stuart,

Schools do a ton about bullying, at least where we live. My sense is that kids are far more civilized than they were when I was a kid. I am actually very impressed by it.

I don't know if the bullying causes psychopathy or if they are bullied because of their psychopathy.

Also, it can never be eradicated. Look at grownups.

This won't happen, I'm sure -- but, the focus for gun control needs to be put back on the manufacturers of guns to prevent the production of anything more powerful than a handgun (then, add controls on selling those) .

Why is there a market for assault rifles? If fulfills that action hero/macho man stereotype fantasy. They fire carelessly, in a spray of ammunition, increasing their chances of hitting a target.

I don't think these killers are so much mentally unstable as much as they are harboring the fantasy of using power over others. Killing, bullying, sexual harassment are about power over others.

A handgun requires skill to hit a target, but at the same time, it shouldn't fall into the hands of criminals, children, etc.

During my first marriage, my sister-in-law's estranged husband left phone messages threatening to kill us and we knew he was serious and would try.

We lived isolated from the road on a 16-acre farm in the woods and had never owned a gun until then. So, we trained to use (back then) a standard police issue S&W 686 revolver.

Written tests. Gun safety tests. A letter from the sheriff's department of my county was required to get a gun permit -- stating that I'd never broken the law. Now, what was so hard about all that? And, if in the 1980s, I had to do that, why not now?

BTW -- The man went to prison (where he died) for shooting into the home of their friends who'd taken my SIL's side of the divorce. Once the threat was gone, we turned in the gun because our son was 8 years old at the time and we didn't want him around it -- even though we used a trigger lock and stored the ammunition in a separate location under lock.

Our police departments allow you to turn in a gun, but they don't pay you.

Another point -- to drive a car, one needs training. A limited permit, then a license. Then, the license has to be renewed every few years. Why not do that for guns?

My goodness, DYH, that is a terrible story.

I would love to see this idea to fruition. Best idea I have seen to initiate change! Posted on fb yesterday.

Hello teachers, please organize. Walk out. Don’t go back to work until the guns are gone. Shut it down. Nationwide. Preschool to college. Paralyze the country. Demand the right to your own beautiful, nurturing life. Insist that our children will not die in your classrooms. Silence equals more death. Lead by example. Shut it down. Organize. Stop prepping for the day the gun comes to you. Your lockdown drills are not helping. Teach us that all those slain children’s lives mattered. Your life matters. Our children’s lives matter. Be epic. Be the change. I’ve got your back. Don’t fear for your jobs. Send my children home. I won’t complain. I would rather keep them home than ID their bodies after our nation’s next school shooting.

Maybe it's all an elaborate plot to further destroy our public school systems...

Doncha know guns in schools protect against grizzly bears?

People have been pointing out that here in FL you have to be 18 to obtain a handgun, but not to obtain an AR-15. Believe it or not, those are considered hunting weapons (?)

So yes, it is about laws, I think.

Certainly a good start would be not overturning safety laws we already had in place...

And asking ALL teachers to sacrifice their livelihoods? How would that work, exactly?

If it is a union backed strike they will not lose pay. Might have to work til end of june. The teacher's union is a political lobbying group on equal par as the NRA. It might take other lobbyists to bring down the NRA.

X-post from original thread

This is making the rounds on Facebook. Hope it's organized and promoted so Students and concerned citizens can join in. Please feel free to copy and share.

"David Berliner issued the following call for a national teachers’ strike on May 1. Teachers are now first responders, trained to protect their students if a shooter gets in the building. Some have given their lives for their students. Parents should join teachers. Enough is enough.

Berliner writes:

”It is way past time. Between now and May 1st teachers have to agree on the gun legislation they want. They can consult with Giffords and Kelly, and others who have suffered, such as the parents who have already lost children to this horrible characteristic of our culture. If by May 1st they have not received assurance that their legislation for sanity in gun ownership will be acted on soon, they need to walk out of our schools. It would be May Day, when workers should exert their strength.

“Our country’s legislators, and the voters who send them to make our laws, can then choose: Teachers and (most) parents for sane gun laws, or, the NRA that provides our legislators money to avoid making the laws that could reduce the carnage we see too frequently.

“Almost all of America’s 3 million teachers— nurturers and guardians of our youth– want sensible gun laws. They deserve that. But they have to be ready to exert the power they have by walking out of their schools if they do not get what they want. They have to exert the reputational power that 3 million of our most admired voters have. Neither the NRA nor their legislative puppets will be able stand up to that. My advice is to start meeting now, write model legislation, submit it to state and federal legislators, and if rebuffed, close down our schools until you get what you (and the rest of us) deserve.”

