Civil Discourse: What is the Best Solution to School Shootings?

[PhilElliot 65]

You know what? I know the title of this thread is "Civil Discourse" but I can't do that right now because PhilElliot, you need to shut the fuck up. This is fucking happening and you questioning it serves no function because you won't even admit that the fucking Titanic sunk because you weren't fucking there. I could tell you about conversations I've had with friends who were at Virginia Tech in 2007 (my Freshman year of college, I was at William and Mary, but a lot of people from my high school went to Tech) but you wouldn't believe the terror they described. I could tell you about conversations I've had with my girlfriend, who's a fifth grade teacher, about when they do lockdown drills and how terrified her kids are (btw, this is why they so often have lockdown drills shortly before these shootings, they're doing lockdown drills all the fucking time because this keeps fucking happening) I could tell you about how she's gotten a door stop just in case, or about how she keeps her door locked at all times because that can be enough of a deterrent to a school shooter. I could tell you about how she's come to the conclusion that she wouldn't be able to fit through her window, but some of her kids might, and that she's thought about how she could break the window to potentially get some of them out. I could get someone from Santa Fe Texas (I actually might have the connections to do that, a friend of a friend on Facebook posted that it happened a few miles from their house, so I could probably make it happen) to tell you about their first hand experience. I could do any of that, but it would do no good because you wouldn't fucking believe it because you're an imbecile who doesn't believe anything exists beyond what's two feet in front of your fucking face.

 

I'll get to some actual constructive commentary in a bit, but for now I just wanted to tell PhilElliot to shut the fuck up, if you're going to question the ) and believe it or not we can have an intelligent conversation about topics even as sensitive as this.

I've actually given examples of how these are drills. You have done nothing but believe what you read. Saying you believe it's happening doesn't make it so I told you to prove me wrong.saying "this is happening " and insulting me doesn't make it so. Apparently comprehensive critical thought has Been extracted out of you.

 

Again,pay real close attention..both this incident and Florida say they were doing drills for this a few weeks before it happened. The kid they used as a spokesperson in florida, his dad was a retired govt agent, and he was already on tv before at a California beach complaining about being harassed by cops or a lifeguard.

Prove me wrong or stop crying. It's not my fault you think with your media triggered emotions, instead of cold hard critical logic.

You guys say fake news and alternative facts but can't discern when it's happening. lol this isn't happening in other countries because they aren't dumb enough to fall for it unless there's hardcore evidence of real dead bodies for all to see(even dead bodies don't prove who shot who and why). America bows to censorship..and believes what ever tv god tells them.

You are trained to fear and to obey authority no matter what . That's all that's happening here.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Can we please ban Phil from this thread?

 

OT: I don't buy the argument Favre lays out that if we ban semi-autos, people will get bolt action, etc. I've explained this several times and you keep using this argument.

 

Let me concur with Ngata here: No legislation that has been proposed or ever will be proposed will result in zero deaths from this tragedy. There is literally nothing we can do that will completely eliminate mass shootings in their entirety. So claiming that removing semi-autos doesnt matter because people will still get bolt action is an argument that completely misses the point.

 

We are trying to make it harder for someone to get their hands on a weapon and go a mass shooting spree. Can someone, with training, still use a bolt action rifle or handgun to great effectiveness? Sure, but that requires training, and thus it cuts down on the number of people who can just pick up a gun and hold down the trigger, or squeeze it rapid fire. This lowers- not eliminates- casualty amounts.

 

I feel like this counter argument is designed to stall any meaningful progress. "We can't use any solution that won't be 100% effective." I mean, with that logic, why stop at allowing semi autos? Why not full automatic weapons? Why not allow rocket launchers? Yes its ridiculous, but I'm making a point here.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Thanatos

[Thanatos 2,847]

Just ignore PhilIdiot FFS. Dude is as smart as a box of cocoa puffs and thinks everything is illuminati. No point even engaging with him.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm actually a fan of arming teachers. I think if they are willing to go through getting proper firearms training and take the burden of handling a gun, it would be silly to restrict them. Just throwing out a lowball number, but I'd be willing to bet that at least 20% of teachers in America own a gun. Why not let them keep it on their person at the school in case of an active shooter? I'd rather bet on 20 armed staff members over a single school resource officer. It's not like you're forcing guns into the hands of teachers. I bet a fair amount would be completely down to take their guns to school.

 

What happens when its a teacher who snaps and is the perpetrator of a mass shooting?

[Cherry 1,302]

 

What happens when its a teacher who snaps and is the perpetrator of a mass shooting?

They'd do it anyways regardless of whether or not guns are allowed in the school. Arming other teachers would make it more likely they get stopped, if a teacher did decide to start shooting.

