Gunshot wounds--leading cause of death for American children

[Copernicus]

If the leading cause of death in young Americans were gunshot wounds inflicted with legally owned firearms in the possession of individuals who had a legal right not to submit to any kind of psychiatric evaluation as a precondition to owning a firearm, I would definitely call that intolerable. If it were self-inflicted gunshot wounds, I would see it as one of the many unpleasant things in life we just tolerate. If it were young Americans being fatally shot as a result of illegal activities they were engaged in, with no innocent bystanders harmed in the process, I would see it as something to celebrate.

OK, I'm getting a sense of where your level of tolerability lies. Kill anyone caught committing a crime and don't try to prevent suicides. It is so easy to dehumanize strangers. I definitely do not find these imaginary scenarios tolerable. I prefer the rule of law and due process, not to mention treating depression and mental illness so that fewer people try to commit suicide. In my view, we need to place a higher value on human life.

I would want to know more of the breakdown of whose guns are being used against whom and why.

I suspect that that is because you are struggling to justify your desire to tolerate the high level of gunshot-related deaths and injuries. This is not a common attitude outside of the United States.

 

[Copernicus]

I would consider compromise on gun rights for the sake of children. I think it would involve more than gun rights though probably some kind of stop and frisk for all citizens. A state could demand that all freight in and out was inspected for weapons and all autos inspected for weapons. You could actually have people get out and search their vehicles at the borders or scan autos using technology such as high frequency radio. Perhaps all citizens would be stopped and frisked at random when going in and out of establishments, or you could add metal detectors to most businesses. We could reverse free borders between the states and introduce check points. That would eliminate guns.

Do you have any idea of the expense and chaos this idea would bring about at the borders of states? Good luck taking a road trip across the US. I think it is quite a bit more practical to consider bringing down casual restrictions on gun ownership and focusing on responsibilities of those who choose to own them. That would do something to bring down the level of gun-related deaths and injuries without causing huge traffic jams all over the country and hiking prices of all goods shipped across state borders.

What is at the heart of the changes in this country that have lead to so many undisciplined students and hence school shootings? Both parents usually have to work, to make enough to live. Children require time, and parents don't have enough time. Women also are shamed for staying at home and are expected to balance career and family. Society is chided for not having more women in the workplace. This benefits corporations and cheapens labor but is having a detrimental impact on children. Divorce has become common. Having two stable parents is becoming legendary. Many things are going wrong, and school shootings are related.

To answer the question that is the first sentence in your paragraph: It is the enormous number of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. That's the one thing that you didn't mention, because it is anathema to those who are strongly committed to the idea that gun ownership is, and should be, an individual rather than collective right. Given that private gun ownership is currently treated as a civil right, thanks to the radically revisionist Heller decision by SCOTUS 17 years ago, the best we can do about our situation is to impose restrictions on gun ownership that mirror those imposed on car ownership--another dangerous object that just about every adult is allowed to possess.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you have any idea of the expense and chaos this idea would bring about at the borders of states? Good luck taking a road trip across the US. I think it is quite a bit more practical to consider bringing down casual restrictions on gun ownership and focusing on responsibilities of those who choose to own them. That would do something to bring down the level of gun-related deaths and injuries without causing huge traffic jams all over the country and hiking prices of all goods shipped across state borders.

By casual restrictions you are suggesting either an adjustment to the 2Amendment, a repeal of it, a complete reinterpretation of it or just ignoring it. This can happen any of 3 ways: a legendary 2/3 vote in Congress, a determined Supreme Court, or a high percentage of state legislatures voting for a convention. Its hard to get any of these done; but we could reform (again) the schools. Ok last reform didn't work well, but it showed that reforms could be made.

To answer the question that is the first sentence in your paragraph: It is the enormous number of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. That's the one thing that you didn't mention, because it is anathema to those who are strongly committed to the idea that gun ownership is, and should be, an individual rather than collective right. Given that private gun ownership is currently treated as a civil right, thanks to the radically revisionist Heller decision by SCOTUS 17 years ago, the best we can do about our situation is to impose restrictions on gun ownership that mirror those imposed on car ownership--another dangerous object that just about every adult is allowed to possess.

