What exactly is that going to accomplish ?

Maybe it’ll give them some catharsis but nothing is going to change

After Sandy Hook in Newtown, it was crystal clear that this country has no interest in solving these school shootings. TWENTY 6 and 7 year olds, six teachers murdered. Nothing changed.

Those Kevlar backpacks are expensive... I'm hoping my kids have the mental fortitude to play dead after they take that bullet hopefully in the backpack.

[deleted]

More than nothing, less than real change

What changed? Why didn’t we have all these shootings in the 70s and 80s and 90s?

Mandatory dual income households.

I hadn’t thought of that before, that’s a good point. Kids getting raised by TV/video games/daycare/anything besides their parents because both parents are gone at work.

I remember "school shootings" in Seattle in the 90s being a lot worse than what it is today. Back then it was called gang violence.

Nothing new, especially for Seattle.

The motivation is in the article.

I think you just found the solution to prevent school shootings everywhere. “Stop bringing guns to school.” Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner???

They are making their demands (more mental health counselors in the schools) heard and addressed. They are protesting in a safe and legal way. This is how change begins. I am proud of our future leaders!

[deleted]

Eh there were shootings in the 90s. 2 come to my mind immediately. Columbine High school was a big deal. Lindhurst High school in my hometown had a shooting as well.

Right but it seems like we’re at once a month now

I suspect a big part of noticing an increase is social media. Word spreads quickly.

This will teach the gangs a lesson…

If some jackass shot up my high school I sure as hell wouldn't be showing up compliantly for math class. You can't learn jack sitting around terrified.

If a friend was wounded or killed before my very eyes at a place supposedly safe for us, no way in hell would I not be out there making my voice heard.

I may be an old fart now, but back then? No f'ing way would I not be taking action even it seemed futile to so called adults who aren't as hopping mad as I would have been.

Or poor parenting...

It's the right idea...how do we stop guns from coming to school?

Limit access to guns...how do we limit access to guns?

Puts laws in place that make it harder to buy guns...how do we put laws in place?

Don't vote democrat or Republican because they have failed to address it.

In summary, we can't stop school shootings until we demand more from those who we elect to represent us, but the parties in power have failed to address it. Time for real change, not just slogans.

We absolutely had these shootings in/around Seattle schools in the '80s-'90s, I should know since I was attending a Seattle high school when Columbine happened.

I presume I don't have to explain gang related shootings to you but they were an issue then that has improved but hasn't disappeared since the same social issues at their root still exist. If you haven't experienced sustained bullying/cruelty accompanied by indifference by teachers and administrators who choose not to intervene it's going to be difficult to explain why I didn't find Columbine shocking.

[deleted]

Wonder how many grew up as latchkey kids

Not sure we can legislate mental health out of existence, but we can certainly stop people from bringing guns to school by adopting stronger gun control laws.

I am agreeing that we should ban people from bringing guns to schools, I'm just providing a more plausible solution than banning mental health. But I do agree we need more mental health treatment. Maybe instead of bailing out airlines, farming, and banks we bail out everyone that needs mental healthcare. Better yet, since we printing trillions of dollars to help banks and the economy, we could print $50B to provide mental healthcare to veterans and teenagers. Just simple solutions that I think most can agree on.

Edited some bad typos...

I think they should walk straight over to the parents house and hold them accountable.

There was 249 in 2021 and 119 in 2019

Columbine High School and Thurston High School in Oregon were all I remember from when I was in High School. I lived in Oregon so that may be why I remember Thurston... and the kid who did it was named Kip Kinkel. That kid killed his parents and then went to school. He has been hearing voices and had seen a psychiatrist. He actually is still in prison and had remained silent until last year. Should look him up... may have a insight that ya hadn't thought of.

Two income trap

I remember the shooting at Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake when I was a kid. I was pretty young back then, but it was still pretty shocking. It's incredible how so many of us are introduced to the concept of mass shootings at such a young age.

The first one happened and instead of facing facts people rallied for more guns, because you know, that makes everyone safer. Ask yourself, do you feel safe in high school in america? Heck any school really. There's been mass shootings of kids from kindergarten to college and nothing has changed.

Even a full ban on guns wouldn't solve it.

Criminals don't follow laws.

But it would reduce it greatly, once it's reduced we can pivot from prevention to curing the underlying issue which is ultimately mental health.

In places where you can't own guns, you see a lot less shootings, but you still see them.

There's also an increase in other forms of violence, like stabbings and vehicular homicides.

Bad people will always find a way to hurt people.

[removed]

Its like a virus of sorts and this is a spike in an infected region... What a mess made messier by weak leaders and distracted parents

Right but people had guns before and they didn’t happen like this

Agreed, we likely won't be able to stop violence. But we can reduce the occurrence which are this point is a major step forward considering the frequency of mass shootings.

I think a more effective approach would be to take a hard look at

1. Parenting
2. Mental Health

It's definitely a first world problem, which means we can't look to the past for answers. We need to figure this out on our own.

