A comedy of failures and a mass shooting

[Crunch]

It’s been a couple of week since the events in Parkland and quite a few things are coming into focus.

This started with the Obama administration’s Promise program. Trying to break the “school to prison pipeline” and improve race based statistical outcomes, criminal offenses were not reported to police. Students that would have been charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, were now be disciplined through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses and other “self-esteem building” exercises.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel backed the plan and a November 2013 video shows him signing the district’s 16-page "collaborative agreement on school discipline,” which lists more than a dozen misdemeanors that can no longer be reported to police, along with five steps police must “exhaust” before even considering placing a student under arrest.

Nikolas Cruz was a repeat offender that really benefited from this program. He was disciplined for multiple offenses -- including assault, threatening teachers and carrying bullets in his backpack -- but he was never taken into custody or even expelled. Instead, school authorities referred him to mandatory counseling or transferred him to alternative schools.

“He had a clean record, so alarm bells didn’t go off when they looked him up in the system,” veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello told RCI. “He probably wouldn’t have been able to buy the murder weapon if the school had referred him to law enforcement.”

Yeah, the FBI screwed up. The didn’t follow the process when Cruz was reported to them for that comment on YouTube. But it’s easy to see why, Cruz had no record. A quick check would have turned up nothing. Even if the FBI investigated, Cruz’s record was clean. That’s no excuse for not following the proper procedure though. If the FBI had done so, they might have realized Cruz was a threat and stopped this before the shooting.

If local law enforcement had been aware of his threats and behavioral issues, they too might have prevented the attack. Instead, Cruz was protected by the school resource officer, Scot Peterson, who had previously even refused to cooperate with a investigation of Cruz. I’m not sure how much blame we can pin on Peterson, he was only following policy.

Speaking of local law enforcement and procedure, we’ve learned that Capt. Jan Jordan, commander of BSO’s Parkland district, gave the order to form a perimeter around the deadly scene instead of following  BSO training and nationwide active-shooter procedure calling for armed law enforcement officers to confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene. One wonders at how many dead kids we can attribute to that failure.

In the aftermath, the comedy continues as the survivors of the shooting have achieved celebrity status.  The MSM is fawning over them and how they just naturally work the activist events. Credit, when offered and it rarely is, has been given to the schools debate program and the kids’ innate relationship with social media.

We now know why that credit was largely a mystery. The reality is that there are literally millions of dollars being thrown at these kids by people like George Clooney and Oprah and PR firms have been engaged. Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying  a teacher’s union organizing the buses that got the kids to protests. Michael Bloomberg’s groups and the Women’s March and MoveOn.org are doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, as well as training for student activists provided by Planned Parenthood. The president of the American Federation of Teachers has admitted they’re also behind the national school walkout, which journalists had previously assured the public was the sole work of a teenage victim. And just today, some of the students are directly engaged in fundraising for the DNC. This is hardly some natural talent on display here.

This event was a tragic thing. Using the young victims as props in a political sideshow is another tragedy.

[TheDeamon]

So, depending on how you want to consider the "oops!" Regarding the Air Force "forgetting" to communicate the Texas Church Shooter's Domestic Battery charge to civilian authorities (So it could show in a background check).

That would now make the second "unfortunate oversight" that happened under the Obama Administration's Watch involving the background check system for firearms.

I am seriously starting to wonder if we're soon to discover a third such "oversight" from his term of office.

[TheDeamon]

On further thought on this, if these allegations pan out. This probably is the single biggest favor the Democrats and the Gun-Control Lobby could have ever done for the NRA this cycle.

The Obama angle on this also feeds things further. As that means that the existing system should have worked in this particular case. The major contributing factor to its failure was a program initiated by Democrats under the Barack Obama Administration, not anything having to do with the NRA. And BTW, has everybody forgotten the NRA had already come out in favor of banning "Bump-stocks" after the Las Vegas shooting?

Weird how the NRA is getting demonized for mistakes made by the Democratic Party.

[Fenring]

I can't see how any party is more responsible here than the FBI. We can even accept all manner of corruption explanations about collusion between the local PD and the school system where crimes go unreported (and where only the most corrupt, cowardly officers are assigned to schools) and even then I would say that in light of the results here the FBI should summarily be...disbanded? I see very little purpose for their existence given their track record over the last 15 or so years. They prevent zero terrorist actions, cause more terrorist to come to exist than they curtail, and overall seem to be an organization more dedicated to perpetuating themselves than to dealing with crime. I exaggerate, of course, since they deal with a great many more types of crimes than terrorism and mass shootings, but I mean really, how sad can you get?

[TheDeamon]

As I've started digging into articles on my own, rather than taking this at face value(or waiting for refutation).

The Promise Program as described seems to be described reasonably accurately.

The county the shooter lives in is perhaps the most extreme(known at this time) in regards to how it was implemented.

Most of the fault in this instance lies in school district and local law enforcement with respect to how they handled the shooter with respect to this program. The first thing the FBI would check is the kids record, but thanks to their wonderful program implementation, he had none. The FBI isn't at fault for that, at least not on an individual level.