Reforming the schools will be much more popular and just as or more effective policy change, because school shootings are a feature of modernity whereas guns have been here all along. All we have to do is admit there is a problem with the schools and copy a more successful school system.

Meanwhile discussion about the 2 Amendment may continue but not result in any changes. Its highly unlikely that the amendment is going anywhere soon. The schools are the key.

Naturally it doesn't have to be either, or. You could try to reform both, but 2nd Amendment is unlikely to change nor its interpretation any time soon.

 

[Pogo]

By casual restrictions you are suggesting either an adjustment to the 2Amendment, a repeal of it, a complete reinterpretation of it or just ignoring it. This can happen any of 3 ways: a legendary 2/3 vote in Congress, a determined Supreme Court, or a high percentage of state legislatures voting for a convention. Its hard to get any of these done; but we could reform (again) the schools. Ok last reform didn't work well, but it showed that reforms could be made.


Reforming the schools will be much more popular and just as or more effective policy change, because school shootings are a feature of modernity whereas guns have been here all along. All we have to do is admit there is a problem with the schools and copy a more successful school system.

Meanwhile discussion about the 2 Amendment may continue but not result in any changes. Its highly unlikely that the amendment is going anywhere soon. The schools are the key.

Naturally it doesn't have to be either, or. You could try to reform both, but 2nd Amendment is unlikely to change nor its interpretation any time soon.

What really needs to happen is to get past this fetishization of guns as a means of argumentation/discourse. Not having the guns around to play Rambo or guns of Navarone or whatever glorification of individuals with guns you wish is a start. We will be fine if all these relatively normal fantasies are only acted out with sticks.
This from a person who shot his brother between the eyes with a pellet gun in the 60s because it was available while we were playing war.

 

[Kathryn]

What really needs to happen is to get past this fetishization of guns as a means of argumentation/discourse. Not having the guns around to play Rambo or guns of Navarone or whatever glorification of individuals with guns you wish is a start. We will be fine if all these relatively normal fantasies are only acted out with sticks.
This from a person who shot his brother between the eyes with a pellet gun in the 60s because it was available while we were playing war.

Just for some perspective:

There were all sorts of guns available to my brothers and me while we were growing up and none of us ever even thought of shooting someone else. (We also grew up in the 1960s and 1970s.) So I guess it depends on gun safety training, which would certainly be a start. My brothers and I always used sticks instead of real guns.

 

[Copernicus]

By casual restrictions you are suggesting either an adjustment to the 2Amendment, a repeal of it, a complete reinterpretation of it or just ignoring it. This can happen any of 3 ways: a legendary 2/3 vote in Congress, a determined Supreme Court, or a high percentage of state legislatures voting for a convention. Its hard to get any of these done; but we could reform (again) the schools. Ok last reform didn't work well, but it showed that reforms could be made.

There is no need to repeal it, just another Supreme Court decision that reverses Heller and restores the "collective right" interpretation that prevailed before that decision. The language of the amendment is clumsy but plain enough. Heller had to ignore the significance of the preamble, which states the context in which to interpret the main clause--for the purpose of training militia. Single-fire weapons at the time required such training in order for a group of riflemen to keep up a "well-regulated" continuous fusillade. The framers just did not take into account the emergence of technology that automatically chambered rounds, even though such weapons were in development at the time.

The framers of the amendment would certainly never have added such an amendment in the context of modern semiautomatic and automatic weapons. It wasn't in the constitution to sanction the right for just any purpose, and that is why the initial subordinate clause was put in the amendment. If it were feasible to repeal the amendment, I would favor that, but the supermajority requirement for modifying the Constitution makes such an attempt a waste of time in today's world. Both the second and third amendments are obsolete in today's world, but, unlike the third, the second has been repurposed to serve the needs of the gun manufacturing industry, which funds the massive lobbying effort to stymie every effort to regulate gun ownership in the US. So it has become a major reason why we have more gunshot-related deaths and injuries in the US than just about any other country on the planet.