[oochymp 2,393]

The first thing that needs to happen: we need to get rid of the ridiculous rules against the use of federal money to study gun violence (if you're not familiar with this, here you go: Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia) then do some real research into the gun violence in this country.

 

That said, the lack of solid research shouldn't be an excuse for inaction and there are definitely some steps that should be taken. I think gun reform needs to happen, I don't think we need a lot more laws on that, and it'd vary by state based on existing laws, but requiring a certification of safety training seems like a good start. The biggest argument I've heard against gun restrictions is the second amendment, but that really shouldn't be a major consideration when enacting legislation, do what seems like it'll do the most good and let the courts deal with constitutionality.

 

I also think putting more resources into schools would help, make it easier for teachers to work with smaller groups of students, make it easier to spot when students are having issues and make it easier to intervene earlier. I think arming teachers is a terrible idea because I don't think it's going to do much good and I think it's going to cause more problems. I'm not even talking about the threat of teachers misusing guns, though that is a huge potential problem, I'm thinking of how I would have reacted to knowing that a teacher has a gun, it would be extremely distracting. I also just don't think teachers should have that added responsibility.

[BJORN 679]

To me, the big stumbling block for gun restrictions will always be hunting. Sure we can take away civilian ARs but shotguns and rifles can do significant damage as well. For the record I am against banning guns, even ARs.

 

My ideas:

 

1. Law banning the media from naming shooter

 

2. Harsh penalties on parents who allow their children access to guns without supervision or beyond practical use.

 

3. As oochy said, let the states decide for themselves

 

4. Could look at increasing the age limit

 

5. For ARs, instead of banning, just bring new barriers of entry for owning them. Something like requiring training, certificates to get. Yearly tax and mandatory recertifications required. Heavier punishments for misuse.

 

A big issue people need to understand is that there is also a lot of misinformation spread against guns and often times the media and politicians have no idea what they're talking about.

 

As for schools in particular, I don't know. Arming the teachers is terrible for many reasons (think of the cost of arming every teacher and training them). I would rather have police officers man the front door with metal detectors and lock every other door, only faculty have keys to the other doors. No solution in mind for colleges.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

https://www.statesman.com/news/local/feds-lockhart-man-verbally-harassed-sutherland-springs-church-members-said-shooting-was-hoax/IUz9UgHJ37gutYZSFZPtvK/

 

It's Phil.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'd gladly pay a percentage of my taxes for providing armed security personnel for public schools. I think we all would

Edited May 24, 2018 by BwareDWare94

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

How about not. We allocate billions across seas to help evil countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc etc... I'd rather take that money and use it for more helpful things than keep increasing the tax burden on people who can't afford it.

[OSUViking 505]

This also has to do with mass shootings though because that combined with the fact that most families have to have both parents working. I think there are a lot more people out there with no social skills, they don't have friends, they can't get pussy because they don't know how and that's a recipe for disaster. I think OSU can confirm that and explain it much better than I, but these mass shootings are a symptom of many complicated issues. I think it's not coincidental that they both trend in the same direction since Columbine.

 

 

With lower income families, both parents may have to work a significant amount of time. Decreased interactions with their children could impact them, especially if they do not have adequate physical touch with the child at a very early age (<6 years). Entirely possible that the parents still have a strong relationship with their kids (they've demonstrated they're trustworthy, the kids know their parents love them no matter what, their kids trust their parents with their emotions, etc.). I think this kind of situation would get ugly if one of the parents is excessively stressed from their schedule. Kids notice stuff like that. If their mom is anxious as hell all the time around her child, the kid will likely experience something similar. If the parent is stressed and angry, and they take it out on the kid, well that's even worse.

 

Same thing with middle class and upper class, really, though with upper class you don't have the same excuse lower class families have (the actual need to work so much in order to make end's meet). Middle and upper income parents are more likely to have jobs that move them around a lot or expect significant amounts of their time. To contextualize this, though I know I'm just a single data point, my dad's work moved him from St. Louis, to Los Angeles, to Scotland, to Columbus, and then to Dallas, Atlanta, and then back to Dallas. I haven't actually lived with him for more than like 3 months at a time since I was in second grade. Needless to say, this (combined with other factors) resulted in a weak connection. I did not have a father figure there to help guide me through my emotional experiences. That's a big hole in a kid's life. Not going for woe is me here, just giving an example.

 

Social skills is certainly an aspect of it. If you break things down and then oversimplify them, our emotions are our body/brain's reactions to our environment and other stimuli. Emotions motivate us to eat, sleep, fuck, socialize, procreate, etc. It's all hard wired, and the benefit of it is that it gives incentive to do good things (pleasure when we eat, sleep, fuck, etc.). Everyone has emotions; I don't think it's possible for a human to literally lack all emotion. No one comes into the world knowing how to handle them. As I said in my last post, when emotions really start to manifest for a kid, they can be confusing and overwhelming. They can lead to behavioral issues common for children, because how the hell are they supposed to handle them? Could you guys imagine experiencing genuine anger for the first time in your life, and being able to step back and self-sooth yourself so you could calm down? You would be lying if you said you could do that from the start.