Save our children.

PS: There is no link. He sent this message to me. We are in despair."

All mine are out of high school but I work in one. Brand new multimillion-dollar building designed to give students a "college experience". But no, no metal detectors. We are still under construction so we do not presently even have a plan for dealing with an intruder. I work in a program that's sole purpose is to deal with mental/emotional struggles of teens. 15 years now. Things are not getting better. As society and families fall apart, and social media takes over stress, anxiety, self-worth issues all GROW and overwhelm more and more students each year. Gun control? I am neutral in my opinion if that would save us. What I know for sure; unless or until we get more people on board to deal with families in crisis, chemical use, social media's stronghold this will continue to be an issue.

A friend who is very familiar with this issue told me that she believes a key to changing things is getting this law overturned.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/gun-industry-immunity/

arcy, right on!

Heck, even the parents are addicted to social media. I think social media is the biggest culprit. It puts us humans in mostly a superficial level of connecting with people. Missing a viable part of empathy.

Arcy and olliesmom, these family stresses, divorced families, drug use, social media, bullying, video games, mental illness exist in the same numbers in England, Canada, Austalia, every where but because of better gun control these incidents are almost non existent in the rest of the civilized world. Our problem is that we have guns legally accessible to people who are too young to drink! We have guns that are not tools but rather weapons of mass destruction! We have guns uncontrolled and until we control our gun laws no amount of focus on family values will change what happens weekly in this country.

Taxasjana, good old Bernie Sander's supported these bills just to show how this issue is not about republican vs democrats.

I have been home sick for 3 days and absolutely dread going back to the high school I teach at after school vacation.

All too true:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/15/next/ElwL1QCJNjPhwoA849M66I/story.html?event=event12

WE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT

Parkland. Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. Newtown. On and on: In America, mass shootings have become so familiar that they seem to follow the same sad script.

By Nestor Ramos, Globe StaffFebruary 16, 2018

He will be a man, or maybe still a boy.

He will have a semiautomatic rifle — an AR-15, or something like it — and several high-capacity magazines filled with ammunition.

The weapon will have been purchased legally, the background check no obstacle.

He will walk into a school, or a concert, or an office building.

And he will open fire into a crowd of innocents.

Even as he’s still firing — crack crack crack — word will begin to spread. Survivors huddled in closets or behind bandstands will send pictures, text messages, and videos into a world that is again aghast.

Televisions will play the videos recorded amid the carnage, the sound somehow worse than the images. The fear in the victims’ voices will be familiar, yet too potent — a sound outside the boundaries of our own empathy.

We will hear about the heroes: Teachers who barricaded their classrooms or threw themselves between their students and the gunfire; concertgoers who shielded strangers as bullets plowed into their backs.

And we will hear about him: He was strange and troubled and cruel to animals; he’d shown signs of mental illness; he lost his job; he beat his wife.

A chorus will rise to ask why anybody should own such a weapon, much less someone so obviously troubled; another chorus will accuse the first of politicizing tragedy. Some will point to the Second Amendment, and blame a lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

Politicians, and then the president, will emerge. Some will plead for new laws. More will ask only for thoughts and prayers. Some will not mention guns at all.

Any promises will be broken. Beyond the shattered orbit of the school or church or concert that became a shooting gallery, the whole thing will recede too soon into memory.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.Enter email address:

Sign Up

And then it will all happen again.

Whoever he is, he may already have the rifle. And he will follow the script.

So will we.

There are only three things we don’t know about the next time:

WHO, WHERE, AND HOW MANY?

Nestor Ramos can be reached at nestor.ramos@globe.com
Follow him on Twitter @NestorARamos

Thank goodness someone was on the ball here. I don't know what else to say.

http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Vt-teen-accused-of-plotting-school-shooting-due-in-court-474302503.html

I am not seeing the point of arguing about gun control. America is what it is and that is what we have to deal with. What we can affect is our children. The literature does not bear out your statement about other countries roarah. This is all about how we raise kids and our ability to deal with stress. No other country abdicates the raising of children, the instilling of values the way we do. Our moral compass is gone awry and our teens are showing it. Confusion as to right/wrong has been completely distorted. We have decided being kind is more vital than being loving. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is to tell someone, sorry but THAT behavior is not typical, it is not ok, is not healthy--whatever. Instead, we go with "don't judge", in the name of being respectful. It isn't working!!! Most often these shooters have BEGGED for attention, help for YEARS. All I am suggesting is that we attend to their needs back when we first notice they are "odd". Let's pay attention to how our kids are learning and dealing with their emotions. Let's engage them and guide them. Boundaries on most things are good for children. Brains, the frontal lobe where morals are solidified do not fully develop until about 25+. We need to put some limits on the choice we allow/push them to make!! Like when they were swaddled as infants, boundaries keep them feeling safe, keep them from leaning on peers who do not have the history needed to give advise. Keep them from thinking they have enough information to make permanent decisions. OFTEN times "this too will pass" is a more appropriate assumption. These teens are often raising themselves. Finding their way in packs or alone. THAT isn't working!! Sure get rid of the guns, but if we stop there and do not get to the cause, then we have failed our kids.

