School Gun Shootings: Access to Guns or Something Else?

I don't think anyone will assert (if you do, please cite sources) that school gun shootings were more prevalent in the U.S. fifty, sixty or seventy years ago than today.

I also don't think that anyone can seriously argue that access to guns was more strictly controlled fifty, sixty or seventy years ago than today.

So, then, if access to guns was far easier fifty, sixty or seventy years ago than today and yet there were not just fewer but FAR FEWER school shootings than today, isn't it reasonable to conclude that other factors are at work that are resulting in FAR MORE school shootings than simply the mere access to a firearm?

EDIT:
Statistical reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

School Massacres Around the World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_death_toll

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

jackson55 · M

In 2017 the murder rate in London surpassed the murder rate in NYC. Hard to get a gun in London, so it was with knives. It was in the NY times, look it up. Cant buy a gun in or around Chicago, but 600 gun deaths since the first of the year. Guns are not the issue, it's the people that get their hands on em.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@jackson55

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43628494

Graylight · 51-55, F

@jackson55 This sounds true, but only if you look at the last two months – which some think is way too short a time frame. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that they recorded 15 murders in February, while in the same month the New York Police Department (NYPD) recorded 11 killings. In March London also had more murders, albeit by a very slim margin: 22 to New York’s 21. There's also some concern about how the two rates were compared.

Additionally, the rate hasn't been attributed to London's rise in crime but in the drop in NYC crime.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html

jackson55 · M

@Graylight All true. The point being that when people want to kill others you don't need a gun.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@jackson55 No, you don't. But nothing is as easy or quick to use as a gun. Knives require close contact to the victim. They aren't as lethal. They don't maim or kill as efficiently; they can't reach as large a target group and they take at least a second or two of thought, a thing not necessary when pulling a trigger.

Guns are dangerous. Uncontested. Guns kill. Uncontested. There were 594 homocides in England for the year 2017. The number for the US in 2016 was 17,250.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/

jackson55 · M

@Graylight Want to stop school shootings?? Rather than a sign that says this is a gun free zone, They should say armed personal on this premises.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@jackson55 Yes, because more gas equals less fire, more rain means dryer ground, and lots of guns mean saving lives.

Having armed teachers and other personnel has already resulted in shootings, misfires and lost firearms. A trained, experienced marksman knows enough to keep a gun stowed and locked until his/her life is threatened beyond any other means of defense. The average citizen is, on this particular skill, an idiot.

jackson55 · M

@Graylight There's truth to that. You can't give a gun to any teacher and many wouldn't want to carry a gun. But there could be few with training that were were willing. To ban guns just ain't going to happen. There's too many and the American people would never go for it.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@jackson55 "Traning" for teachers like the 4-hour class required to carry a concealed weapon? That's like trying to fly a plane after a day's training.

To be clear, I agree with you about gun bans. Not only does the SCOTUS consider it law of the land right now to have the freedom to own a firearm, but it makes sense for some who truly need one.

But there's a vast chasm between an outright ban and the complete freedom to amass guns with no registration, training or record-keeping. In that chasm, I think, lays an opportunity for sane regulation, much in the same way we regulate vegetables, furniture, cars and even warning labels on towels.

I love guns. I just don't think we should love them to our own destruction.

jackson55 · M

@Graylight I agree with you on that. Some don't know which is the business end. More training is needed, I agree. Background checks are a joke. All of the latest shootings are from people that should have never gotten their hands on a gun. This latest shooting in Texas should be put right at the feet of the kids parents. The kid should not have been able to get his hands on his dads guns. Background checks would not stop that.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@jackson55 You're the first person I've heard say background checks are insufficient. They are.

Somewhere there's an answer to this issue both sides can live with, but it starts with sane discussion and measured discourse. Maybe when we all try to stop winning the argument for the sake of the argument itself, movement can be made.