https://www.wsj.com/articles/young-...-mental-illness-11653514326?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Young Men, Guns and Guardrails Stopping mass shooters like the one in Uvalde, Texas, will be harder than passing a law. By The Editorial Board May 25, 2022 6:39 pm ET The massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday has produced the usual demands to “do something.” We share the impulse and the anger, but what specifically to do? The reason there are more demands than solutions is because the problem of how to stop mass shootings by disturbed young men is one of the hardest in a democratic society. The profile emerging of Salvador Ramos, the 18-year-old who killed 19 children and two teachers, is depressingly familiar. A teenage loner with a disruptive family life. Bullied as a child because of a speech impediment. Immersed in video games and other virtual reality. Ramos, who was killed amid his massacre, had fought with his mother and hinted at violent ambitions. He shot his grandmother before he drove to the school and murdered children with a rifle in a fourth-grade classroom. This is achingly similar to the profile of other young mass killers from Sandy Hook to Aurora, Parkland, Tucson, Virginia Tech and Buffalo. They suffer from some mental illness or profound social alienation. The societal challenge is anticipating when such a young man—and it is nearly always a young man—will snap, and how and when to deny him access to firearms. As he often does, Barack Obama summed up the single-minded response of the progressive side of American politics. “Nearly ten years after Sandy Hook—and ten days after Buffalo—our country is paralyzed,” he wrote on Twitter,“not by fear, but by a gun lobby and a political party that have shown no willingness to act in any way that might help prevent these tragedies.” He continued: “It’s long past time for action, any kind of action.” Leave it to the former President to demonize his political opponents in the wake of an act of madness. But note his default to “action, any kind of action.” Anything apparently will do as long as it offers the self-satisfaction that we are doing something, even if it turns out to be futile or counter-productive. We aren’t opposed to sensible gun regulation if it is politically possible and might prevent such killings. So-called red-flag laws that give police the ability to deny guns to people who may pose a risk to the community have been useful in some cases. But they are hard to enforce, as we recently learned in Buffalo. New York state has a red-flag statute, and Payton Gendron was even referred for mental counseling. He still got a gun. Would background checks beyond those that already exist help? Unlikely, since these young men rarely have a criminal record. A six-day waiting period to receive a gun after it’s purchased? Not for someone who is determined to kill. A ban on purchasing a rifle until the age of 21? As Gov. Greg Abbott pointed out Wednesday, 18-year-olds have been able to buy long guns in Texas for more than 60 years. Yet for decades mass shootings were rare. A ban on some or all long guns would still leave handguns available, and good luck enforcing a ban. Every political effort to control gun sales spurs a new surge in gun purchases. If you think society is polarized now, try banning or confiscating most guns as Australia has. *** The recent proliferation of mass shootings suggests a deeper malady than gun laws can fix. Firearm laws were few and weak before the 1970s. Yet only in recent decades have young men entered schools and supermarkets for the purpose of killing the innocent. That a teenager could look at a nine-year-old, aim a gun, and pull the trigger signals some larger social and cultural breakdown. It also suggests that society may have to adapt by rethinking our hands-off attitudes to antisocial behavior and mental illness. Security at schools and churches will need to be enhanced. Big Data may help law enforcement identify potential risks, and we may need to give them freer rein to intervene in borderline cases. A return to more social sanction and intervention for antisocial behavior would also help the vulnerable and lost who most need help. The modern welfare state is adept at writing checks, but not much else. Today’s young killers aren’t motivated by material deprivation. They are typically from middle-class families with access to smartphones and X-boxes. Their deficit is social and spiritual. The rise of family dysfunction and the decline of mediating institutions such as churches and social clubs have consequences. This cultural erosion will take years to repair, but a good start would be to admit that it plays a role in the increasing acts of insensate violence. It would also help if someone brave enough to mention the problem—recall Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore —isn’t derided as a cultural dinosaur. We are fated to have another debate on gun control because half of American politics will insist on it. By all means have at it. But anyone who thinks gun laws will end mass shootings in America isn’t paying attention to the much larger problem of mental illness and the collapse of cultural guardrails. Appeared in the May 26, 2022, print edition.
