.

 

 

Believe it or not, I've come around to the armed teachers approach to this in recent years. I don't believe that the government should fund licensing, training, and weapons for teachers when they won't even give them money for pencils, but I believe that teachers who are already licensed, trained, and armed should be able to carry in school. It's not the ideal solution, but it's a realistic one that could save lives. And it's a good short-term solution while we work on some of the other things like universal background checks (with accurate reporting), mental health standards, and possible restrictions on high capacity weapons. 

Whoever this person is, they need to be caught...and soon.

I read about another update on the school's webpage and their sheriff's department.  It appears that yet another threat was leveled against the kids school district today.  It appears they now have not just the local county police and sheriff, they also have the state involved at this point (thank goodness).  They also mentioned that this is happening at other schools in other states and could be part of bigger situation.

One weird thing that I'm not sure how it applies is that they said that the threats are coming from an app made in (or is it from) Saudi Arabia.  Called about five minutes ago and the grandkid seems to be safely home with their Mother so at least today passed without incident.  I just want the individual making these threats caught.

[NeuroTypical]

Illusion of control: "We" are going to "arm teachers".  That worries us, because we've met some teachers we don't want anywhere near a firearm.

The reality I'd like to see: The teachers who don't want to be armed, won't be.  The ones who do, can choose to do such.   It's up to them.  They get to be the people of Ammon if they want.  Nobody is asking any teacher to mature or grow a new mindset or pick up a scary gun or anything.  But if they want to, the law allows them to, and society (backed up by research) trusts them to do their homework/get trained/practice/permitted/etc.

Again, this has been legal and happening in Utah for almost two decades now.  The various concerns and anxieties that arise have had all those years to come to fruition in Utah - anyone got any news stories to share?  Anyone hear about the unimpressive immature teacher who accidentally shot a student after they came packing to work?

Studies have shown that for any demographic, the conceal carry permit holders in that demographic have LOWER rates of violent crime or accidental/negligent gun incidents.  That's why I'm such a big fan.

(Also, how many mass shootings at a Utah public school can you think of really fast?)

Edited February 22, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Blossom76]

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

How many school shootings were there prior to 1968?  Until then, anybody with $80 could mail order a Garand or an M1 Carbine with no restrictions.  Seems the more legal restrictions that are put in place, the worse the problem gets.

It must be an American cultural thing?  Australian responded very well to more legal restrictions on gun ownership.

[NightSG]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

It must be an American cultural thing?  Australian responded very well to more legal restrictions on gun ownership.

Odds of being a victim of a mass shooting anywhere in the world: <1 in 15,000  (Including third-world countries where they do this stuff for fun.)  You're seven times more likely to be killed by a lightning strike.

Odds of drowning are about 1 in 1,100, but all these people "so concerned" about keeping people safe won't push for mandatory swimming lessons in public schools.  Odds of dying in a car wreck are 1 in 88, but the same people will scream if you try to toughen licensing requirements.  Heart disease is 1 in 6, but don't you dare restrict their Big Macs.

The fact remains that Chicago, New York, Philadephia and Los Angeles, with the toughest gun laws in the U.S., account for the majority of the nation's violent crime.  Criminals prefer unarmed victims.