At least 3 children and 3 adults killed in Nashville private Christian elementary school shooting; shooter killed by police

[Tinker Grey]

911 doesn't have to mean police. It just means "emergency" - it's on the dispatchers to determine what sort of emergency and deploy the proper services (fire, EMS, police, etc).

The only time I've ever called 911 was when I was babysitting my little brother and he smashed his face on the coffee table jumping off the back of the couch. They sent an ambulance and (I think - it was about 20 years ago) a fire truck - no cops or SWAT team.

Fair enough.

 

[RDKirk]

That's where our background checks are woefully inadequate.

While having the check is better than not having one (obviously), they fall short in a few key areas

1) Some of the questions are a "take you at your word" sort of thing

2) The mental health stipulation is lacking. The threshold of disqualification is if you've ever been involuntarily committed or been ruled mentally defective by a judge.

There's a lot of middle ground between "sane enough to own a gun" and "so mentally defective that you've been involuntarily institutionalized"

As it currently stands, a person could have severe bipolar disorder, and even have checked themselves into a facility, and still pass the background check.

The problem we face, though, is that even the medical profession, particularly psychiatry, is already heavily politicized. I'm pretty sure there are loads of psychiatrists who would already judge a person unfit to own a firearm simply for wanting to own one.

 

[RDKirk]

What would you suggest since you don’t think armed officers are effective? Officers arrived quickly and ended this but not before she killed six people.

They would have been no worse than the officers that did respond...except they'd have been there on time. If the defenders can respond as the shooter is first making his way into the building, before the shooter can take any children hostage, then the defenders have the tactical advantage even if the shooter has a rifle.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's where our background checks are woefully inadequate.

While having the check is better than not having one (obviously), they fall short in a few key areas

1) Some of the questions are a "take you at your word" sort of thing

2) The mental health stipulation is lacking. The threshold of disqualification is if you've ever been involuntarily committed or been ruled mentally defective by a judge.

There's a lot of middle ground between "sane enough to own a gun" and "so mentally defective that you've been involuntarily institutionalized"

As it currently stands, a person could have severe bipolar disorder, and even have checked themselves into a facility, and still pass the background check.

Well, but then again if someone checked his or herself in the person realizes the need for help and there are many people who can live normal mentally stable lives while on medication. I have seen where as many as one in four Americans have some form of mental illness that adds up to 10s of millions of people and most of those people could probably be somewhat trusted with a gun. The risk we run if we are overly strict with people with mental illness and guns is that there will be people who will not get help for fear they will lose their guns who with the help could be much healthier and happier people.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Police officers notoriously fail to keep American children safe. How long before there is another example of the police keeping well away from a school murderer, putting their own safety before their duty?

Why do we assume that cops will willingly run into a hail of gunfire? We have to spend significant time training soldiers to do that, and police don't receive that kind of training.

If Americans insist on maintaining their gun culture in the face of sustained attacks on schools, the solution is soldiers, not lightly armed civilians. Squad of marines out front, perhaps a Humvee patrolling the grounds, machine gun post on the perimeter, razor wire on all fences. Also school buses are a big bright soft target, so perhaps replace them with MRAPS or Bushmasters.

The US would take it seriously if these attacks were against government buildings or army bases, so why not schools.

 

[RDKirk]

Why do we assume that cops will willingly run into a hail of gunfire? We have to spend significant time training soldiers to do that, and police don't receive that kind of training.

If Americans insist on maintaining their gun culture in the face of sustained attacks on schools, the solution is soldiers, not lightly armed civilians. Squad of marines out front, perhaps a Humvee patrolling the grounds, machine gun post on the perimeter, razor wire on all fences. Also school buses are a big bright soft target, so perhaps replace them with MRAPS or Bushmasters.

The US would take it seriously if these attacks were against government buildings or army bases, so why not schools.

You haven't yet seen the body cam footage from the police responding to the Tennessee shooting, have you?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The problem we face, though, is that even the medical profession, particularly psychiatry, is already heavily politicized. I'm pretty sure there are loads of psychiatrists who would already judge a person unfit to own a firearm simply for wanting to own one.

I was thinking more along the lines of showing sign-off that you haven't been diagnosed with any of a pre-set list of mental illnesses that would be categorized as severe...and not so much getting a psychiatrists opinion on whether you should have a gun.