I'd be inclined to say the Promise Program itself strikes me as borderline criminal negligence. Which perhaps should have been investigated by the FBI, but this was a program that the Obama Admin approved and supported, and as the FBI (mostly) takes orders from the person sitting in the White House.... They followed orders and seem to have left it alone.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/25/politics/sheriff-israel-sotu-full-transcript/index.html

TAPPER: I think there are a lot of people, sir, who think that there are a lot of mistakes, other than that one deputy.
But let me ask you something else. A lot of people in the community have noted that the Broward County School Board entered into an agreement when you were sheriff in 2013 to pursue the -- quote -- "least punitive means of discipline" against students.
This new policy encouraged warnings, consultations with parents and programs on conflict resolution, instead of arresting students for crimes.
Were there not incidents committed by the shooter as a student had this new policy not been in place that otherwise he would have been arrested for and not able to legally buy a gun?
ISRAEL: What you're referring to is the PROMISE Program.
And it's giving the school -- the school has the ability under certain circumstances not to call the police, not to get the police involved on misdemeanor offenses and take care of it within the school. It's an excellent program.
It's helping many, many people. What this program does is not put a person at 14, 15, 16 years old into the criminal justice system.
TAPPER: What if he should be in the criminal justice system? What if he does something violent to a student? What if he takes bullets to school? What if he takes knives to schools? What if he threatens the lives of fellow students?
ISRAEL: Then he goes to jail. That's not applicable in the PROMISE Program.
TAPPER: That's not what happened. But that's not what happened with the shooter.
ISRAEL: If -- Jake, you're telling me that the shooter took knives to school or bullets to school, and police knew about it?
TAPPER: I don't know if police knew about it.
ISRAEL: No. Well, police...
TAPPER: I know that the agreement that you entered into with the school allowed the school to give this kid excuse after excuse after excuse, while, obviously...
ISRAEL: Not for bullets, not for bullets, not for guns, not for knives, not for felonies, not for anything like that. These are infractions within the school, small amounts of marijuana, some misdemeanors.
You're absolutely exacerbating it. That's not...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: There are at teachers at the school had been told, if you see Cruz come on campus with a backpack, let me know.
Does that not indicate that there is something seriously awry with the PROMISE Program if these teachers are being told, watch out for this kid, and you don't know about it?

[Fenring]

That quote doesn't suggest anything substantive. I've heard both sides of the Promise story. One side argues that it's a corrupt system designed to artificially deflate crime reports so the district looks good, and results in serious crimes going unreported. The other side says that it's a program designed to prevent kids having their lives ruined over stupid misdemeanors such as small-time possession, vandalism, and so forth, in which case the entire argument that this relates to the shooting is a red herring.

For my part I don't have enough information to know which story is accurate, but nevertheless I find the conclusions either way irrelevant. If the FBI hears any kind of message about someone saying they'll shoot up a school agents should be at that person's door that same day. Doing a background check ought not be the deciding factor of whether they do anything about such threats. Having a prior record may be an indicator for the danger level, but you know what's another indicator? Hearing a kid say he'll kill people in a school.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/florida-shooter-cruz-records-police-calls-to-home-invs/index.html

The incident reports, which are as recent as September 2016, describe Cruz as suffering from mental illness and being "emotionally handicapped," and being on behavioral medication. One notes, "He has mentioned in the past that he would like to purchase a firearm."
The documents include more than 30 reports going back as far as 2011, covering misbehavior by Cruz and some by his younger brother. They add further depth to the emerging portrait of Cruz as an unstable teen who had long been on the radar of law enforcement, behavioral specialists, teachers and fellow students.
Yet Cruz was still able to pass the nation's gun background check system in February 2017 and obtain an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle, one that he used to kill 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/us/school-shooter-gun-threats-first-host-family-told-police-invs/index.html

Just months before Nikolas Cruz killed 17 at his former high school in South Florida, the host family who had taken him in immediately after his mother's death warned local law enforcement that the 19-year-old had "used a gun against people before" and "has put the gun to others' heads in the past," according to records obtained by CNN.

It's the latest indication of how law enforcement encountered warning signs about Cruz's violent behavior before he attacked students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day.

CNN has obtained records from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office that detail deputies' interactions with Cruz in the home where he lived for a few weeks in November, before he moved in with another family, the Sneads, and months before the massacre.

So now we even have a second county involved. Although Palm Beach has a little more of an excuse. And this does indicate a weakness in the reporting systems that are being checked for "background checks."

On the day after Thanksgiving, Cruz was at work at a Dollar Tree store. Rocxanne Deschamps' son, Rock, 22, called 911 to report that an "adopted 19-year-old son" had possibly hidden a "gun in the backyard," according to a dispatcher's notes. Rock Deschamps told law enforcement "there were no weapons allowed in the household," the report said. It's unclear from the record whether sheriff's deputies conducted a search. The incident was classified as "domestic unfounded," which means a deputy didn't find proof to back up the claims.

The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office was called again to the home four days later, when Rock said Cruz lashed out against the family that took him in, according to the Palm Beach deputy's report and dispatcher notes. The deputy went to a local park and found Cruz, who explained that he had misplaced a photo of his recently deceased mother and, emotionally distraught, began punching the wall. Cruz lost control the same way he had several times in the past at his mother's home in Parkland, Florida, when he had not taken his prescribed mood-altering medication, as CNN has previously reported based on Broward police documents.

Rock interrupted Cruz and a fight broke out between them, according to the documents. Cruz left the home, and Rocxanne Deschamps called 911. She warned the police dispatcher that Cruz said "he was going to get his gun and come back," records show. She said Cruz had "bought a gun from Dick's last week and is now going to pick it up."

Rocxanne Deschamps told the dispatcher that Cruz had "bought tons of ammo" and "has used a gun against ppl before," the notes said. "He has put the gun to others heads in the past."

The Palm Beach sheriff's deputy who responded to the scene of the assault spoke to both young men, who "hugged and reconcile(d) their differences." Cruz "said he was sorry for losing his temper," the deputy wrote in his report. Rock Deschamps told the deputy that Cruz had been suffering significantly from the loss of his mother and that he didn't want him to go to jail, only to leave the house until he calmed down. He signed a form saying he refused to prosecute.

http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-shooting-police-response-criticized-911-calls-missed-nikolas-cruz-2018-2

Local authorities have also faced questions about their previous encounters with Cruz and why they never arrested or involuntarily committed him to mental-health facilities.

