Active shooter at Texas elementary school

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,326
33,377
1,743
oklahoma city
The assault weapons ban went into effect in late 1994 and lasted for 10 years. According to your chart, we averaged 1.9 mass shootings per year over that period. In the 10 years prior, we averaged 1.8 mass shootings per year.

IMO, the primary reason we've seen an explosion in mass shootings is due to the fact that we now make the shooters famous. There seems to be a significant correlation between mass shootings and the rise of social media.

View attachment 95782
Social media is a worldwide phenomenon. Why would it only cause this issue to accelerate in a single country?
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,162
408
213
59
Broken Arrow
But then why do mass shootings increase while the murder rate has stayed mostly flat since 2004? I'm not saying it's all about ARs and high capacity magazines either. I would make two larger points, though. First, these are probably the best kind of data we'll have and they definitely look like there is an effect. Second, some things won't have great data and you'll have to be specific about whether you think overall gun deaths will decrease or just mass shootings. I think most of these proposals won't reduce overall gun deaths much, but could have an impact on mass shootings. It sure seems like most of these are teenage boys with relatively recently purchased/gifted weapons and frequently brushed off concerns. Maybe these approaches don't eliminate them, but reducing them even by 50% would be a big deal.
I think 50% is a bit optimistic, but I certainly think a smaller percent change could be a short-term result. That being said, I also still believe criminals/evil people will continue to obtain firearms illegally, it’s what they do. Hardening of schools and addressing mental health should be priorities IMHO.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,182
17,466
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I hear people say things like "we can't just do nothing".....Well I hate to break it to people but diving back into the same old gun control debate IS doing nothing. We know this because we have done it time and time and time again and we are never going to agree on this topic. So why can't we focus on things we CAN agree on. Better mental health, making schools harder targets, training adults on the warning signs to look for, having social media do better at looking for the warning signs, have celebrities that young kids look up to speak out against bullying and for the love of pete can the corporations that own our media just agree with each other to not try and gain ratings by making these shooters famous. (actually that's probably going to take all of us turning them off when they try it).

But sadly it's already started, I guess it's just inevitable....we will bang our heads against each others ideological brick walls and for some reason expect a different outcome. And of course the politicians in DC are more than willing to stoke the fire of that debate because they want us divided and arguing.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2011
3,843
1,700
1,743
Charleston, SC
The assault weapons ban went into effect in late 1994 and lasted for 10 years. According to your chart, we averaged 1.9 mass shootings per year over that period. In the 10 years prior, we averaged 1.8 mass shootings per year.

IMO, the primary reason we've seen an explosion in mass shootings is due to the fact that we now make the shooters famous. There seems to be a significant correlation between mass shootings and the rise of social media.

View attachment 95782
Maybe, but that doesn't seem to correlate well with the mass shooting data since usage peaked around 2016 and has stayed flat whereas mass shootings continued increasing after and then have fallen slightly in the last couple of years. Social media use also increased globally, but no other developed country saw this kind or increase.

Nevertheless, I'm 100% on board for more restrictions on social media for teens. Even outside of this conversation, it is a net harm that needs to be mitigated, especially for teenage girls. If placing more restrictions on social media gets you on board for some other things I mentioned, let's do it.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Maybe, but that doesn't seem to correlate well with the mass shooting data since usage peaked around 2016 and has stayed flat whereas mass shootings continued increasing after and then have fallen slightly in the last couple of years. Social media use also increased globally, but no other developed country saw this kind or increase.

Nevertheless, I'm 100% on board for more restrictions on social media for teens. Even outside of this conversation, it is a net harm that needs to be mitigated, especially for teenage girls. If placing more restrictions on social media gets you on board for some other things I mentioned, let's do it.
I need to dig a little deeper on this issue. I'm not sure where Statista pulled those numbers from, but they're wildly inaccurate. There have already been over 200 mass shootings so far this year. Most are largely ignored due to where they occur.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/why-cant-america-stop-mass-shootings-gun-control
1653530788748.png
 
May 4, 2011
3,843
1,700
1,743
Charleston, SC
I hear people say things like "we can't just do nothing".....Well I hate to break it to people but diving back into the same old gun control debate IS doing nothing. We know this because we have done it time and time and time again and we are never going to agree on this topic. So why can't we focus on things we CAN agree on. Better mental health, making schools harder targets, training adults on the warning signs to look for, having social media do better at looking for the warning signs, have celebrities that young kids look up to speak out against bullying and for the love of pete can the corporations that own our media just agree with each other to not try and gain ratings by making these shooters famous. (actually that's probably going to take all of us turning them off when they try it).

But sadly it's already started, I guess it's just inevitable....we will bang our heads against each others ideological brick walls and for some reason expect a different outcome. And of course the politicians in DC are more than willing to stoke the fire of that debate because they want us divided and arguing.
I don't think we actually agree on better mental health. The public mental health system has been almost completely shuttered and no one seems to have the appetite to fund it. Insurance companies often fight mental health reimbursement either directly or through their policies. If you want to fund those public options and force insurance companies to reimburse at higher rates for more services, let's figure out how to get that paid for. Let's also fund more prevention. I'm biased, but that is a "hub" issue that has knock on effects on a variety of outcomes.
 