In that scenario, a doctor is likely going to be up for the review board if they suddenly start diagnosing severe mental illnesses willy nilly simply because they suspect it's a person wanting a gun.

Primarily, because certain diagnoses could potentially restrict other rights and privileges as well.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ahhh....the Czech Republic. You know, I watched a video the other day looking at historic examples of diverse countries that made the argument "it doesn't work" and the Balkans of course came up...pointing out that even in very similar cultural situations, diversity just leads to resentment and factionalism.

I don't disagree with anything you said but it feels like a pipe dream at this point that we would have such rigorous restrictions.

The unique advantage they had is that they were able to get it implemented "at the ground floor" so to speak before the population was already heavily armed.

They added that constitutional provision as a response to what they went through being occupied by the communists so their "right to bear arms" wasn't established until the 90's, and the populace was largely unarmed before that point (because that's how the Soviets liked their occupied nations, unarmed and unable to fight back).

So when the rights were granted, they could implement their gun control framework from the start.

It would've taken them longer to achieve their low murder rate had the baseline starting point been "more guns than people" like our current situation is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If Americans insist on maintaining their gun culture in the face of sustained attacks on schools, the solution is soldiers, not lightly armed civilians. Squad of marines out front, perhaps a Humvee patrolling the grounds, machine gun post on the perimeter, razor wire on all fences. Also school buses are a big bright soft target, so perhaps replace them with MRAPS or Bushmasters.

A couple issues with that.

1 - the number of people in a combat role is actually only a small percentage of the military. There likely wouldn't be enough to have 2 troops per school in this country. There's 70,000 elementary schools and 20,000 high schools in the country. An Air Force engineer who has a non-combat role (and just went through AF basic training) isn't likely to be that much more effective than a civilian who trains a lot with their firearms. The marines would likely be the logical choice for such a role, but there's only 170,000 of them. If we used them all for school patrol, then we wouldn't have them for actual military endeavors.

2 - the fact that guns are causing problems isn't a compelling argument for many people. If you're a person who lives in a bad neighborhood, or in a group that's a target for violence, if the US doesn't have plans to get the guns back from people who shouldn't have them, telling a person who just wants one for self-defense to give up theirs to be a "team player" is going to be a hard sell.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you think a person who is bipolar should be restricted from owning a firearm? Such restrictions would discourage people from seeking help.

Yes, that should be a disqualifying factor.

There are certain things that severe mental health issues and defects preclude people from doing. Sounds "harsh" and unfair, but it's the reality.


If we swapped out the topic and made it about something other than guns, it would be very obvious how flawed your proposal is.

For pilots, the FAA defines following medical conditions as disqualifying:

• Angina pectoris
• Bipolar disease
• Cardiac valve replacement
• Coronary heart disease that has been treated or, if untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant
• Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medications
• Disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory explanation of cause
• Epilepsy
• Heart replacement
• Myocardial infarction
• Permanent cardiac pacemaker
• Personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts
• Psychosis
• Substance abuse
• Substance dependence
• Transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory explanation of cause.

Should we lift those restrictions because it may discourage a person with any of the conditions above (who wants to fly a plane) from seeking help for their condition? Or are those restrictions there for good reason?

 

[Whyayeman]

Why do we assume that cops will willingly run into a hail of gunfire? We have to spend significant time training soldiers to do that, and police don't receive that kind of training.

It would perhaps be a good idea if some police officers had the training.

If Americans insist on maintaining their gun culture in the face of sustained attacks on schools, the solution is soldiers, not lightly armed civilians. Squad of marines out front, perhaps a Humvee patrolling the grounds, machine gun post on the perimeter, razor wire on all fences. Also school buses are a big bright soft target, so perhaps replace them with MRAPS or Bushmasters.

The US would take it seriously if these attacks were against government buildings or army bases, so why not schools.

At first I thought this was an attempt at irony. Now I am not so sure. Those who read it as a serious proposition should pause long enough to imagine the kind of place America would be if armed soldiers, machine gun nests and razor wire became a normal sight in every town.

 

[Whyayeman]

The unique advantage they had is that they were able to get it implemented "at the ground floor" so to speak before the population was already heavily armed.