Florida's mental-health law, known as the Baker Act, allows the state to hospitalize people it deems a threat to themselves or others and may prohibit them from buying a gun under state law.

Though a Florida social-services agency said in a report that it had previously been contacted to detain Cruz under the Baker Act, it determined he wasn't a threat, The Times reported.

Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, clashed with Israel on the subject during a CNN town-hall meeting on Wednesday, seizing on reports that his office visited Cruz's home 39 times over seven years and never arrested or committed him.

"Sending messages, telling other students that he was going to murder them and he was going to kill him I would think certainly would qualify under a Florida state statute for you to have Baker Acted him," Loesch said.

There have been numerous reports citing Cruz's former classmates and neighbors as saying he had a history of disturbing behavior, including boasting about his guns, selling knives at school, getting in fights, and killing animals.

"Look, I'm not saying that you can be everywhere at once, but this is what I'm talking about," Loesch said. "We have to follow up on these red flags."

Israel pushed back.

"First of all, we've talked about the Broward Sheriff's Office and some other local agencies and the FBI getting tips and what have you," Israel said. "America, there's one person responsible for this act: that's the detestable, violent killer. He is responsible for this act, nobody else but him."

[TheDeamon]

For my part I don't have enough information to know which story is accurate, but nevertheless I find the conclusions either way irrelevant. If the FBI hears any kind of message about someone saying they'll shoot up a school agents should be at that person's door that same day. Doing a background check ought not be the deciding factor of whether they do anything about such threats. Having a prior record may be an indicator for the danger level, but you know what's another indicator? Hearing a kid say he'll kill people in a school.

Not entirely their field of operations? Usually, at least my neck of the woods, threats against schools result in a local law enforcement response. But evidently Florida requires federal assistance that isn't needed elsewhere?

Also the FBI can't be everywhere, they have other irons in the fire as well. Background check was step 1, he came back clean, so he probably went to "back of the queue" for things to be investigated when they had time/resources. Which basically meant never.

[Wayward Son]

Although the Promise Program may have contributed to not identifying and stopping the shooter before he went on his rampage in Parkland, it would not have helped with the Las Vegas massacre, or the Texas Church shooting, or the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport shooting, or the Lincoln County, Mississippi shooting spree.  Not to mention the other 170 or so people who were murdered with a gun the same week as the Parkland shooting.

So while the Promise Program and the FBI may have some responsibility for this particular shooting, it doesn't really address the much bigger, much more bloody problem of Americans shooting each other.  Even if we had prevented the Parkland shooting, it won't make a visible dent in the number of people who will be murdered by firearms this year. 

It's kinda silly to put the entire blame on the Promise Program when there are so many, many other dead bodies around from other people with guns.

[D.W.]

I think just the opposite is true.  As much as we don't want to admit it, we can't make everyone safe all the time.  You can't always legislate and policy your way out of danger. 

This however, (looks to be) a failure of the systems meant to attempt to reduce risk.  It's one of those, "If we can't even get THIS right, how can we ever hope to solve the related issues which are even harder to stop?"

It's a moral hit.  This was by all accounts a preventable incident.  There WERE warning signs.  There WAS time to step in and head this off.  Those opportunities were missed and 17 people died. 

Sure we can note that it's a statistical blip.  Some find comfort in that I guess; but when the preventable deaths are not stopped, it makes people all the more upset about the larger issue of gun violence.

[LetterRip]

This however, (looks to be) a failure of the systems meant to attempt to reduce risk.  It's one of those, "If we can't even get THIS right, how can we ever hope to solve the related issues which are even harder to stop?"

I've not seen anything that would be grounds for 'involuntary commitment' or felony charges that would result in loss of the possibility of gun ownership.

Even with involuntary commitment - most individuals who are so - don't get restrictions on their gun ownership.

So there doesn't seem to be any grounds that he would have been prevented from buying a gun and carrying out the school shooting had police, FBI, courts, or mental health professionals acted differently.

[Wayward Son]

I think just the opposite is true.  As much as we don't want to admit it, we can't make everyone safe all the time.  You can't always legislate and policy your way out of danger.

No, we can't prevent all murders and mass killings.  But you have to admit that we should be able to reduce the number of such killings by reducing the number of firearms in the hands of the killers.

We make it too easy for mass murderers, simple murderers, rapists, robbers and the like to get and keep a firearm.  It almost feels like we are protecting their right to obtain and keep such weapons.  And the result is mass shootings and around other 8000 firearm-related murders each year.

Focusing on one small aspect of one particular shooting that might have made a difference missing the big picture.  We have 10 Parkland shootings each week, spread out over the country.  What can we do to help prevent all of those, too?

[TheDeamon]

Although the Promise Program may have contributed to not identifying and stopping the shooter before he went on his rampage in Parkland, it would not have helped with the Las Vegas massacre, or the Texas Church shooting, or the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport shooting, or the Lincoln County, Mississippi shooting spree.  Not to mention the other 170 or so people who were murdered with a gun the same week as the Parkland shooting.

In the case of the Texas Church shooting, existing laws should have prevented him from obtaining a firearm legally. But as his offense happened within the Military Justice System, and someone failed to transfer that information over to the civilian side(as was supposed to happen), that shooter "came up clean" on the background check and the rest is history.