Reforming the schools will be much more popular and just as or more effective policy change, because school shootings are a feature of modernity whereas guns have been here all along. All we have to do is admit there is a problem with the schools and copy a more successful school system...

Everyone has recognized there is a problem for a long time now, and there have been a lot of efforts to make schools safer. That's why some schools--like Apalachee High School--have classroom doors that can lock automatically. That stopped Colt Gray from entering at least one classroom, but he found another in which the door was not locked.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What really needs to happen is to get past this fetishization of guns as a means of argumentation/discourse. Not having the guns around to play Rambo or guns of Navarone or whatever glorification of individuals with guns you wish is a start. We will be fine if all these relatively normal fantasies are only acted out with sticks.
This from a person who shot his brother between the eyes with a pellet gun in the 60s because it was available while we were playing war.

They are much fetished especially in media. I don't know if that can be called a cause, but its entirely possible. It is one of the things which have changed in recent history some decades ago.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is no need to repeal it, just another Supreme Court decision that reverses Heller and restores the "collective right" interpretation that prevailed before that decision. The language of the amendment is clumsy but plain enough. Heller had to ignore the significance of the preamble, which states the context in which to interpret the main clause--for the purpose of training militia. Single-fire weapons at the time required such training in order for a group of riflemen to keep up a "well-regulated" continuous fusillade. The framers just did not take into account the emergence of technology that automatically chambered rounds, even though such weapons were in development at the time.

The framers of the amendment would certainly never have added such an amendment in the context of modern semiautomatic and automatic weapons. It wasn't in the constitution to sanction the right for just any purpose, and that is why the initial subordinate clause was put in the amendment. If it were feasible to repeal the amendment, I would favor that, but the supermajority requirement for modifying the Constitution makes such an attempt a waste of time in today's world. Both the second and third amendments are obsolete in today's world, but, unlike the third, the second has been repurposed to serve the needs of the gun manufacturing industry, which funds the massive lobbying effort to stymie every effort to regulate gun ownership in the US.

Could be. I am unfamiliar with the founding fathers or what they would have done if there were machine guns or repeaters. They were quite different from us today, and I don't claim to understand the specific terms of the Constitution. I only know how its interpreted now.

Everyone has recognized there is a problem for a long time now, and there have been a lot of efforts to make schools safer. That's why some schools--like Apalachee High School--have classroom doors that can lock automatically. That stopped Colt Gray from entering at least one classroom, but he found another in which the door was not locked.

I mean making them better, less depressing and doomed. They're all very, very closely guarded compared to my childhood when strangers could walk in; but the teachers are complaining that they can't get students to behave. There's something very wrong that is making the schools fail. Students get out of school and don't know enough.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Texas law is 21 years if age to legally drink.

I think most all states, if not all, 21 its the legal age, even for service members.

A lot of states allow you to drink if you're under parental supervision, too. Ohio is one of those states. I was allowed to drink beer at a restaurant when I was 17 as part of a celebration with my church for being baptized. My mom was there. That wasn't illegal.

 

[Kathryn]

A lot of states allow you to drink if you're under parental supervision, too. Ohio is one of those states. I was allowed to drink beer at a restaurant when I was 17 as part of a celebration with my church for being baptized. My mom was there. That wasn't illegal.

Thank you. I also bought the beer my son drank at the VFW Hall. It wasn't illegal there either. This was in Texas.

 

[Kathryn]

My son had already graduated, and had been in the Army, been to ALC, and been deployed to the Triangle of Death for over 20 months, all before he was 21. I didn't think of him as a child and still don't, though he's a lot older now. But he wasn't a child at age 19 either.

 

[Koldo]

Reforming the schools will be much more popular and just as or more effective policy change, because school shootings are a feature of modernity whereas guns have been here all along. All we have to do is admit there is a problem with the schools and copy a more successful school system.