I believe those of us advocating for sensible gun controls are more than willing to include mental health and related issues in the discussion of how we, as a nation, come to grips with this serious problem. I just don't understand why so many fellow Americans REFUSE out of hand to include gun control in the discussion. Mind boggling.

A student, teacher, parent walkout is scheduled for April 20, columbine' anniversary my family will partake. https://networkforpubliceducation.org/2018/02/join-us-day-action-stop-gun-violence-schools/

I am not seeing the point of arguing about gun control. America is what it is and that is what we have to deal with.

I disagree.

Arcy, the point of our constitution is that our country can change and amend for the times. With your attitude I, as a woman and my non white family members, would still be second class citizens without a vote! It is well past the time we need to explore and change our present gun culture and laws.

The US has liberalized gun laws repeatedly over the years. There is nothing traditional about the state of gun laws in America today. The gun toting as American as mom-and-apple-pie mentality is a myth. (See Ronald Reagan's speeches about the Mulford Act in California.)

What we can control in this situation is our laws, not people's parenting choices.

Leadership means making unpopular decisions because they are for the best in the long run. Ironically, this act of leadership reminds me a lot of being a good parent, setting limits for the safety of our young. This is the "it takes a village" act that is needed.

Just read this article from USA Today...

Why active shooter drills didn’t help in the Florida high school shooting

roarah, I'm all for changing our gun laws! I just see that is not the "root" of the problem with these shooters.

Anybody else know about the Tiahrt Amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiahrt_Amendment

"The Tiahrt Amendment is a provision of the U.S. Department of Justice appropriations bill that prohibits the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation.[1] This precludes gun trace data from being used in academic research of gun use in crime.[1] Additionally, the law blocks any data legally released from being admissible in civil lawsuits against gun sellers or manufacturers.[1]

Some groups, including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, believe that having further access to the ATF database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.[2] Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (which represents the 69 largest police departments in the United States), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP),[3] the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Police Foundation, the Chiefs of Police of nearly every major city in California, and others."

To answer eld's original questions, I have three kids still in middle/high school. My middle schooler and one of my high schoolers are on the same campus of a private school that has multiple buildings. It is two blocks from our state capital building and all of our legislative buildings in our quaint, historic town that is visited by many tourists. So there are always people walking by campus and occasionally some unwelcome people have ventured onto the school grounds. After a few incidents a few years ago where a mentally disturbed man came on campus a couple of times, the school installed a security system and all exterior doors are locked. Without a key card, you have to get buzzed in to any building which are monitored via video camera. The grammar school has one set of cameras and the h.s. another. Visitors at both schools must first enter at the respective offices to obtain a pass. It's certainly not foolproof but I don't think any system is. Students at the grammar school are accompanied by teachers with a key card if they need to go from one building to another. High schoolers have their own key cards.

My other son is a freshman at an inner city private h.s. It is located in what my husband's company calls a "red zone" - he is in risk management and one of their products is an app that will alert you if you are traveling in a dangerous area. So yeah, my son's school is in one. It's basically just a low-income area that has a lot of drug related activity. His school is over 100 years old, a beautiful campus, but over the years the surrounding neighborhood deteriorated. As such, his school has a full time security patrol, my guess would be more to keep out someone who might break into cars, etc. I don't even know if all the buildings are kept locked - they have many building with many entrances. I don't think my son has key card so I'm guessing they are kept unlocked. TBH, I have never really worried for his safety, despite the surrounding neighborhood. But then again, I went to college in the South Bronx, so I have seen much worse than where his school is. I actually had to laugh when dh told me it was in a red zone b/c I don't feel unsafe there at all when I go to pick him up. I've driven through much much worse neighborhoods in the city.

