Colorado is an antigun state.

[dellet]

School shootings predate the founding of the republic. What’s changed is the sensationalized reporting, the dramatization of the event, and the “common sense approach” of dealing with the distinct possibility that it might happen.

An April 30, 1866 editorial in the New York Times argued against students carrying pistols, citing "...pistols being dropped on the floor at balls or being exploded in very inconvenient ways. A boy of 12 has his pantaloons made with a pistol pocket; and this at a boarding-school filled with boys, who, we suppose, do or wish to do the same thing. We would advise parents to look into it, and learn whether shooting is to be a part of the scholastic course which may be practiced on their boys; or else we advise them to see that their own boys are properly armed with the most approved and deadly-pistol, and that there may be an equal chance at least of their shooting as of being shot."

If people really educated themselves of the history of school violence, maybe they would figure out it’s the people, not the tool that is the problem.

This is worth a read and the source for the above quote.

History of School Shootings in the United States | K12 Academics

1700s The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed...

www.k12academics.com

 

[precision1]

Another thing so many more kids go to college now.we get college professors from all over the country spewing this mess.

Even in elementary schools in far right states in tiny little towns.

Luckily the agenda is slowed alot with trump In.suddenly it's not cool to be a weirdo and they are nervous about it at least more than when Biden was in office ..

 

[precision1]

I don't think this is what liberals want. If you could come up with a way to stop the mass shootings, especially school shootings, the pressure against guns would all but cease. Fact is there never was a great deal of pressure against guns, not like there is today, until the mass shooting started. I know this is not a popular thing to say but I have not heard a substantial argument to make me see things differently. I wish I could.

The school shooting deal is super simple.more guns
Lock up schools and have police officers protecting schools and hold the officers responsible if anything happens..tons of ex or retired military would love this job.

One way in and out and being policed .id much rather my kids went to school like this .

We have some schools here with police officers. Unfortunately I can't remember the name they give the officers.

We throw millions of dollars away every day to other countries.
It would be easy to protect kids in schools

With all the pedophiles and child sex trades it probably needs to happen anyway

 

[Mulligan]

The school shooting deal is super simple.more guns
Lock up schools and have police officers protecting schools and hold the officers responsible if anything happens..tons of ex or retired military would love this job.

One way in and out and being policed .id much rather my kids went to school like this .

We have some schools here with police officers. Unfortunately I can't remember the name they give the officers.

We throw millions of dollars away every day to other countries.
It would be easy to protect kids in schools

With all the pedophiles and child sex trades it probably needs to happen anyway

Yep
Metal detectors and more Resource Officers at schools.
This shit ain’t hard!
It’s not cheap, but it’s not hard either.

Hell, they money Musk saved with uncovering the fraud in USAID alone would cover these costs for many years.
CW

 

[RexRugged]

School shootings predate the founding of the republic. What’s changed is the sensationalized reporting, the dramatization of the event, and the “common sense approach” of dealing with the distinct possibility that it might happen.



If people really educated themselves of the history of school violence, maybe they would figure out it’s the people, not the tool that is the problem.

This is worth a read and the source for the above quote.

History of School Shootings in the United States | K12 Academics

1700s The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed...

www.k12academics.com

I usually stay out of these conversations because a lot of folk just can't stay respectful of others. That in itself may be the biggest hurdle to overcome. All school shootings are not what I have posted about. School shootings are not necessarily mass school shootings as your list proves. I think it would be helpful if everybody on both sides of the conversation were accurate in what we are discussing. I'm a liberal and a gun enthusiast/hunter, have been all my life, definitely not the normal profile. I see things differently and think accuracy in the conversation would greatly improve the discourse. I don't agree with either side 100% because there are emotional belligerents on both sides. Here is a site that may have some pertinent info. https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/

 

[urbanrifleman]

There are 1000 anti gun lawyers for every pro 2nd amendment lawyer. The courts and judges are probably a pretty similar ratio.

All it really took was taking over the judiciary to kill the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights.

 

[J.d. Popkes]

If you think mass shootings going away makes gun control issues go away

You’ve already bought into their narrative

They got ya right where they want ya.