Meanwhile discussion about the 2 Amendment may continue but not result in any changes. Its highly unlikely that the amendment is going anywhere soon. The schools are the key.

Naturally it doesn't have to be either, or. You could try to reform both, but 2nd Amendment is unlikely to change nor its interpretation any time soon.

Do you know of any successful school system that could be largely applied and that has worked to significantly reduce school shootings?

 

[Kathryn]

Do you know of any successful school system that could be largely applied and that has worked to significantly reduce school shootings?

You know what I know? I know that there are thousands and thousands of school systems which, every year, do not experience school shootings. Why? I don't know. But it makes the news because it feeds into the narrative of many, and because it's a rare occurrence.

 

[Pogo]

Do you know of any successful school system that could be largely applied and that has worked to significantly reduce school shootings?

The reformation will begin when we emphasize that we are all human and there are better ways than violence to settle disagreements. Maybe some Quaker homeschooling right now, but it was a common approach in all of the school systems I ever experienced from rural to inner city.

 

[Koldo]

You know what I know? I know that there are thousands and thousands of school systems which, every year, do not experience school shootings. Why? I don't know. But it makes the news because it feeds into the narrative of many, and because it's a rare occurrence.

The issue is that school shootings, while a rare occurance in the US, are EXTREMELY rare absolutely everywhere else in the world.
They are problem very specific to the USA.

 

[Koldo]

The reformation will begin when we emphasize that we are all human and there are better ways than violence to settle disagreements. Maybe some Quaker homeschooling right now, but it was a common approach in all of the school systems I ever experienced from rural to inner city.

There are many nations FAR more violent than the USA and school shootings are extremely rare in them.

 

[Kathryn]

The issue is that school shootings, while a rare occurance in the US, are EXTREMELY rare absolutely everywhere else in the world.
They are problem very specific to the USA.

That part is very true. My point is that though school shootings are horrible, they are thankfully very rare.

 

[Pogo]

There are many nations FAR more violent than the USA and school shootings are extremely rare in them.

Not disagreeing, both can be true.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you know of any successful school system that could be largely applied and that has worked to significantly reduce school shootings?

Yes, the US school systems of only 40 years ago in which students could be disciplined at least by the principal if not the teacher. Teachers could send home assignments, and the students would work on those outside of school and bring them back to be graded. That is no longer the case.

When I refer to the system I refer to all of it not just the course requirements. There is no discipline in many classes, and the teachers cannot get the support needed to correct this.

What kindergarten teachers : "https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/04/04/challenges-in-the-classroom/"

What the NEA reports about it: "https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/what-teachers-want-public-know"

The teacher shortages: "https://abcnews.go.com/US/nations-top-teachers-share-biggest-challenges-burnout-student/story?id=99461971"

If the teachers are getting burned out and can't support the students you can understand why students begin to feel doomed as they are passed up through grades but haven't mastered materials. They don't feel accomplished, and they may feel empty, unprepared. It so happens occasionally that high school students have graduated who could not read. That would not be possible in a healthy school system, and it would not have happened 40 years ago.

*addition* 40 years ago when school shootings didn't appear to be a thing.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I mean making them better, less depressing and doomed. They're all very, very closely guarded compared to my childhood when strangers could walk in; but the teachers are complaining that they can't get students to behave.

There's something that coming at this topic from different side that I wanted to mention. I just woke up, and it looks they are going to charge father, in the current case. I don't know all the facts, but fair enough, I haven't given the trend of charging parents a ton of thought, but I can see how a parent might be culpable, though I think maybe it can be complicated

I'm curious however, about the general school environment. And I am NOT defending what any of these kids do, that do these violent acts. But I wonder if bullying, and supervisors overlooking bullying, might be a comparable input to what a bad parent is also doing. I think I recall being bullied and having it be overlooked even when teachers were looking directly at me, and I came from a smaller, well organized suburban school. I am not suggesting that this happened in this particular case , of it is indeed a contributing factor in what happens with these kids who do these things. However, does a bullying environment make a contribution to these events?