A week before Christmas break, my 7th grader told me that a boy in her class had a list of kids that he wanted to shoot and told my daughter's friend that he had a gun. At recess he apparently had a list or letter that he was showing to a group of boys when a teacher intervened and took him to the office. I'm not sure exactly what happened, whether he was expelled or if the parents voluntarily withdrew him. I did not know him but had heard from other parents that he had some social issues, most likely on the autism spectrum, and had trouble making friends, etc. My daughter sat next to him and said that he was obsessed with hunting and the military, that his books were covered in pictures of that nature and that he had spoken to her before about having guns at home and hunting a lot. Honestly, though I realize there are plenty of people around me who own guns that I'm sure I don't even know about, I had not really ever given it much thought. We don't live in an area where hunting is prevalent, but it struck me when dd told me, that you really have no idea what is going on in other people's homes. Who knows if this kid's parents kept guns safely secured from him? But it also makes me wonder, if he really was obsessed w/guns, hunting and the military, and did have social issues with which his parents were aware, why have guns in the house? Perhaps they don't but so often we hear about people (Sandy Hook) who have guns in the home with kids who are obviously unstable. Until this situation at my dd's school, I had not really thought.....it could happen here. You know, "I never really thought it could happen to us." Obviously, it can happen anywhere, but I'd always sort of kept that idea in the back of my mind. Then after what happened with dd's classmate, I realized I can't keep in stored in the back of my mind - it quite possibly could have happened, and God forbid, still could happen, here in our (small) upper middle class private school. On a different note, our public school h.s. and our community is currently suffering from MS-13 gang violence, something that weighs heavily on the minds our of Latino population. Yet it is not getting the attention it deserves, I'm guessing, b/c as long as it's not directly affecting the white community here, then we can sweep it under the rug. The Latino mothers of some of my dd's soccer teammates are very scared about sending their daughters off to h.s. next year. Gang recruitment is not voluntary. My white friends don't have those same fears - they are more concerned with whether their kids get accepted into the IB or STEM programs.

How many of school shooters used guns that were legally theirs? I have not read much about the most recent shooter, but it seems like most of the time they are using their parent's or relatives guns. So what's the point of further gun control? Unless we outlaw guns entirely I don't see how you can prevent criminals from going around established gun sale procedures. And then add mental health questions into the mix, forget it that idea is completely implausible. I don't know what the answer is but the knee jerk demand for further gun control isn't actually going to solve anything.

Reese, the shooter at Parkland bought his AR15 legally a year ago. All that was needed was the money. He had so many problems in school that he wasn't allowed to carry a back pack but was able to legally buy a semi-automatic weapon? That is not ok.

Why does any citizen need an AR15?

How many of school shooters used guns that were legally theirs? I have not read much about the most recent shooter, but it seems like most of the time they are using their parent's or relatives guns. So what's the point of further gun control? Unless we outlaw guns entirely I don't see how you can prevent criminals from going around established gun sale procedures. And then add mental health questions into the mix, forget it that idea is completely implausible. I don't know what the answer is but the knee jerk demand for further gun control isn't actually going to solve anything.

Explain why other countries don't have mass school shootings if you don't think it is the easy access to guns in the US.

I have not read that any of the shooters were using an AR-15 that belonged to a relative.

We could ban high-capacity magazines so people have time to escape when the shooter has to change clips after ten shots.

If we called it Gun Safety Sense instead of Gun Control, could we could get something done? I've put together a list of ideas (many from other sources) that reasonable, law-abiding people ought to be able to agree on. Honestly, if you are one of those NOT calling for stricter gun laws, which of these bother you and why?

1. All guns sold in the U.S. must have the "smartgun" feature, so that only the owner can fire the gun. Not children, and not thieves.
2. Outlaw guns with rapid fire capabilities.
3. Set up a massive buyback program to cut down on the number of guns floating around town.
4. Raise the legal purchasing age for a gun to 21.
5. Expand background checks. Include FBI lists of suspected terrorists/suspicious people.
6. Any person arrested for domestic violence must immediately surrender all guns.
7. Close up private sale, gun show loopholes. There should be no legal way for a criminal to buy a gun.
8. Treat gun licenses similar to driving licenses. The first one requires a safety course as well as written and physical tests.
9. Require longer waiting periods.
10. Fund government research into gun violence so we have factual evidence to base laws on.

Bestyears, if you read about the Sandy Hook parents, and there is a very sad profile of them a year or two later fighting for those very types of things, they are all aware of these strategies. They learn very quickly not to startle gun owners and NRA-beholden politicians by toning it down and avoiding words like "control".

The problem is common sense cannot prevail because money prevails. And I say this as an ardent capitalist.

I wonder why we can't build a product liability case against the gun manufacturers?

Rita, gun makers have very tight immunity. You cannot sue them. There is, however, extensive litigation against MGM resorts for the Vegas shooting. It’s mostly negligent security type cases but it is huge. The concert promoter is also being sued (their name escapes me because I’ve had two gin and tonics). My colleagues taking these cases have some “theories” on getting through some of the holes but the law is pretty tight.