 

[goodbadugly]

Communist state of N.Y. did the same thing. You have to has a "special license" to have/buy/use any semi-auto. Even a 10/22 is included. BS state.

 

[ggshoots]

I usually stay out of these conversations because a lot of folk just can't stay respectful of others. That in itself may be the biggest hurdle to overcome. All school shootings are not what I have posted about. School shootings are not necessarily mass school shootings as your list proves. I think it would be helpful if everybody on both sides of the conversation were accurate in what we are discussing. I'm a liberal and a gun enthusiast/hunter, have been all my life, definitely not the normal profile. I see things differently and think accuracy in the conversation would greatly improve the discourse. I don't agree with either side 100% because there are emotional belligerents on both sides. Here is a site that may have some pertinent info. https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/

I have always believed that gun control is not about protecting people but about taking away the peoples ability to appose the government. Mass killings will never go away as long as we have mental issues and political unrest. When guns are not available people move on to bombings, have you ever been in an environment where bomb threats are a daily or weekly thing? I have. Also look at using vehicle's to kill and maim. How many times in the last several years have people used vehicles to mow down many people at a time? Do you see liberals rising up to ban vehicles? No because they need their vehicles but also that does not fit the agenda. How many people are killed with bats, knives and many other items. Never a peep about banning those items.

 

[joshb]

Communist state of N.Y. did the same thing. You have to has a "special license" to have/buy/use any semi-auto. Even a 10/22 is included. BS state.

Don’t forget sling shots and BB guns! Wait for the Knife Bill. It’s probably being written as we speak. Having a sharp pointy knife at a gathering of people is DANGEROUS!
HERE’s a new story for you! Libs on the loose making the world safer!

 

[RexRugged]

Let me be clear! I don't think guns themselves are the problem. I think the attitude shift in my lifetime is the problem. Parents do not teach respect for others, respect for the gun, and respect for those people who do try to uphold the law, hell respect for themselves! I think a great deal of people who make money in the armory business are unethical and ignore their responsibility far too often. BTW when I was a kid the NRA taught gun safety and hunter etiquette in our schools every year, they did not talk politics or money! There weren't any stupid frucking pink guns! I think Ronald Reagan screwed up immensely when he stopped funding treatment for mentally troubled people. JFK a military veteran started that much needed effort and a movie actor ended it. Oh and just so you don't get the wrong idea I voted for Reagan in 1980, I hunt, I reload, I sleep close to a revolver, and I practice every week.

 

[dellet]

I usually stay out of these conversations because a lot of folk just can't stay respectful of others. That in itself may be the biggest hurdle to overcome. All school shootings are not what I have posted about. School shootings are not necessarily mass school shootings as your list proves. I think it would be helpful if everybody on both sides of the conversation were accurate in what we are discussing. I'm a liberal and a gun enthusiast/hunter, have been all my life, definitely not the normal profile. I see things differently and think accuracy in the conversation would greatly improve the discourse. I don't agree with either side 100% because there are emotional belligerents on both sides. Here is a site that may have some pertinent info. https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/

I will only speak in general terms, because changing a mind with facts, is generally impossible, until you can change the thinking process. In the studies you provided it paints a very clear picture of when the problem of mass shootings started. Mid 1960’s. What’s really interesting about the date of 1966 being the dividing line is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was in its infancy. That should make it painfully obvious that gun control and gun violence are seemingly tied together with an inverse relationship. More control, more shootings.

Then look at the social changes that occurred in the same time frame. Nothing sums this up better than to have a Kennedy in the Trump Whitehouse. It’s not because the Kennedy moved his political views to the right.

The studies you linked to do not include gang violence. Gang violence is not included because of racial overtones. Dead gang bangers don’t pull on heart strings, and most gang bangers are not white. Dead white children selll. It’s the same thing that is painfully obvious when a young white girl disappears vs a young black girl or should we choose to point out the elephant in the room, the hundreds of young girls who are trafficked through the reservation system. Pretty white girls get head lines when they disappear. Media manipulation of facts and minds.

Those that use mass shootings, more specifically school shootings, are carefully using a social subset of the population as a means to an end. People who refuse to acknowledge the social engineering going on in the media, have their head in the sand.