Far more people own guns now, so access to automatic weapons is easier and studies show that mass shootings spread in the same pattern as infectious diseases, similar to teen suicides. I imagine this has something to do with how human brains and behaviors are structured. We are social animals and built to respond to behaviors of those around us. Now a days that is spread by social media and the news. I also agree that bullying behaviors in schools are inadequately managed. Teachers, especially on playgrounds, bathrooms and halls are tolerated leading to students having to be violent to protect themselves.

There is no access to automatic weapons in the USA. Unless you can afford a $30-200k NFA pre-80s machine gun, which none of these shootings are committed with.

What a thought that is 😆.Imagine if scientists were like "but we had bats before and they didn't spread a global virus like this before" omg what do we do 😥. Then sit on their hands and go about their business while the people keep dropping like flies from a problem they can fix. Its a problem for now, we fix it now because its happenning now and we have the tools to fix it and no, wishful thinking is not a tool that will fix anything.

That P.E teacher was a hero at frontier and we talked about him often when I went through highschool a few cities over

So we should get rid of bats because a virus escaped a lab? I guess that makes as much sense as banning guns because of a mental health crisis.

DC vs Heller in 2008 was what happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Turns out that inventing a concept of personal firearm ownership (whereas it had previously been interpreted as in conjunction with a militia) has negative consequences on a societal level.

Personal firearm ownership was a thing way before the Heller decision.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Yep. His daughter was my 4th grade teacher the year that happened. Definitely felt too close to home.

Correct, but the modern version of states being unable to put additional restrictions on firearm ownership was invented through decisions made by "Originalist" (also known as conservative wish fulfillment) judges.

It is the result of putting judges who are perfectly happy to decide an election they don't like (Bush vs Gore) and hiding behind a shield of "Originalism" that's handily tossed aside as soon as it accomplishes a political goal of the Conservative party.

It is clear in the text of the second amendment that a well functioning and regulated militia is required for the common defense. In no words does it say anything about the "personal ownership" of firearms. That was invented wholesale by "Originalist" judges.

In the 1970’s, the violence was quieter, and lots of victim blaming, even today, so that many don’t report.

https://www.nbcnews.com/education-nation/students-are-walking-school-protest-districts-handling-sexual-assault-rcna8940

Did you forget the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part?

Funding for mental health help is a big one. https://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

Of course not. Did you forget the first part of that sentence, or did you skip to the end?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For over Two Hundred Years, that was interpreted as "to ensure the security of a free state, you need to have a well functioning and regulated militia, and for the people actively in that militia, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Except it already has been, since your average person, even in a militia, cannot own weapons like nuclear bombs.

But skipping over the first part of that, the part that defines the purpose of the amendment, seems to be common for people who pretend that they follow "Originalist" interpretations of the constitution, rather than just admitting that they like guns and want more people to own them. It was only in 2008 that this significant departure from previous understanding was taken, two hundred years later.

Poor parents can be great parents.

Rich parents can be poor parents.

The two are certainly mutually exclusive. But if we keep making excuses for poor parenting and blaming the system, then we have a real issue. As an immigrant born to parents much much much poorer than the average American I can attest to it.

Go look at the data, dude. Since about 2017 the rates have been WAY higher than they were in the 90s and early 2000s. Just because it wasn’t on social media doesn’t mean older shootings weren’t documented. We have data. The data clearly shows that there has been a significant increase in school shootings in the past 5 or so years.

Yes, agreed parent and mental health are key. But why not gun controls? Fewer guns means fewer gun deaths. That's the goal.

More of a currency debasement trap, but yeah, that’s the result.

Doing nothing sure is working isnt it? You cant ban bats because they are not made at out leisure. Guns unlike bats are a human creation.

So everything in the bill of rights is for individuals except the 2nd amendment, which preserves the right of the government to keep and bear arms for their security? Okay.

Well you can’t ban guns either without an amendment to the constitution.

[removed]

Look, if you like guns, that's fine. Just admit that you like guns and you want more of them in people's hands.

The shootings that come at schools are a result of that view, but if personal ownership of guns are more important than stopping school shootings, that's your decision, and the school shootings are the price in blood we pay as a society for it. That and a significant lack of an adequate social safety net around mental Healthcare, economic stability, and the like, when compared to other developed (or even underdeveloped) countries.

The history behind the prior interpretations around the 2nd Amendment before DC vs Heller, and the lack of Originalism in the viewpoints that decided it is well documented.

The Supreme Court took a significant departure from prior interpretations, and essentially invented a new right.

The prior interpretations of the 2nd amendment, for literally two hundred years prior, saw it only as be for the purposes of a functioning militia and the ability for their members to function in that militia.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but two hundred years of decisions and interpretations, overturned by "Originalist" judges in a narrow decision and a radical departure from prior form, are stated facts. They aren't my opinions, they are well documented.

Can you show me a Supreme Court opinion from 1822 stating that the 2nd amendment applies to the government’s right to keep and bear arms?