Didn't really follow the Airport Shooting, so don't know enough to comment on the shooter there. Evidently the Las Vegas shooter had amassed a considerable gambling debt, which would impart a motive on his part. Both suicidal at the thought of losing the lifestyle he'd known most of his adult life, and potentially feeling more than a bit vengeful towards the organization that facilitated his financial ruin(Casinos). As to how you codify that one, that would be rough.

So while the Promise Program and the FBI may have some responsibility for this particular shooting,

From the claims made regarding how the school administration was implementing the Promise Program, it was perhaps the single biggest factor in play. Without it, he would have been charged at least once, if not multiple times, ergo "no clean record" which would have potentially stopped the gun purchases in the first place, and even short of that, would have "thrown additional flags" for the FBI and would have been likely to cause more effort to be directed towards the would-be shooter.

Otherwise, agreed that the numerous call-outs to his place(s) of residence, where the people initiating the complaint/call then likewise failed to press charges, is "mostly noise" as local police cannot do much if the victim stops further action from being taken.

That is one where I'm partially split, as I'd like to give options for action to be taken in "domestic incidents" where such things happen, where the responding officer is able to flag the offending party/parties should a (gun purchase) background check ever be run on them in the future.

But the problem there is that leaves things wide open for false reporting, and how to prevent abuses of said mechanism from happening. (Such as police departments/officers who will flag everyone, without regard to evidence on scene; or neighbors/"friends"/family who call to make false/misleading reports for the express purpose of ending their gun rights)

It's kinda silly to put the entire blame on the Promise Program when there are so many, many other dead bodies around from other people with guns.

But in the case of that shooting, the Promise Program seems to be the major contributing factor in there even being a crack for him to slip through.

[Crunch]

I think just the opposite is true.  As much as we don't want to admit it, we can't make  is mass
We have 10 Parkland shootings each week, spread out over the country.  What can we do to help prevent all of those, too?

What are the 10 mass shootings that happened last week?

[TheDrake]

I think he means 10 events with an average of 1.7 people killed etc. The death equivalent of 10 Parklands per week. Pretty clear from the context of the note discussing simple murderers.

[Seriati]

I think Crunch's interpretation is fairer.  He's referring to a propaganda group that produces an overstated mass shooting count.

[Wayward Son]

We have 10 Parkland shootings each week, spread out over the country.  What can we do to help prevent all of those, too?

What are the 10 mass shootings that happened last week?

What I mean is the 170 people, on average, that are murdered each week by firearms.  The 170 killings, in ones, twos, sometimes threes, and once in a while, four or more, spread out over the country, that don't make the national news headlines.  Shootings that, somehow, get ignored when we focus on how to prevent "mass shootings."  Like those killings aren't a problem, many times worse than all the mass shootings we have.  Like once we learn how to stop mass shootings, we have solved the problem with guns in America.  Like they don't matter or count.

And, no, Seriati, I'm not using any overstated mass shooting count.  I'm using the FBI statistics for Homicides each year from firearms.

Just imagine it for a moment.  Take all the victims from Parkland and lay them out in a parking lot.  Now multiply it by 10.  That's the number of other people killed that week.

Now do it again for the next week.

And the next week.

And the next week...

But, hey, the real problem is that Obama started the Promise Program, isn't it? 

[Seriati]

Except its not true that those deaths are "spread out" over the country.  They are highly concentrated in a handful of counties that largely are in inner cities under strict Democratic control, where there are often heavy restrictions on the possession and ownership of guns.  The areas that have the highest average gun ownership rate also have the lowest murder rate, which again completely undercuts your case.

If you want to talk about banning rifles (all rifles, not just the AR-15), you're talking about less than 300 homicides a year (including the numbers from the mass killings) on average.

Most homicides are committed with pistols.  And you'd get far more results - if that's actually what you care about - by targeting the specific and tiny parts of the country where there really are murder epidemics.  And you know what you can get started right now, cause virtually all of them are under local Democratic control.

So tell me why the rest of the county, that doesn't have a murder epidemic problem should adopt the failed policies of the party that actually controls the areas that do?

EDIT - To answer specifically, the Promise Program seems high indefensible.  How can any law enforcement agency identify flags if we deliberately keep relevant information out of their hands?  It would have been a thousand times better to focus on misuse of information rather than suppression of it.  Of course, misuse of sealed and confidential records is so second nature to prosecutors now that the idea was probably inconceivable to the Obama administration.

[NobleHunter]

Places where people are getting shot: we need less guns.

Places where people aren't getting shot: you need more guns.

[Wayward Son]

That's all very interesting, Seriati, except for a few points.

I do not want to ban all guns.  I want to make it harder for people who will misuse guns to obtain and keep them.

Which means that increased reporting by eliminating the Promise Program will help, but it is far, far from all we need to do.  It only scratches the surface at best, and will have no effect at worst.

BTW, what is your source for the statement that there are "the specific and tiny parts of the country where there really are murder epidemics...virtually all of them are under local Democratic control?"  I trust that, if it was from a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center, that you carefully vetted it, since that organization's methodology has been questioned in the past.

And exactly how does the policies of Republicans differ from those of Democrats in these areas?  And are you sure that it is the policies that are to blame for the higher murder rates, rather than other factors like population density, poverty rates, etc.

[Seriati]

Lol, thanks for the reference, their map is better than the one I saw before.  I'm not sure how exactly bias would enter into a map that shows the physical location of each event and then charts into incidence rates.  Maybe you can walk me through it?  Or is the idea here just to run a poisoning the well fallacy?   You can easily verify the murder rate of any city, and if you're honest, you'll discover for yourself that certain cities are primarily responsible for the statistics you are using.