Another fact conveniently ignored is that the rate of mass shootings growing exponentially since 1966 also mirrors the growth of the media and access to it. The number of televisions per household since 1966 and the news cycle has gone from not quite one per household with news available at 6am, 6pm, and 11pm. To now more than one media device per person, many individually carried 24/7 with media access available the same.

In the link I posted the New York Times posted an article almost 150 years ago about the growing numbers of youths forming there own “James gang” requiring police response all over the east coast. It was freely admitted then that this was caused by stories in the press. Now in our enlightened liberal modern lifestyle, media does not influence children. Just ask anyone in the media.

The Dreaded AR15 was available to anyone who wanted one by mail order prior to 1968. Now people want to ban it and rifles like it. The rifle is exactly the same now as it was then. Only the people are different.

So if the problem is guns, an inanimate object that existed prior to 1966 when the exponential growth of mass shootings started, an item that has no mind to change, that was freely available to all members of society and has not changed, can not be the source of the change. That leaves the animate object as the culprit, which also existed prior to 1966, and has clearly changed its thought process.

Quite simply since 1966, the style of firearms available has not significantly changed. Access to those same firearms has become more and more restrictive. So blaming the firearm is an exercise in futility, and is a good indicator gun control does not work. If you accept that simple fact, then you must concede that the problem is the human.

If the problem is the human, you need to research what changed them. Since we have a specific date in time, 1966, we quite simply have to look at what happened in the few years preceding and since. Here’s what becomes painfully obvious. I don’t like the terms liberal and conservative, they are floating definitions. Sadly we are mostly stuck with them. So here’s the question.

Is the United States generally more conservative or liberal since roughly 1950?

Followed up with, Does that change seem to correlate with the time frame of the exponential rise is mass shootings?

A “liberal” such as yourself, might do well to consider a new moniker. Hard left and liberal is too often confused in the same way as hard right and skin head.

One last thought.
Conservatives want free access to firearms and to tightly control or eliminate recreational drugs.

Liberals want free access to recreational drugs and to tightly control or eliminate firearms.

This has been going on for more than 100 years. It won’t change in the next 100. The big difference is that a fire arm can not alter a mind and cause someone to do something stupid with a drug. But all too often we find out that mass shooters have been using a mind altering drug, recreational or prescribed, before doing something really stupid with a gun.

Is it possible to pin an approximate date on the rise of recreational drug use?
Would that date in any way match up to the given date of 1966 for the start of the rise in mass shootings?

 

[RexRugged]

I will only speak in general terms, because changing a mind with facts, is generally impossible, until you can change the thinking process. In the studies you provided it paints a very clear picture of when the problem of mass shootings started. Mid 1960’s. What’s really interesting about the date of 1966 being the dividing line is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was in its infancy. That should make it painfully obvious that gun control and gun violence are seemingly tied together with an inverse relationship. More control, more shootings.

Then look at the social changes that occurred in the same time frame. Nothing sums this up better than to have a Kennedy in the Trump Whitehouse. It’s not because the Kennedy moved his political views to the right.

The studies you linked to do not include gang violence. Gang violence is not included because of racial overtones. Dead gang bangers don’t pull on heart strings, and most gang bangers are not white. Dead white children selll. It’s the same thing that is painfully obvious when a young white girl disappears vs a young black girl or should we choose to point out the elephant in the room, the hundreds of young girls who are trafficked through the reservation system. Pretty white girls get head lines when they disappear. Media manipulation of facts and minds.

Those that use mass shootings, more specifically school shootings, are carefully using a social subset of the population as a means to an end. People who refuse to acknowledge the social engineering going on in the media, have their head in the sand.

Another fact conveniently ignored is that the rate of mass shootings growing exponentially since 1966 also mirrors the growth of the media and access to it. The number of televisions per household since 1966 and the news cycle has gone from not quite one per household with news available at 6am, 6pm, and 11pm. To now more than one media device per person, many individually carried 24/7 with media access available the same.

In the link I posted the New York Times posted an article almost 150 years ago about the growing numbers of youths forming there own “James gang” requiring police response all over the east coast. It was freely admitted then that this was caused by stories in the press. Now in our enlightened liberal modern lifestyle, media does not influence children. Just ask anyone in the media.