Just so you are clear about what you are asking for. Under your dream scenario, this kid bringing an AR or AK47 to the school would be perfectly legal and the cops could do absolutely nothing until he starts shooting. This is the kind of batsh$t crazy nonsense the people you vote for want.
OF COURSE it’ll be harder than that. But doing nothing is 1000 times worse and at this point is being complicit in the murders. If your only response is it’s too hard let’s do nothing and rage at those who actually want to do something you are complicit.
Okay so then the issue is police response training??? Then F-ing do something about it. Call Gregg Abbott and Ted Cruz’s office today and tell them you demand they reform policing tactics to better protect schools. Do f-ing something. You are a gun lover… great… but do something instead of b****ing about Democrats who at least want to try instead of just offering thoughts and prayers.
So many of these arguments are phrased as "because this can't stop all shootings we shouldn't do anything". Yes even with expanded background checks, "assault weapons" bans, and any number of laws being proposed we will still have shootings. We have too many firearms out there and too many ways of getting them. The problem with the attitude that because the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters still might've passed background checks mean they wouldn't work would be like saying that because we still have drunk drivers that drunk driving laws don't work. No one though seriously would say we should just do away with drunk driving laws and instead we should instead just rely on hardening our cars more or teach people aggressive driving tactics like what LE do to take out potential dangerous drivers. No one would seriously consider that driving safety is mostly up to drivers so we shouldn't have laws to prevent impaired drivers. No law is 100% effective. If so we wouldn't still have murders. There still can be steps taken to address what is truly a crisis of firearm crime in this country.
Also yes we have a mental health problem but this country is terrible when it comes to treating and providing access to mental health. Yet for all the talk of "mental health" we see little improvement regarding providing access and funding to treat mental health.
I agree and to further expand on the pursuit of saving lives - many people use the same argument about the border crisis which takes much more lives exponentially including innocent children. We can’t stop every drug but if we make it harder thru more surveillance, complete and actual walls, and focused crackdowns on problem areas, then we can make a difference absolutely We have multiple crisis going on and if the goal is to save lives regardless of political inclination then I’m on board. If you can agree on greater border control then I will meet you in the middle with greater gun control because this shows me it’s actually about saving lives. Shake hands?
That's a different subject, I mean a lot of people are dying from pollution so let's agree to mandating stricter air quality legislation including much more on coal plants. Agree shake hands? To answer you directly yes we should be addressing the fentanyl crisis. Border security can help (not a wall but things like better custom enforcement and surveillance systems along with regulation of quality of legal imported drugs as a big problem is adulteration of legal drugs with fentenyl) but with other drugs outbreaks treatment can do more at less cost than enforcement. The good thing is we can address multiple problems. Just saying that well there are these other problems so we aren't going to do anything about one problem well then we might as well do nothing about anything.
the gun law changes in australia worked because it changed the gun culture. it was the conservative party/govt at the time that took the initiative to make those changes. the gop and the size of the gun industry both domestic and exports makes it too hard for change.
I disagree it’s a different subject if it’s about the subject of saving lives, if we are serious about saving lives then don’t backtrack on doing everything we can if it’s not politically savvy - I liked your tangent you had there. Don’t stop or you will be exactly what you was against I absolutely agree we have multiple crisis going on besides devastating inflation that can impact livelihoods further stressing mental health which you spoke of I propose we actually do handle multiple crisis issues but we prioritize based on numerical dangers in the name of saving lives
So why aren't you advocating doing anything on air pollution or lack of clean drinking water? Those kill far more around the World than fentanyl? Why aren't you doing more about heart disease which kill many many more than fentanyl? We can keep on going on with this and I can call you as much of a hypocrite as you are accusing others. That's not going to get anything done but that is just another reason why nothing ever get's done.