On your last point, no.  I don't think the gun control policies are to blame for the high murder rates.  Of course I think the potential positive impact of such policies is overstated as well.  We in fact had an assault weapons ban and it did nothing.  What I do think is that gun control is appealing to the left because it has that "magic pill" quality.  They can hang their aspirations and political capital on a cure that doesn't involve any self reflection, acceptance of real responsibility or willingness to solve a problem like an adult but that is emotionally appealing to a group of irrational voters (I mean that in the literal sense, not an insult).  They can attribute whatever magical properties they want to the pill, and if they don't work it's simply because the dose was wrong, not because the treatment was flawed.

[TheDrake]

None of the proposed solutions seem like they can really curb the problem, whether it is more gun free zones, even strict gun laws like Mexico has, jamming people in mental hospitals, arming every man woman and child with a gun to defend themselves, prayer in school, or singing Kum-ba-ya.

All of these 'solutions' are an emotional appeal more than a practical science-based approach to problem solving.

[Seriati]

Well TheDrake, I think you have to identify which problem you are trying to cure cause they have different solutions.  Stopping someone from committing suicide with a gun requires far different solutions than stopping a gang member from killing a rival, which requires different solutions yet from stopping a mass killer, or a terrorist.

I mean what's the "single" solution for stopping domestic violence?

That's why a gun ban appeals.  It's a literal magic pill that it's advocates can claim will cure any ill.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

I completely agree that advocates seem to want one size fits all solutions to problems with diverse causes that probably need individualized solutions.

Many of the solutions probably do have overlap - for instance the 'gang bangers shooting each other' and 'suicide' - overlap due to not storing guns in gun safes (most guns used in gang violence are unsecured gun thefts; and child suicides and spontaneous suicides in general would be greatly reduced from guns being stored).

DV related gun deaths would be reduced from better reporting; expanding DV background checks to include violence in unmarried relationships.

Most sources of gun deaths could be reduced by a fairly good mental exam requirement before purchase or transfer that screens for sadism and psychopathy.

The age restriction idea might be fairly effective across the board (if you don't restrict it to men and women, there is a high liklihood that the women will buy it and the boyfriend will 'borrow' it)

[Fenring]

If the concern is overall gun deaths, the question becomes very different than if it's how to stop a lone maniac intent on killing people. I'm not sure how to stop the latter without a new system in place, such as (for example) Seriati's idea of a mandatory education program on gun safety. In my opinion such a system should include with it a filter for disturbed individuals, but that's a detail we're not really discussing right now. But for overall gun deaths I could propose a few easy solutions that will stop a great deal of it:

1) Halt utterly the "war on drugs", and remove all possible incentive for criminal activity in selling drugs on the black market. This will have a multiplier effect on reducing gun crime because not only will the gang activity stop, but so will incarceration for possession, which in turn perpetuates poverty and discontent, increasing the incentive to seek illicit employment.

2) Halt utterly the system of police militarization and overaggressive training, and focus hard on re-building community trust with the police forces.

3) Implement a basic income system in the U.S., eliminating the need for criminal activity in order to survive, and also giving certain types of people who would otherwise get up to no good the possibility of vegetating on their income and sitting in front of their Xbox 360.

This last is by far the hardest and longest-term to implement but I legitimately think it would have a massive impact on crime. That said, none of these will necessarily have a direct impact on psycho mass shooters, but who knows, maybe it would.

[DonaldD]

I agree with a lot of what you said, Fenring, though I have quibbles with the likely effectiveness of mandatory gun safety programs having any effect on homicidal shooters, and with the relative difficulties in enacting basic income schemes.

But the most obvious, I feel, part of the equation, but also the longest term, is the necessity of denormalizing the ownership of firearms and other weapons.  If you can make gun ownership as socially unacceptable as tobacco smoking, you will have gone a long way towards curbing both the number of guns available, and the willingness of people to even contemplate gun use against their fellow residents.  Couple that with on-going buy-back schemes, and that will, in conjunction with other initiatives, actually reduce the incidence of gun violence.

[D.W.]

Want to get rid of guns?  Invent the phaser pistol / stun ray.  A true "non-lethal" yet effective tool for self defense.  Make abuse of it, as serious a crime as homicide.  That takes away the "I need to defend myself" argument. 

We still would have people abuse it.  A "ranged ruffie" or stunning people while they drive, or walk out into traffic.  There'd still be deaths, but significantly less so.  So then we'd be faced with writing off the 2nd A. as "antiquated" and "no longer applicable to today's society" and we could comfort ourselves with the "we never stood a chance at fighting off the government if they turned on us anyway". (Despite how long of seeing the persistence of insurgent warfare now?)

We'd finally be in a position to put that to the test.  I mean, trust in the government is at an all time high right?  What better time than now?  Some body hook me up with a phaser pistol and a charging station.  Mr. Musk?  Got anything for us here?  Sounds cool, right up till the power stations go out.  I don't like my odds at hunting the urban squirrel for supper while recharging my phaser on a solar panel powered usb connection.  But I'd be willing to take that risk. 

[Fenring]

I agree with a lot of what you said, Fenring, though I have quibbles with the likely effectiveness of mandatory gun safety programs having any effect on homicidal shooters, and with the relative difficulties in enacting basic income schemes.

I, too, think that this is incomplete as long as the health care system remains as it is.

But the most obvious, I feel, part of the equation, but also the longest term, is the necessity of denormalizing the ownership of firearms and other weapons.  If you can make gun ownership as socially unacceptable as tobacco smoking, you will have gone a long way towards curbing both the number of guns available, and the willingness of people to even contemplate gun use against their fellow residents.  Couple that with on-going buy-back schemes, and that will, in conjunction with other initiatives, actually reduce the incidence of gun violence.