 

Kids rely on their parents to help guide them emotionally. The caregivers need to validate the emotional experiences, to let the kid know that there's nothing shameful with having emotions to begin with. Which is true, there is nothing shameful about emotions. Actions are a different story, but we do not have control over how our brain processes information and reacts (emotions/thoughts). If a kid grows up with the message from their parents that their emotions are inherently shameful, not worthy of their (the parent's) time, or even worse that their parents cannot be trusted or should be feared, they are not going to develop those skills. Best case scenario here is that they have some kickass role models who recognize their situation and do what they can to help them by compensating/doing what they can to intervene/just listening to what the kid is feeling. Worst case is they suppress their emotions, never learn how to handle them, avoid them, and then they reach a point where the emotional dsyregulation is so pathological that it impacts almost all of their relationships.

 

To tie this back into social skills... the thing about understanding one's emotions and accepting them, recognizing them, and then deciding what is best to do next (which is the skeleton of the approach that parents should teach kids) is that it eventually leads to a strong sense of identity. It's kind of like "I am OSU, I know that I react this way and I know that it's specific to me, I am comfortable with who I am, I am comfortable with how I've developed, I know many things are out of my control, I will do what I can to achieve what I want to". That's just an example, I'm not actually that secure with myself lol. But the point is, that breeds confidence. Have you ever seen some scrawny, nerdy kid that seemed confident and charming, and you wondered what the hell resulted in that? He probably doesn't give a fuck what people think about his emotions because his parents taught him how to handle them, lol. People like confidence. People who are secure with themselves will seek out others with similar interests and socialize with them. When someone is rejected, an emotionally competent person might respond with grief or sadness, but will come back to that "there are many things out of my control" bit, maybe go to their parents for comfort, and then eventually recognize a solution to their problem. So yes, social skills are certainly relevant. Friendships have the power to help people get through some really unfortunate family situations, and without them I imagine the pain they feel from home is amplified significantly by rejection from peers.

 

I want to emphasize all of the above is the best case scenario, i.e. what parents 'should' do. Ultimately, each approach should be specific to each kid, but in general a parent needs to demonstrate that they're trustworthy to their kid for the kid to develop properly. It seems like this is going down the drain fast as fuck, though. I will not say anything definitive here, because I think that would delve too far into the realm of me projecting my perspective onto others, but it really seems like most people know jack shit about their own emotions. They just kind of wallow in their own misery, maybe express confusion as to why they continue an unproductive behavior or vice, and never sit there and ask themselves why this pattern keeps perpetuating and what they have to do with it. Ultimately, at some point a kid becomes an adult and the "my parents sucked!" excuse means jack shit. It doesn't seem like many kids are growing up with strong emotional support, and it shows later on in life when they are faced with adversity. But it really cannot be overstated how important the parent-child relationship is, and I think that a lot of them in the US are not as strong as one would suspect.

 

I know that was a lot to read. Just kind of had a stream of thought moment.

[OSUViking 505]

I will be honest I think my perspective that fixing the issues with how kids are socialized in this country is a pipe dream. I have sat down and had conversations with anti-gun nuts and people who think all mentally ill people should be banned from having guns, explained my perspective, and they responded well to that information. Even still, I don't think they walked away from that discussion having changed their view. A lot of these 'fixes' are just masking the real issue. It's like we are in a sinking boat, and instead of rowing back to shore to fix the hull, we are trying to just scoop the water out as fast as we can. I probably used that metaphor in the Trump thread, but it's what I always think about.

 

I think my conceptualization is a pipe dream because the scope of the solution is too big and I think it requires people to step outside of their own ignorance. I'm not talking about TGP here, mostly just ranting about what I see on FB and hear at work. How many parents are actually willing to admit that they weren't always helpful to their kids (that they may have caused them developmental issues, etc)? How many would admit that they have never approached emotional awareness, and they made it everyone else's (including their children's) problems? I think very few. My mom got offended when I spoke about this, as if I was saying she was a shitty parent. She eventually came around to reason, but I think so many people are convinced that they have the right view of the world that they don't consider anything else and are offended if someone comes along and challenges that.

 

I'm wondering if my thoughts are disorganized right about now. If none of this makes sense, I apologize. I hope it does. Basically what I'm trying to say is that fixing the ways we socialize children will actually address the root cause of these behavioral issues before they even have time to develop into major pathological concerns, but going about implementing these changes in values will take such a long time that I don't think anyone will embrace it anytime soon. I think people are more content to sit in their little bubbles where banning guns or punishing the innocent mentally ill individuals will somehow solve all the problems in this country.