They added that constitutional provision as a response to what they went through being occupied by the communists so their "right to bear arms" wasn't established until the 90's, and the populace was largely unarmed before that point (because that's how the Soviets liked their occupied nations, unarmed and unable to fight back).

So when the rights were granted, they could implement their gun control framework from the start.

It would've taken them longer to achieve their low murder rate had the baseline starting point been "more guns than people" like our current situation is.

I agree that America is unique in having a long tradition of gun ownership, baked into its cultures since the frontier days. There is no avoiding that. In all the discussions on mass murders and massive gun ownership in America this is seen as such a powerful impediment to change that for many there seems to be no way forward. Such passive acceptance of the status quo seems to deny the 'can-do' spirit for which the country is renowned.

Then there are the apologists for gun ownership as a constitutional right, as if the Second Amendment trumped every other consideration.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree that America is unique in having a long tradition of gun ownership, baked into its cultures since the frontier days. There is no avoiding that. In all the discussions on mass murders and massive gun ownership in America this is seen as such a powerful impediment to change that for many there seems to be no way forward. Such passive acceptance of the status quo seems to deny the 'can-do' spirit for which the country is renowned.

Then there are the apologists for gun ownership as a constitutional right, as if the Second Amendment trumped every other consideration.

It is a catch-22 in many ways.

On one hand, a lot of people do want to do something about it, but no person wants to be the only one without one when everyone else (including the bad guys) already has them when there's no assurance that everyone else will follow suit.

It does have some similarities to the "nukes" mentality between certain nations. While almost any sane person would wish for nuclear disarmament, it's a "Get rid of yours first, and then I'll get rid of mine after that", and then the other side says "well, I'm not giving them up, because then you'll have them and I won't" type of deal.

Ice T (an odd choice for this citation, I know) sums up the mentality quite well when he did this interview

 

[Ana the Ist]

The US would take it seriously if these attacks were against government buildings or army bases, so why not schools.

No they wouldn't. 2020 saw multiple police stations burned to the ground. We just had one firebombed by Antifa not long ago.

The FBI however is too busy on its elusive hunt for the dangerous white supremacists. They'll find em one day...I'm sure of it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is a catch-22 in many ways.

On one hand, a lot of people do want to do something about it, but no person wants to be the only one without one when everyone else (including the bad guys) already has them when there's no assurance that everyone else will follow suit.

I've always maintained my policy on gun control is that no one should be allowed a gun but me lol.

 

[RDKirk]

It is a catch-22 in many ways.

On one hand, a lot of people do want to do something about it, but no person wants to be the only one without one when everyone else (including the bad guys) already has them when there's no assurance that everyone else will follow suit.

If the government would actually commit to protecting people, it might help.

But the Supreme Court has already ruled a couple of times that government is not accountable for anyone's protection. The police or fire department can literally ignore a 911 call, and not be held accountable. Therefore, it would be immoral for government to stand in the way of people to protect themselves when government refuses the responsibility.

 

[RDKirk]

I've always maintained my policy on gun control is that no one should be allowed a gun but me lol.

I steadfastly opposed that opinion.

It should be me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What would you suggest since you don’t think armed officers are effective? Officers arrived quickly and ended this but not before she killed six people.

Vigorous background checks and permits for such weapons. I doubt this person would have passed such.

 

[rambot]

I think a lot of that comes from the "well, I've seen how this plays out before and know what the other side is going to try to push for".

Anytime events like this occur, there's always renewed calls for assault weapons bans, mag cap restrictions, etc...

I see a constructive conversation starting with "skipping past the things we know won't work". Otherwise people waste a lot of time covering things that have already been tried to no avail.

See here's the thing. Its not that they dont work, there is just not the political will to enact multiple measures. They "will not happen" is not the same as they don't work.

For example, if this were a conversation about drunk driving issues. And one side always started the argument with "let's ban alcohol", eventually the other side is going to preemptively start their conversation with "that won't work" just to get it out of the way.

 

[BPPLEE]

I do think that. However, rather than saying that a diagnosis would prevent you from buying a firearm, I would say that we should require mental health assessments for gun owners. They could be required as part of the background check/purchase process and/or as a regular check-up.

Many people have guns they inherited or purchased from other people or at trade shows.