My proposals (not that these are formally up for debate, I just mentioned them) don't in any way introduce the notion of telling people what they should like, and I think that's important. Anyone such as yourself you would like to see less violent gun use had better look for methods to achieve this other than demonizing the weapons themselves, because all you'll do is cement the base of the other side. Look for other ways to occupy people, and ways to give people priorities other than the thing you don't like. You won't get far telling people the thing they like is bad!

[TheDeamon]

I completely agree that advocates seem to want one size fits all solutions to problems with diverse causes that probably need individualized solutions.

Many of the solutions probably do have overlap - for instance the 'gang bangers shooting each other' and 'suicide' - overlap due to not storing guns in gun safes (most guns used in gang violence are unsecured gun thefts; and child suicides and spontaneous suicides in general would be greatly reduced from guns being stored).

DV related gun deaths would be reduced from better reporting; expanding DV background checks to include violence in unmarried relationships.

Well, the closest thing to a true "one size fits all" solution to all of the above is greater economic prosperity. This is a well known effect. If people are doing well, DV rates decrease(likely from lower stress levels about finances), suicide rates also tend to drop(again, the financial angle pops up--see LasVegas Shooter),  and crime rates from "Gang Bangers" also tend to drop as those people see that other options are indeed open to them.

Although for some, the lure of a quick buck via a life of crime is always going to trump everything else. Be they blue collar or white collar.

[DonaldD]

had better look for methods to achieve this other than demonizing the weapons themselves, because all you'll do is cement the base of the other side

That's why it is long term.  But I sincerely doubt that any solution that doesn't include denormalization as a necessary long term goal is bound to have only limited effect.

[Fenring]

had better look for methods to achieve this other than demonizing the weapons themselves, because all you'll do is cement the base of the other side

That's why it is long term.  But I sincerely doubt that any solution that doesn't include denormalization as a necessary long term goal is bound to have only limited effect.

As Seriati has pointed out, I'm not even sure there's a connection between gun culture (i.e. people who enjoy having guns for sport, etc) and people who want to shoot up a public place. The one does not lead to desires for the other. If your term "denormalization" is a funny way of saying "no more guns" then perhaps that will make it harder for people who aren't hardened criminals from getting them. If it just means that guns won't be fashionable and make to look super cool in films any more, then I don't see what that will necessarily repair in the case of a psycho lone shooter.

The thing people on the left have to be careful about is mistaking their own personal preference (that there not be guns around) with actual steps necessary to prevent mass shootings. Pushing the wrong kind of fixes, and especially for the wrong reasons, will do anything BUT lead to solutions. The way many liberals handle the conversation right now I'd almost think they're shilling for the NRA since they're helping the latter's marketing for free.

[DonaldD]

There are a number of problems associated with firearms that distinguish the USA from other first world countries - but three of the primary ones are simply the number of guns, the ease of acquisition and the acceptability of the use of guns to solve problems.

You can even see evidence of this third issue in the other thread where people are debating armed insurrection: otherwise rational people take it as a given that the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government might be a good thing.

Without taking a position on that debate, there is clear evidence that many citizens of the USA hold the position that the use of violence to overthrow an elected government has a place in political debate: whereas people espousing that idea in other first world countries would be deemed fringe, at best - but more likely dangerous and demented.

Denormalization, in this context, simply means the opposite of "making normal", nothing more, nothing less.  If the vast majority of the USA come to believe that gun ownership is weird or strange, the desire to own guns will be reduced.  The number of guns could then also be reduced, naturally, without coercion . The market for guns would shrink. A shrunken market, and a shrunken inventory of guns would mean less availability.

[DJQuag]

The mass shootings that make headlines only spiked after Reagan gutted mental health funds and authority.

Making it harder to lock people away involuntarily means that less people will be abused by that. It also means that truly crazy people will get a chance to get their crazy on. Whether the pros outweigh the cons is something that can be debated, but it's a real issue.

[TheDeamon]

You can even see evidence of this third issue in the other thread where people are debating armed insurrection: otherwise rational people take it as a given that the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government might be a good thing.

Without taking a position on that debate, there is clear evidence that many citizens of the USA hold the position that the use of violence to overthrow an elected government has a place in political debate: whereas people espousing that idea in other first world countries would be deemed fringe, at best - but more likely dangerous and demented.

You need to remember, the "standard" that we referenced was the Declaration of Independence as the precedent for that level of action. From there you are confusing and conflating things. Possibly both, and maybe even somewhat intentionally.

The "standard" imposed by using the DoI as a frame of reference means "Tyrannical" would need to be appended to any descriptor of the Government to be overthrown. Be that a monarch, a parliament, or a republic. Just because a government is "democratic" doesn't mean the government is therefore  not tyrannical, or potentially so, and that force may sometimes be needed to end that grip.

See Turkey for much of the 20th Century(They were complacent going into the 21st). Egypt after Mubarak was deposed and the Muslim Brotherhood won a democratic landslide electoral victory... Only to be deposed in turn by the combined efforts of the Egyptian Military and Courts.

Venezuela also comes to mind as well, only on the opposing end of things. "Popular will" and the democratic process worked out really well for them. 

[DonaldD]

I talk about first world countries, and Seriati brings up Venezuela, Turkey and Egypt.

Yes, roll your eyes.

The rest of your post just makes my point - in no other first world country would the distinctions you are struggling to make be seen as anything other than fringe or wacko.  And that perception is one very strong reason why gun violence in those countries is orders of magnitude less.

[DonaldD]

Apologies to Seriati - the previous post was a reply to TheDaemon. My mistake.