Edited May 24, 2018 by OSUViking

[seanbrock 1,684]

I just think for a number of reasons our society is creating more and more people with these kinds of social deficiencies. I think it's far too complicated of an issue to reduce to 1 or 2 causes but I think drugs are pushed instead of therapy because of cost. I think the whole way we deal with bullying in schools and how they're trying to go in a direction of no winners and losers and then as I mentioned before, no parental figure at home, technology. It's like all of this is making people socially retarded.

 

I see regular people talking about this stuff all the time but never political leadership. Republicans come close but they offer no solutions because it would cost money and would actually help people. They just can't get that bad NRA rating. Dems might be worse because they contort the issue in a different way to avoid talking about the same thing because they are just as bought. We need more than just lawyers, finance people and career politicians leading this country. We need more doctors and scientists.

Edited May 25, 2018 by seanbrock

[BJORN 679]

I think mental illness is obviously it's own issue. There will always be people with illness that will find other ways to do damage. Apart from obvious history of mental illness, I don't see how you can effectively keep guns away from those people. It is hard to detect unless there is a test or something I don't know about.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Mental illness is it's own issue but I feel like our society breeds it. I think it's the direct cause of the mass shootings but in all fairness I don't know shit. Lol

[BJORN 679]

Mental illness is it's own issue but I feel like our society breeds it. I think it's the direct cause of the mass shootings but in all fairness I don't know shit. Lol

Much easier to do some of the things I said then attack mental illness from the ground up. I'm not saying we shouldn't address it but regarding guns, I think there are easier things to implement/do.

 

Just look at my first point: isn't it sad that most of America knows who Nicholas Cruz is? But I bet very few know who Officer Caprio (Google it) is.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/295534798716407808?lang=en

Edited May 25, 2018 by DalaiLama4Ever

[Omerta+ 1,206]

That is an old one. He also tweeted calling mass shootings a gun problem is like calling 9/11 a plane problem.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Omerta

[BwareDWare94 723]

Joe Rogan might be the most important North American thinker right now, and that's not ignoring more intelligent folks like Peterson, Shapiro, Sam Harris, etc. It's that Joe can present even unpopular opinions without being an asshole and can reach both sides of the aisle.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Idk man, I like Joe Rogan but he's kind of just a guy to me. To me when I hear the word thinker something much different comes to mind.

 

Joe Rogan is definitely a smart guy and I think he gives everyone a chance to speak their peace and he doesn't just dismiss shit but he's just a regular dude.

 

As for the other guys you listed, I can't get with you on that. Those guys are dickheads who are only relavent so long as they can react to the dumb authoritarian social justice warriors. Sam Harris in particular is just laughable when it comes to foreign policy.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Shapiro and Peterson are extremely intelligent and both are actually fairly moderate guys. They just see teh left for what it is. A bunch of whiny douches who dont want change they want to bitch. Right on cue, that David Hogg abomination is attention seeking again lol. Wee need guys like that because of douches like Hogg.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't know what I'd call him but I do think he (Rogan) plays an important role as a lot of our younger population is getting information in new and different ways and as the demographics for cable news stations continue to go up.

 

He's a guy that thirsts for information. He gives people of a variety of opinions a voice. He's willing to talk.. have a conversation about issues without having them devolve into tribalistic squabbling. I think that's important.

Edited May 26, 2018 by DalaiLama4Ever

[seanbrock 1,684]

I think Rogan himself would be uncomfortable with that label which is one of the reasons why he's such a likeable guy. I do agree though that he provides a good example of how to have meaningful discourse even with people you disagree with or at least trying not to let your biasis keep you from being open minded. That is important, I agree.

Edited May 26, 2018 by seanbrock

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I think Rogan himself would be uncomfortable with that label which is one of the reasons why he's such a likeable guy. I do agree though that he provides a good example of how to have meaningful discourse even with people you disagree with or at least trying not to let your biasis keep you from being open minded. That is important, I agree.

 

Definitely right. People he's had on his show either say this things flat out or hints at them and he rebuffs them fairly quickly.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I love how David Hogg is an asshat for staging protests and the like, but not a peep from the right when its the causes they don't like that get targeted for protests, etc.

 

It's time for the NRA to get the fuck out of politics, and anyone who supports that has me behind them.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Thanatos

[seanbrock 1,684]

Eh, the NRA is one lobby. Imo there are much worse. What about the defense contactors who lobby to lie to get support for wars which kill MILLIONS of Innocents purely for fucking profit? I guess when I few white American kids get gunned down that's more important than those millions of brown people.

 

I do think some of the common sense shit people want implement should be implemented but this issue isn't even about guns to me.