May 4, 2011
3,843
1,700
1,743
Charleston, SC
I need to dig a little deeper on this issue. I'm not sure where Statista pulled those numbers from, but they're wildly inaccurate. There have already been over 200 mass shootings so far this year. Most are largely ignored due to where they occur.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/why-cant-america-stop-mass-shootings-gun-control
View attachment 95787
Seems to match these data where at least 3 people have to have been killed.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Seems to match these data where at least 3 people have to have been killed.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
I think I've figured it out. They're cherry-picking certain mass shootings while completely ignoring others.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare
Other researchers, like Mother Jones’ Mark Follman and the Harvard School of Public Health’s Amy P. Cohen, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller use a more restrictive definition, excluding killings related to domestic violence, drugs, or gangs.

It seems that the numbers differ by source depending on how they define a mass shooting. Some define it as 4 or more people killed. Some define it as 3 or more people killed. Some define it as 4 or more people shot. The overall numbers differ greatly by definition.

The link above paints an interesting picture. It seems that the unadjusted number of mass shootings hasn't changed that much over the past few decades. (At least by their definition of the term.)

1653535132827.png
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2006
4,984
2,588
1,743
I have zero idea of why Obama would bring up George Floyd instead of focusing on the pain of Uvalde parents.
https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1529555038246428672?s=21&t=JDmCIkup39OD6QixWpxUMQ
 
May 4, 2011
3,843
1,700
1,743
Charleston, SC
I think I've figured it out. They're cherry-picking certain mass shootings while completely ignoring others.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare
Other researchers, like Mother Jones’ Mark Follman and the Harvard School of Public Health’s Amy P. Cohen, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller use a more restrictive definition, excluding killings related to domestic violence, drugs, or gangs.

It seems that the numbers differ by source depending on how they a mass shooting. Some define it as 4 or more people killed. Some define it as 3 or more people killed. Some define it as 4 or more people shot. The overall number differs greatly by definition.

The link above paints an interesting picture. It seems that the unadjusted number of mass shootings hasn't changed that much over the past few decades.

View attachment 95792
Those definitions certainly imply different things. I'd guess most of us think of a mass shooting as one where several people die or at least those are the ones that we pay any real attention to. That seems to be what we're discussing here. Those other situations are worth attention, too, but I'm guessing they'll require different solutions.
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
21,349
11,615
1,743
42
Fairmont, MN
Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
.
Then why do some politicians use crime in big cities as a talking point? Chicago was mentioned earlier here and locally people point to Minneapolis as a place where getting mugged as something likely if you are on the streets there.

I'm not trying to make a point about gun violence. Suicide, homicide, or the tragedy we are talking about-its all bad and regardless of how anyone feels about gun control we all agree that something should be done to prevent it.

But 3 days ago there was a conservative talking point about how big cities have a gun problem and people are dying from it. We experience a major tragedy and the talking point changes to it's getting better and it's been getting better for decades? You just posted the article so I'm not calling you out personally but in general you can't say crime in cities is an issue that needs to be addressed now and turn around and say crime in cities is getting better.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Social media is a worldwide phenomenon. Why would it only cause this issue to accelerate in a single country?
I've never really studied international mass shootings, but I've always heard that this issue is largely unique to the US. Even in other countries with high levels of civilian firearm ownership, our mass shooting numbers are much higher.

The chart I posted above shows that the overall number of mass shootings in the US are largely unchanged over the past few decades, but the number or high profile mass shootings like school shootings have been increasing. Why do you believe we're seeing this increase?

In my mind, the most logical reason is that these people want to gain fame as they check out of this life. Mass shootings and social media provide that opportunity. I could be wrong though. I don't have a real firm understanding of why people choose to commit these heinous acts.
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
21,349
11,615
1,743
42
Fairmont, MN
I agree that we have a problem and we need change. That being said, it's important to understand that 77% of mass shootings are done with common handguns. Banning rifles like the AR-15 won't stop them.
But 33% of them involve AR's.

Totally hot take here. In no way am I saying we need to ban handguns or rifles and shotguns used for hunting. If you want personal protection or look forward to deer season I'm all about it. As a kid my preference was duck hunting but I spent plenty of time in a deer stand so this isn't someone wanting to ban guns.

The thing about an AR, it wouldn't have been banned in 1994 so it's not defined as an assault rifle. But we have a generation or two who grew up playing video games with cool weapons and it looks cool. Heck, when I was a kid bb guns looked like standard rifles. You pump you shoot and it was fun. A few years ago my former BIL and I were in a local sporting goods store and the bb guns we saw looked like assault rifles but they shot plastic bullets instead of lead or copper. I thought it was funny at the time because the guns looked way more lethal but were way less likely to shoot out an eye. But a generation of kids grew up shooting them because they looked cool and yesterday a kid who probably had one when he was 10 killed a bunch of 10 year olds with a gun he thought was cool.