[TheDeamon]

I talk about first world countries, and Seriati brings up Venezuela, Turkey and Egypt.

Yes, roll your eyes.

The rest of your post just makes my point - in no other first world country would the distinctions you are struggling to make be seen as anything other than fringe or wacko.  And that perception is one very strong reason why gun violence in those countries is orders of magnitude less.

Prior to Chavez coming to power in Venezuela, that country was, to my understanding, fairly well onto its way in becoming considered a "First World" type nation. It was actually doing rather well in the 1990's.

But if you want to restrict it to the First World. 1920's/1930's Germany comes to mind. That was a democratic outcome as well, after all. Well, at least until they took control, kind of like Venezuela and Turkey, and the Muslim Brotherhood's attempt at Egypt before they were curb stomped by the courts and military.

[DonaldD]

I didn't say first world war, I said first world.  It was also clear I was talking about how first world countries today do not have the violence problems that the USA suffers from, and that one common factor is that the USA has what the rest of the world considers an unhealthy deification of gun violence, at least partly based on a desire to leave the door open to violent overthrow of the government.

Do you dispute that, if the vast majority of the populace turned their backs on the acceptability of gun ownership, there would NOT be a downtick in gun violence?

[Seriati]

I didn't say first world war, I said first world.  It was also clear I was talking about how first world countries today do not have the violence problems that the USA suffers from, and that one common factor is that the USA has what the rest of the world considers an unhealthy deification of gun violence, at least partly based on a desire to leave the door open to violent overthrow of the government.

Can you provide statistics for your claim about the first world not having a violence problem?

It's my understanding that such a claim is false.  The US generally speaking has a lower incidence of violent crime than the rest of the first world, with the exception of murders using a gun. 

I'd also note, that guns are not the only, or even the most relevant, basis on which other first world countries differ from the US.  The US has a much more diverse population than pretty much everyone in the first world, that complicates so many factors, particularly around crime and violence.

In fact, if you look the vast majority of the country (ie pulling out a few specific localities where gun violence is heavily connected with drugs and gang activity) the disparity per capita shrinks to a largely immaterial difference.

Where does that leave you?

Do you dispute that, if the vast majority of the populace turned their backs on the acceptability of gun ownership, there would NOT be a downtick in gun violence?

Look, I'm a big guy, if you want to get rid of guns it won't impact my safety as much as it's going to impact everyone elses.  Well at least not until I get much older.

When young men already disproportionately engage in gun violence and every other kind of violence, why would you advocate for dissarming everyone else?  Do you like might makes right?

[Seriati]

DV related gun deaths would be reduced from better reporting; expanding DV background checks to include violence in unmarried relationships.

I wasn't limiting that to gun deaths.  DV is an incredibly complex issue and better reporting wouldn't actually help solve DV at all, it may do a better job at putting holds on gun purchases, but then it may not.

Lots of DV victims are reported as perpetrators as well.  You'd effectively be disarming them.

Most sources of gun deaths could be reduced by a fairly good mental exam requirement before purchase or transfer that screens for sadism and psychopathy.

That I agree with, though I don't see why it should be limited to guns if you're going to do that screening.  If someone is "too dangerous to have a gun" they are "too dangerous to be in society unmonitored."

The age restriction idea might be fairly effective across the board (if you don't restrict it to men and women, there is a high liklihood that the women will buy it and the boyfriend will 'borrow' it)

I don't see that as "highly" likely, but if it becomes a problem it can easily be addressed.

[Seriati]

But the most obvious, I feel, part of the equation, but also the longest term, is the necessity of denormalizing the ownership of firearms and other weapons.

This is where dogma overwhelms fact.  Denormalizing firearms is exactly what's gotten us in this mess.  Firm arm ownership, use and access was far more part of normal society as a historic manner.  Firearms, rifles in particular, were often given as gifts to children, they were available in stores and by mail order without age restriction. 

It's the mystification of "guns" that's given the entire concept grossly disproportionate impact.  Why is a "worse" crime to you if someone shoots their spouse than if they stab them to death and cut their throat?  Or clunk them over the head with a shovel and bury them while they are still breathing?

If you can make gun ownership as socially unacceptable as tobacco smoking, you will have gone a long way towards curbing both the number of guns available, and the willingness of people to even contemplate gun use against their fellow residents.  Couple that with on-going buy-back schemes, and that will, in conjunction with other initiatives, actually reduce the incidence of gun violence.

I actually seriously doubt there is even a bit of truth here.  Denormalizing as you suggest, even if it has the impact you want, is going to massively remove guns from people who'd never have used them for violence, and have little to no impact on people who are inclined to violence.

I mean honestly, there's an estimated 350 million guns in America, and maybe 100 of them were involve in a killing yesterday (if it was a bad day).  Even if you assumed a new gun involved for every single death (and included cops shooting bad guys, suicides and accidental deaths) for the next 100 years, you'd still have 347 million of those guns never involved in a death.  Which oddly enough, is roughly similar to the number of cars in America and the number that would be involved in a death over the same period.   And if were only talking about murders, it'd literally be more 349,400,000 not involved in 100 years. 

[DonaldD]

Can you provide statistics for your claim about the first world not having a violence problem?

Move the goal posts much?  Seriously, we were discussing firearm violence - the word "shooting" is even in the thread title.

But even if you want to focus on all mortality instead of just firearm mortality, the USA still leads the way in the first world.  Here are the rate of intentional homicide per 100K as of 2015 (I left Mexico and the Baltic states in, even though I consider neither area to be first world):

Country or dependent area   Rate
 Mexico   16.35
 Russia   11.31
 Lithuania   5.98
 United States   4.88
 Latvia   4.11
 Estonia   3.2
 Canada   1.68
 Finland   1.6
 France   1.58
 Romania   1.49
 Hungary   1.48
 Israel   1.36
 Sweden   1.15

Basically, the USA still has an intentional homicide rate 3 times that of its closest 'competitor', Canada.

