After every mass shooting the people demand change so it doesn't happen again. But nothing ever happens. Time goes on they're forgotten. Do you agree?

Question

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

The problem is politicians just take advantage of these situations to get votes or make money. Guns are protected by the constitution. Stop wasting your time going after gun rights and just adapt. Give teachers gun training. Beef up school security. Pay attention to mentally ill children who have obvious red flag signs. The school shooter didn’t even graduate school, was posting weird stuff on social media, and his guardians STILL bought him a gun for his 18th birthday? Obviously his guardians were dumber than him if they did that. His whole family is retarded. These kinds of shootings can be prevented in so many different ways than just saying “ban all weapons”.

Nawlins34 · Accepted Answer

Agreed, the effort to make this happen isn't matching the outrage.

Please remember the same politicians sending out thoughts and prayers for Uvalde, were for the most part, the exact same politicians who send out thoughts and prayers during Sandy Hook.

How are they still in office?
Who voted them in?

Exactly. That's on us as Americans.

If we're going to hold politicians accountable, we need to hold who put them in positions to make foolish decisions accountable as well.

nightdrot · Answer

Not necessarily. The problem is rather that Americans do not realize that not every problem has a solution. Rather some problems are just difficulties that must be managed as best they can be.

This being particularly true of mass shootings. These are events that have some general social causes, some but not all of which are of a political and legal nature. Other factors, however, are particular to the individual perpetrators and accounting for each of those factors is a difficult, if not impossible, thing to control.

The real problem, insofar as it can be managed, is family and institutional breakdown, including an increased tolerance for socially deviant behavior. This undermining the very tools by which society could manage such crimes.

Once upon a time families were cohesive units that afforded the individual both a protected environment for dealing with the individual's problems and who also, when those problems became serious, had the authority to turn to outside authorities for help.

Think in the case of the Texas shooter. There is every indication that he was experiencing serious mental stress if not outright mental illness. Yet there was no one there to help him. His father was not in his life and was separated from his mother. He was not living with his mother who is, in any case, a drug addict. The grandmother was trying to help him, but she was married to a man with a criminal record and thus it must be presumed was often dealing with her own problems.

Thus there was no one there for the shooter. He has no family in any real sense and therefore his "first line of defense," of people who could care for him and help him as his problems grew, was simply not there.

Add to this that society's attitude toward the law has changed. Once upon a time the law was there, first and foremost, to protect the community. Second to punish the guilty and third. - and least of all - to reform the criminal if possible. Yet beginning in the 1960s that pattern began to be reversed and although the emphasis shifts back and forth, law is now more concerned with the rights of the mentally ill and the criminal than it is with containing their wider impact.

The institutions of society - family, church, law, business, the professions - are deemed "elite" and intolerably oppressive. The culture that such institutions tend to foster - of respect for tradition, mutual obligation to one's fellows and a sense of community - thus perish. The individual is then left alone and untethered to rant on social media and be ignored. What he says and writes in public is no one's business after all -- until it is too late.

To glue together even part of this moral and cultural infrastructure will be extremely difficult. Moreover, again, this does not even begin to address the case specific issues with any mass shooting. The bottom line being that the moral and cultural infrastructure necessary to head off these episodes is in tatters, and thus the tools that might begin to manage this problem are too weak and will so remain until cultural attitudes change.

Until then, expect much more blood to be shed.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

Democrats want to change gun laws and this gives them a plausible excuse to "demand" change but it doesn't happen and it gives them something to complain about when they are on the campaign trail.

Republicans simply want to resist whatever Democrats want.

And the Second Amendment places limits on gun control.

But arguments about gun control miss the point. Mass shooters obviously do not follow the law and they won't follow gun control laws, either. So changing the laws about gun ownership probably won't have much effect. Look at NYC and Chicago; they have very strict laws about gun ownership and they still have extremely high homicide rates.

There are measures other than gun control that could reduce mass shootings, which focus on security at schools, but those carry a hefty price and that seems to be a stumbling block for many people.

Ultimately, we don't want to confront the reason why school shootings are so common. Gun ownership in the first 75 years of the 20th century were very lax and we never had school shootings. What is different is the brokenness of families, the open disdain of religions, the tolerance of school bullying, the isolation of kids caused partially by living their lives in a digital world, and the overload of media coverage when a school shooting occurs.

Lliam · Answer

Change what?

It can't be proven that guns cause crime or that more guns = more crime. In fact, there is evidence that where gun ownership if restricted, there is more gun violence.