It is a hope that because Vegas will actually hurt the pocketbook of corporate America that we MIGHT get some movement. But I’m pretty cynical about that.

I'm not arguing arguing against the notion that easy gun access leads to more gun violence. I'm saying that further gun restrictions aren't likely to have an impact. Please, explain to me how gun restrictions will reduce violence caused by a perpetrator who uses a gun belonging to someone else. Also, please explain how any restrictions involving mental Heath issues will actually be implemented.

Ugh, thanks for the explanation, lobby68.

Yes, Rita, outrageous, is it not?

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, gun dealers and manufacturers "cannot be held liable for crimes committed with their weapons."

Not to get too arcane, but as I understand it, one exception to that immunity from liability is somethgin called "negligent entrustment". So, if you sell a gun to someone who is high or you sell it to a child, etc. you can be liable.

But some of the Sandy Hook victims/parents are trying to sue under a claim of negative entrustment.

They argue that the AR-15 is a weapon designed for the military, where soldiers using the gun receive special training and are subject to strict rules regarding appropriate use and safe storage. According to the plaintiffs, facilitating sale of the gun to civilians – who lack the necessary training and rules – is a form of negligent entrustment tantamount to handing the gun to a visibly high-risk individual.

If, as the Sandy Hook plaintiffs argue, marketing the AR-15 to the general public is a form of negligent entrustment, then their claims are not barred by the federal immunity statute.

Excuse my ignorance but how/why do gun makers get immunity?

ETA: thanks mtn. I posted at the same time as your explanation.

You are welcome, daisy.

To be fair, I guess, in one sense it is logical? You could not have gun mfrs if they got sued for making a product sold legally that does what it is designed for.

Not that *I* would miss having gun mfrs!

http://a.msn.com/r/2/BBJfVaW?m=en-us&a=1

This may bring more clarity to the discussion. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5404639/Florida-school-shooter-violent-against-mom-legally-got-gun.html

reesepbuttercup, off the top of my head, Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas and now Parkland shootings were with guns legally purchased by the shooter and/or their enabling relatives, so spare me the "Please, explain to me how gun restrictions will reduce violence caused by a perpetrator who uses a gun belonging to someone else." nonsense. Your comments show you to be an apologist for mass murderers and gun fetishists everywhere. Congratulations.

Why Japan has no mass shootings.

https://youtu.be/tPLoW4eFwiM

Banning assault style weapons would not reduce these numbers hugely but would still be meaningful. And it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit, too, when you consider all the other guns do have some arguable use. Not sure what the legit argument for having military-type weapons is.

Remember that the United States does NOT have an official manner to track gun deaths. There is no mandatory reporting guidelines by law enforcement agencies to give a true number.

So it's probably worse than the charts show. Studies suggest that suicide by methods other than gun are often failures and the person usually regrets the attempt and sometimes even gets help. (Otherwise, why bother with the oops net under the Golden Gate bridge?) Nobody knows if gun attempts would be regretted cuz...they work better.

Suicides by gun is a problem. It's a different problem than assault-style weapons being used for mass random murder. They can't be addressed the same way but they shouldn't be forgotten.

Shame the CDC can't support studying gun violence or suicides.

So yeah, my kids' schools have drills. The middle school might have a security guard; the elementary school doesn't. The typical mid-century California suburban school has no inner halls. It's just a conglomeration of buildings. If you didn't feel like entering by the kindergarten or the front office or the library, you could enter from the other side by sneaking through the backyard of one of the 20 or so homes that back onto the field.

"Shame the CDC can't support studying gun violence or suicides."

As with the law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers (which became law under George W.), you may thank the NRA for preventing the CDC and NIH from studying gun violence.

Numbers of mass killings w/ assault weapons from before and after the ban lapsed:

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/

And I read this teacher's commentary the other day, it is profound and reflects some of the same things that went through my mind the last time we did one of those drills w/ our elementary after school kids:

Next Week, My School Will Have An ‘Active Shooter’ Drill. Here’s What I’ll Be Thinking.

Mtn, Thank you for the background on gun manufacturers' protection from product liability. It's so frustrating to see a lethal product with no legitimate purpose pervert justice at every turn.

I always have found Obama's response that you can watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFvSua3Kg

is perfect!

I havent read all the responses, but a good case in point of what can be done is Australia.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/news/australia-ambassador-gun-laws

The gist of the title is a bit misleading. I'm also not sure about the ambassador's interpretation of US history, e.g. deaths during civil war, invasion by other countries as unique, etc.