When young men already disproportionately engage in gun violence and every other kind of violence, why would you advocate for dissarming everyone else?

I did not "advocate for dissarming" anybody.  I did simply point out that the USA has a problem with the number of guns available to society as well as with the general perception that guns serve some use outside of hunting and target practice (again, the whole idea of using guns for self-defense is patently crazy).

There is no need to misrepresent what I wrote.

The US generally speaking has a lower incidence of violent crime than the rest of the first world

It sounds like you are making an argument against having guns available to people... the USA has a lower incidence of violence, yet kills people at a rate more than 3 times higher than other first world countries...

[TheDrake]

I mean honestly, there's an estimated 350 million guns in America, and maybe 100 of them were involve in a killing yesterday (if it was a bad day). 

Most knives weren't involved in stabbing somebody, but there are laws on how long your blade can be. Switchblades and machetes are largely prohibited, depending on the state.

We just don't hear about it because kniferights.org just doesn't have the same clout as the NRA. Although reading their website, earlier this year they repealed a statute that prohibited Connor MacLeod from carrying a sword.

[Seriati]

Can you provide statistics for your claim about the first world not having a violence problem?

Move the goal posts much?

I didn't say first world war, I said first world.  It was also clear I was talking about how first world countries today do not have the violence problems that the USA suffers from, and that one common factor is that the USA has what the rest of the world considers an unhealthy deification of gun violence, at least partly based on a desire to leave the door open to violent overthrow of the government.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but they were your goal posts, I didn't move them. The rest of the free world has even larger violence problems, just less of it is connected to guns.

But even if you want to focus on all mortality instead of just firearm mortality, the USA still leads the way in the first world.

Why would I want to focus on "mortality," is it because those statistics are easier to find on a google search (we both know they are).  No the rate of violence in other first countries is higher than the US's, but the rate on gun violence is flipped.  That leads to some interesting problems in the case you are trying to make (as in there is no clear link to what you want the stats to mean).

Basically, the USA still has an intentional homicide rate 3 times that of its closest 'competitor', Canada.

Yes.  The US also has a number of contributing factors to that, which are not shared with the other countries on that list (but with respect to drugs and gangs are shared with Mexico - which undercuts your point) that have been linked to that homicide rate.

When young men already disproportionately engage in gun violence and every other kind of violence, why would you advocate for dissarming everyone else?

I did not "advocate for dissarming" anybody.  I did simply point out that the USA has a problem with the number of guns available to society as well as with the general perception that guns serve some use outside of hunting and target practice (again, the whole idea of using guns for self-defense is patently crazy).

There is no need to misrepresent what I wrote.

I agree, what you wrote is that there is a "problem."  Though you haven't actually showed how its a problem, or how it causes the actual problems to which it correlates.  You haven't bothered to address other correlations that actually have causation on the issues you wish to address, or contrary evidence that the correlation doesn't actually hold when you get granular rather than macro.  It's the ultimate in "we must do something" thinking.

I'm sorry you think self defense is "crazy."  There's literally no other mechanism that has a bigger equalizing impact on self defense than a firearm.  Particularly in male on female violence and young on old violence where there is really no other practical tool.   

The US generally speaking has a lower incidence of violent crime than the rest of the first world

It sounds like you are making an argument against having guns available to people... the USA has a lower incidence of violence, yet kills people at a rate more than 3 times higher than other first world countries...

I didn't cite to anything that demonstrates causation, but the correlation there implies (much like you are doing) that the presence of firearms in the populace may decrease the over all rate of crime even if it increases the severity when it does occur.

[Fenring]

What does the total amount of guns available have anything to do with gun violence? It sounds like a non sequitur to me. Only a few guns are involved in gun deaths, as Seriati pointed out. The key to preventing gun violence would be to eliminate availability of those guns (i.e. to those people who used them) or else to remove the motive to use them. You're engaging on the former solution but without suggesting how decreasing the total number of guns will have an effect on the specific guns and gun users involved in actual shootings. I don't see how the 11 rabbit and deer guns in some guy's shed will have any bearing on gun violence towards humans.

[DonaldD]

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but they were your goal posts, I didn't move them. The rest of the free world has even larger violence problems, just less of it is connected to guns.

And there you go again - even after I made it crystal clear the topic under discussion is firearms, you continue to interpret "violence" to mean something other than "gun violence".

[Seriati]

No DonaldD I made it clear how you are artificially constraining and expanding on discussion points to avoid having to explain a logical connection.  If you want to argue that the number of guns is material and should be constrained you have to deal with the possibility that while they may increase murders, they may decrease other crime.  That's literally a trade that a safety advocate could deem worthwhile.

You also need to address that most of the "deaths" are not homicides, and most of the homicides really occur in the specific context of gangs and drugs, the exact people that are least likely to be influenced by your campaign to reduce the number of guns.

I don't have to accept your unconsidered opinion as relevant to the gun debate, it's up to you to explain why I should.

[DonaldD]

You also need to address that most of the "deaths" are not homicides

Are you suggesting that the statistics I listed above for "intentional homicides" include deaths that are not homicides?

[DonaldD]

If it helps you understand what I wrote earlier, I suggested that instilling an aversion to the ownership and use of firearms in the USA, and reducing the number of firearms in the population, would lead to reduced incidence of the use of guns against people in the USA.

I said nothing about generalized violence, which your posts are consistently steering back towards.