To address things directly this isn't a change in laws but in my field we are trying to deal with the situation of school shootings through better design. Most of today I will be working on a high school project where we will be using some of these design ideas. From working on schools there are fundamental problems though with relying on design to stop school shootings. We could make our schools bunkers or like Japanese castle design build in traps blind approaches to make them difficult to invade but I doubt anyone would want to send their kids to a school like that. As architects we simultaneously have to deal with the desire for more open schooling that is a more inviting learning environment. That makes it much harder to secure school and prevent them from attack. https://www.aia.org/articles/201346-architects-prioritize-design-as-a-school-se
Their argument equates to, "Well since laws don't stop ALL criminal behavior, there's no point to having laws"
As much as we would love to solve the world problems, we can’t control what happens in other countries- Let’s control what we can and that starts within our country. There is only two things you can control in this world: Effort and Attitude. My attitude is we find out what the real issue is then we handle the threats by putting effort on what the greatest threat is as a quantitative priority. What we really regret more than anything is needless loss of life especially children. Fair? ok if we can at least agree on that then we put all the risks and multiple crisis together and we treat it in a common sense manner. Prioritizing the multiple crisis on the impact of saving lives makes absolute common sense. Doing otherwise makes little sense. Here’s the other side benefit behind my plan. If you get behind saving lives by addressing the border crisis that affects so many more lives. YOU put the narrative that it’s all about saving lives and you are willing to address the issue in a logical way free of political implications…now it’s logical to address what’s next. imagine how that might change hearts and minds but even if it doesn’t…even if it doesn’t…it’s still a start that saves many many lives including innocent children by a exponential margin again, if you want to tackle both subject issues with the goal of saving lives ..by all means do so. But let’s actually do both …let’s do them all. We hate school shootings because we want to save lives. Let’s save lives and do what makes sense What makes sense is do and address everything but if one is to be targeted then let’s put in order what is the greatest threat to lives and descend in that order. This is how we solve issues but I get it there is political clout that affects both gun control and border control from opposing spectrums. The end result is children die due to that gridlock mindset.
Solving these problems take a full court press. People aren't realizing that a lot of these issues are related. Bullying, lack of mental health and health care in general, economically disadvantaged, lack of support resources, lack of mentorship and role models for kids, and yes, the crazy availability of guns capable of mass murder. You can't just say, "oh this is a mental health problem". People want to argue that guns don't kill people, people do. But they leave out that they can't kill people nearly as easily without guns. If you ban guns, these mass murders do stop. That's obviously clear. If you want to keep guns, then you have to accept gun control as the wide availability of it just make it's too easy for deranged individuals to get access. If you want to say let's focus on mental health - than you need a plan to do that, you can't just deflect the problem to one small piece of the equation.
Clearly the mental health situation in this country is out of control...we've got tens of millions of people who think it's a great idea--hell, a birthright--to have people walking around with devices that have the primary function of killing people.
The most common sense law to me would be raising the age to buy to 21. 1.) Most of the shooters seem to be in that age range of around 18ish. The kids will have a couple of years to cool down after being removed from whatever grade school nonsense was tormenting them. 2.) It's easy to enforce. There's no subjective, expensive, time-consuming background check or problematic "red flags" that requires much effort. It's simply looking at a birthday on an ID card. 3.) The political downside seems minimal. 18 to 20 years old being enraged about not being to purchase their own gun doesn't seem like a huge political force. I also can't imagine there being a huge adult contingent being upset that their own 18-20 old year kids can't purchase a gun without them knowing.
I agree, this literally takes no effort to do and could be done with the flick of a pen.............but it wont happen if you believe this type of poll which I posted in the other thread https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/republicans-gun-control-uvalde/index.html
Yeah. I take this one back a little bit, and I think it's probably the main thing that will keep this from happening. It's not that there's ANY significant, real-world interest in by Republicans to allows 18-20 year olds the ability to buy guy guns. However, there is a huge political interest to avoid giving the other party a perceived "win." "Will Democrats Big Win On Gun Control Affect Mid-terms?" I can see the headline now if any law like this is passed. Any small concession by one party is perceived (at least in the media) as a HUGE WIN for the other party. It probably is the main reason a law like this won't happen.
There can be changes and sacrifices in multiple arenas: -Gun access laws -Gun safety education requirements -Gun liability laws Texas SB8 abortion style -Medicaid expansion to dramatically increase mental health coverage -Punitive age restrictions on violence in games and TV -Lower threshold to hold someone for long term in a mental facility -Close society where we have more guarded gates like we're living in a war zone. Some of those ideas are crazier than others, but you have to decide on which tradeoffs to accept. I enjoy my guns, but I swear if Jesus himself came back to Earth to say that less guns would be better, some gun lovers would claim he's the Devil here to trick us.