Gun control advocates believe that restricting citizen access to common firearms is the only solution. But where is their evidence? Mass murders take place in "gun free" zones. The cities with the strictest gun-control law have the highest rates of murders.
Should we surrender a fundamental, self evident, unalienable, natural right on the word of politicians, celebrities and ideologues?

Instead of attacking the rights that people already have, why don't any of the pontificators ever talk about the actual causes of crime? What forces cause a person to snap? It couldn't have anything to do with our culture, could it? Yeah, that's a complicated subject that nobody, especially the powers that be, want to address.

Even still it's important to note some facts.

Up to 2020, annual firearm-related homicides hoovered below 16,000. To put that number in perspective, over 40,000 people die from accidental falls, poisonings and motor vehicle accidents every year. So 16,000 isn't a very big number.

Firearm-related homicides rose to around 20,000 since the beginning of the covid panic and "emergency measures". Any correlation?

The FBI says that 80% of firearm related homicides are gang related. So even if we use the current 20,000, it means that 4,000 murderers were not gang related. Nevertheless, most of those were related to robberies and other crimes.

There are 330 million citizens, 66 million of whom are under the age of 18. You can count on your hands how many have committed mass murder with a gun.

And out of over 80 million legal gun owners with over 300 million firearms, how many have used guns to commit crimes?

Maybe instead of passing even more, useless, anti-gun legislation, we should try to figure out what turns a person into a pressure cooker that is going to explode.

prosaic1 · Answer

I believe that the most tragic part is that no one has really defined what this phenomenon is, or what environmental factors are acting as a catalyst. How do we protect our kids from our kids? No one has produced a universally agreed upon definition. Without it, our ability to create a permanent solution will never become a reality. Our current strategy then is to protect the staff and students. Not by introducing firearms to school staff. That's a nightmare just waiting to happen. But, by creating an escape route for them.

goaded · Answer

They're not forgotten, they're just added to the seething discontent with the government as a whole, when it should be more targetted at the Republican party, the two-party system, and the 10% of voters that can ensure that a Republican politician won't be re-elected if they support the slightest gun control. For the first 200 years of the Republic, it was patently obvious to everyone that the government could impose reasonable controls on firearms. But seething discontent is good for right-wing politicians.

Surely · Answer

The couple of schools that I have been in lately. Your had to be let into the office buy an office worker. Before you were let into the school. You had to give your name and reason to enter the school. Then sign out when you left.
I find it hard to believe people can enter a school with bad intentions. When those protocols are in place.
Plus the gun free school zone law doesn’t seem to be working?

Avicenna · Answer

The change that is demanded is always for firearms to be taken from all law-abiding firearm owners, who need them to protect themselves from the violent criminals who commit the mass shootings and other violent crime. That's not going to fly, especially since the police have no legal responsibility to protect people.

menina · Answer

I agree. This is an old problem and perhaps one of the biggest issues that the United States has. This is simple and complicated at the same time and unfortunately these mass shootings won't stop.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

Certainly looks that way. And, you know what, if all those people had guns, those SHOOTERS would be dead!! Problem solved!! You'd have to be PRETTY GOD DAMNED CRAZY to want to go into a room full of ARMED people and try to kill a bunch of them!!

Anonymous · Answer

Absolutely. Biden came out with a big speech like all democrats do but at the end of the day they may preach gun control and banning guns to get reelected but in practice they are accept money from gun lobbyists to do nothing.

blondfrog · Answer

Yep song has been sung over 20 years now. As long as you have two parties almost 200 years old now still around you will never see change.

exitseven · Answer

Yes, it is a problem without a solution. If anyone really wanted to fix this it could be done but the cure would be pretty extreme and politicians won;t go out on a limb on it.

anylolone · Answer

People don't really care about school shooters and they don't have a big reason to, considering even when it comes to shootings that kill kids, it's way behind the list.

NYlatefun · Answer

Well, we’re the only country in which this happens. Lawmakers are controlled by money like a banana republic, but here it’s legal through lobbying. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

driven159 · Answer

the NRA had politicians in their back pocket bad they are slowly losing their hold so real sensible laws can pass

BillyBalls · Answer

With so many school shootings that last 25 years, why don't all schools have proper seecurity protocols?

Anonymous · Answer

That's the way it works.

Waldoe · Answer

No, I disagree

Slim57 · Answer

Of course

Anonymous · Answer

Yes i do

After every mass shooting the people demand change so it doesn't happen again. But nothing ever happens. Time goes on they're forgotten. Do you agree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

After every mass shooting the people demand change so it doesn't happen again. But nothing ever happens. Time goes on they're forgotten. Do you agree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.