Again I'm not a person that wants to ban guns but maybe we stop making this one. It really serves no purpose other than it looks cool. No one is going hunting with it and it's unreliable for self defense. But it is slick looking. If you own one privately that's fine. Stop making them and it becomes more valuable in your collection, but that also means you aren't likely to sell it to a kid who wants to do something stupid.

It doesn't solve the problem but it keeps kids with issues from getting their hands on one.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,326
33,377
1,743
oklahoma city
Interesting read.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/here-are-8-stubborn-facts-gun-violence-america

Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:

Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data. Here’s a deeper look.
That article is 3 years old. The homicide rate is at a 25 year high.
Screen Shot 2022-05-25 at 11.18.30 PM.png
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,622
1,929
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
Gun owner here who would like to see the following: increased age limits, waiting periods, background checks and potentially training requirements for anything more dangerous than a .22.
Right, especially for age limits. A high percentage maybe even the majority of mass shootings are done by males between age 18 and 20. Decades ago, our country found the will to raise the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21, due to the drunken carnage the under 21 age group was doing on the roads. Why not do the same for buying a gun?

Age 18 to 20 is when mental illness, like schizophrenia starts for some young males. Surely, society needs to find a way to better screen them for that mental illness.
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
8,974
4,437
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
I have a close relative that suffers from pretty severe and erratic mental illness. They are sometimes dangerous to be around, and we all desperately want them to get help. However.....we can't do much, no matter how scary they get. The police have been involved countless times, but they can't do anything unless the individual breaks a law. On the mental health side, we can't force the individual to get help, because they are over 18 years old. That means the only avenue to get mental health treatment is if the individual recognizes their illness and is willing to seek treatment on their own. In our case, the individual knows they are ill, but has so far been unwilling to seek help, because they are obsessively paranoid and don't trust the government, medical doctors, or anyone.

I agree with the premise that families and friends should be involved in mental illness cases, but I'm also actively involved in a similar situation, and there is LITERALLY nothing we can do. There are times we wish that the individual could do something bad enough to be taken away, but not bad enough to kill someone so that treatment might be forced, but so far that hasn't happened. It's a very challenging situation, and so far we've found no solutions except to actively love the person, know the person, and just hope for the best.

Basically the system only intervenes if someone gets hurt or the mentally ill person somehow seeks help on their own. There are no other options. You could try stealing their guns, but what do you think that would do to an already unstable person???
That's a very difficult situation. At a bare minimum, your relative's name should be on a registry making sure they are not allowed to purchase a gun of any kind. The shooter in Texas was sent to a psychiatric facility by the school counselor but later released. That alone should have put him on the list for ineligibility to purchase a firearm. I had to wait a couple of weeks to purchase a handgun while the background check was processed. I am not really understanding how this kid could walk in the same day and buy all that ammo and two AK47's or AR15's or whatever he bought. That's major system failure on multiple levels. Understanding that you can't completely stop a deranged individual from doing harm, we need to do our best to take measures to fix this including a major review and tightening of the process to purchase a weapon but also a sincere examination of how on earth an individual gets to the mental state that he would kill his own grandmother and then decide to go to a school and slaughter a bunch of 7, 8 and 9 year old kids. That's a sick mental state beyond John Wayne Gacy. I'm ready to have a conversation about how we can tighten the gun buying process but that alone isn't enough. Why is it taboo to examine and admit that video games like "Dead by Daylight" (which this guy played and lost just prior to the massacre) should not be allowed to exist. Movies that glorify this type of behavior should not be made or promoted. Why does everyone kneejerk to taking guns away from law abiding citizens but refuse to even entertain a discussion about the ways we are brainwashing and programming the minds of these mass shooting perpetrators. If we really care about these murdered kids we need to look at all the reasons that lead to these atrocities.
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2020
2,162
408
213
59
Broken Arrow
Seems to match these data where at least 3 people have to have been killed.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
And looking through that list, I believe most of those were planned and took place at virtually unsecured targets.
Those definitions certainly imply different things. I'd guess most of us think of a mass shooting as one where several people die or at least those are the ones that we pay any real attention to. That seems to be what we're discussing here. Those other situations are worth attention, too, but I'm guessing they'll require different solutions.
I wish there was an easy answer to all of this mess.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,182
17,466
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I don't think we actually agree on better mental health. The public mental health system has been almost completely shuttered and no one seems to have the appetite to fund it. Insurance companies often fight mental health reimbursement either directly or through their policies. If you want to fund those public options and force insurance companies to reimburse at higher rates for more services, let's figure out how to get that paid for. Let's also fund more prevention. I'm biased, but that is a "hub" issue that has knock on effects on a variety of outcomes.
Maybe you're right but it's at least a debate we haven't had multiple times like gun control. We all know every argument that both sides are going to use on that one. Maybe a different debate to discover if and where common ground might be found will be beneficial.

Plus I actually think mental health is by far the most important discussion to have about this. I doubt that the mere availability of guns is the thing that is breaking these kids mentally. Regardless of anything we do or don't do about guns, we need to find out what is causing this and address it. Because guns aren't the only things that can be used to cause mass casualties.