What an odd year to bring up. Here's two decisions that DC vs Heller effectively overturned, in practice if not officially, by inventing the private right to firearms, rather than its function in a militia (which in turn could generally be regulated by the states).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller - 1939, restriction of firearms not used by the military (short barreled shotguns aren't used by the military, don't relate to the performance of a militia, and aren't protected under those rules).

"it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois - 1886, Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. This included their personal equipment.

Private ownership over firearms was seen as something that states could (unless their own constitution prohibited it) restrict, and said States could also restrict non-federal militias and the actions and equipment those militias possessed.

DC vs Heller overturned this by creating the personal ownership right out of thin air, untethered to a militia, in defiance of the prior interpretations of the second amendment, since it was passed.

The 1822 was in reference to you saying that there have been decisions for the last 200 years.

As for the 1939 part, cool. I’m fine with having access to what the military has. It doesn’t make sense to limit SBRs anymore by that standard, because they’re used by the military today.

The main takeaway from the Presser case was that there is no Second Amendment violation when a state bans private citizens from forming personal military groups, drilling, and parading.

Again, I don't see anything about personal ownership of firearms being protected, because it did not exist outside of relating to a militia, until that right was invented in DC vs Heller.

If that right existed and was recognized by the courts, from 1788 - 2008, please let me know and link the court cases.

It didn’t have to go to court, it was clear in the wording of the 2nd amendment

Try again, it was previously able to be restricted, and laws implemented by states made no allusion to any personal ownership outside of a militia.

DC vs Heller the first to recognize that interpretation.

If you disagree, please provide citations as to what court case previously recognized personal ownership being the core point of the second amendment.

Laws were on the books that infringed on personal ownership, and the two cases I provided made no reference to any personal ownership, outside of those relating to a militia.

If it was clear in the wording, then why was the first part about militias even included, and why were other restrictions made by states prior to the decision allowed to stand prior.

You don’t get to just say “if the Supreme Court didn’t decide it, it’s not the law.”

Could we start arresting people who speak out against Joe Biden? It will be perfectly legal until the Supreme Court says it’s not, right? Or do you think that the 1st amendment is clear enough that you can’t arrest people for speaking out against their leader?

I still don’t understand why you think that something in the bill of rights is talking about giving power over the people, and not to the people, when every other part of it is giving people rights.

The beginning of the transcript for 1789 joint resolution of congress to amend the constitution said “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Key terms here are to prevent misconstruction and abuse of its powers, and to extend public confidence in the government. Do you really think after saying that, they’ll say that it’s the right of the government to keep and bear arms, or the right of the people? I’ll give you a hint, the second amendment says clearly “the right of the people.” How is “the right of the people” possibly misconstrued?

Guns are already extremely hard to get.

Like I said earlier, criminals will find ways to get weapons. I'd much rather have a gun to protect myself with than not have one and be a helpless victim.

They are very easy to get, maybe the easiest place to get guns in the first world. What rock are you living under?

Easiest place in the world? Maybe. Doesn't change the fact that they are not easy to get.

Do you know the process and how long it takes?

Easiest in the first world and why we have the highest gun murder rate in the first world.

[removed]

Nice job jumping to stereotypes and insults.

Just looked it up and the US isn't even in the top 10 in gun deaths per Capita. It's mostly South American countries.

Resting comprehension bubba....first. world. Not latin America haha but when that's your comp set.

And it's not name calling, just a fact. Rednecks are obsessed with guns. I just looked it up and rednecks are in fact obsessed with guns.

That's kinda racist, ngl. Anyways... It also looked like most of the gun related deaths in the US were suicides, with mass shootings being a very small (but highly publicized) category.

We both agree that school shootings are awful. We just have different ideas on how they can be solved. Banning guns is just a bandaid.

As someone who is not a redneck, I see guns as valuable tools.

Racist or not, it's a fact. White people in Europe don't want guns, not do most white people in cities. It's these rednecks who are slowing down any meaning legislation. And use stupid logic like well the bad guys will find guns or guns don't pull the trigger people do. Or it's actually really hard to get a gun.

I could go down the street RN and have a gun by the end of the week. I could probably find a subreddit and have a fun by tomorrow tbh.

Saying it's hard to get a gun in America is quite silly and such responses can only be met with "you are a redneck." Because only a red neck would say such non sense.

Redneck is a state of mind....not a race. Trust me, based on your comment and poorly thought out logic, you'd be a redneck.

I'm Asian, live on the west side, and I vote liberally.

Definitely not a redneck.

Definitely a redneck based on your logic....as a Texan I recognize that redneck is a state of mind and not a race.

Again, not a redneck. Not sure if you'd know one if it was right in front of you.

I'm sure that we agree on a lot of things.

> nothing is going to change

False. The next generation of politicians about to start their careers in the next couple elections all grew up in this era of increased school shootings. Each election cycle there is an increase in the number of first time voters who have been in a school during an active shooter event. The more these school shootings happen, the more adults there will be who have first or secondhand exposure to the terrors and traumas of shooting shootings. Majority of the new voters will vote democrat, all while more elderly republicans will pass away. Things are going to change over the next couple elections.

[removed]