The Dreaded AR15 was available to anyone who wanted one by mail order prior to 1968. Now people want to ban it and rifles like it. The rifle is exactly the same now as it was then. Only the people are different.

So if the problem is guns, an inanimate object that existed prior to 1966 when the exponential growth of mass shootings started, an item that has no mind to change, that was freely available to all members of society and has not changed, can not be the source of the change. That leaves the animate object as the culprit, which also existed prior to 1966, and has clearly changed its thought process.

Quite simply since 1966, the style of firearms available has not significantly changed. Access to those same firearms has become more and more restrictive. So blaming the firearm is an exercise in futility, and is a good indicator gun control does not work. If you accept that simple fact, then you must concede that the problem is the human.

If the problem is the human, you need to research what changed them. Since we have a specific date in time, 1966, we quite simply have to look at what happened in the few years preceding and since. Here’s what becomes painfully obvious. I don’t like the terms liberal and conservative, they are floating definitions. Sadly we are mostly stuck with them. So here’s the question.

Is the United States generally more conservative or liberal since roughly 1950?

Followed up with, Does that change seem to correlate with the time frame of the exponential rise is mass shootings?

A “liberal” such as yourself, might do well to consider a new moniker. Hard left and liberal is too often confused in the same way as hard right and skin head.

One last thought.
Conservatives want free access to firearms and to tightly control or eliminate recreational drugs.

Liberals want free access to recreational drugs and to tightly control or eliminate firearms.

This has been going on for more than 100 years. It won’t change in the next 100. The big difference is that a fire arm can not alter a mind and cause someone to do something stupid with a drug. But all too often we find out that mass shooters have been using a mind altering drug, recreational or prescribed, before doing something really stupid with a gun.

Is it possible to pin an approximate date on the rise of recreational drug use?
Would that date in any way match up to the given date of 1966 for the start of the rise in mass shootings?

That is an excellent post! I will need some time to digest what you have posted here. I will say the one aspect you didn't note was the affect on society Vietnam had. That correlates with those times as well. I think we both agree the gun is not responsible for the ongoing tragedy. It does not fire on its own. But the quick reaction in my mind is: the gun being so available to people not deserving of that privilege very well may be! When I go to the range I nearly always meet older fellows who say they choose this time to shoot in order to avoid all the yahoos who are there at other times. That says quite a lot as well.

 

[ELR LVR]

I lived in Colorado from 1987 until January 10 2023. Every time I go back there I can't believe what a S hole it has become. It was going downhill for years, but in the last 5 to 10 years they have accelerated the spin around the drain. There is an endless list of crappy laws, regulations, costs, taxes and other reductions of freedom.

I don't follow it exactly but since I left there. There is now a 3 day waiting period on all gun purchases after the background check. 11% additional tax on ammo and I believe reloading supplies. This new B.S. on the purchase of the "most lethal weapon on the market". Wolves. There is a new law on storage of guns in cars. Red Flag laws were enacted before I left. Background check in Colorado costs $10. The public shooting range in Basalt has video cameras at the entrance, the parking lot, and all the benches, video is stored forever, accessible to "all law enforcement".

Encroachment
Screw 'em and exercise your rights with impunity

 

[30378]

My last year to hunt Colorado was 2020 and never to return again. Disappointing yes, but it was getting WAY too crazy for me.

 

[RexRugged]

dellet I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Here is my response it's obvious you are an educated and thoughtful person:
I will only speak in general terms, because changing a mind with facts, is generally impossible, until you can change the thinking process. In the studies you provided it paints a very clear picture of when the problem of mass shootings started. Mid 1960’s. What’s really interesting about the date of 1966 being the dividing line is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was in its infancy. That should make it painfully obvious that gun control and gun violence are seemingly tied together with an inverse relationship. More control, more shootings.



Other factors are in play here one being age. Young shooters aren’t affected in such a way since they weren’t alive then. I think other factors are more pertinent such as parenting and social media in the 21st century.

Then look at the social changes that occurred in the same time frame. Nothing sums this up better than to have a Kennedy in the Trump Whitehouse. It’s not because the Kennedy moved his political views to the right.



Nothing here but politics and not conducive to a good discussion.

The studies you linked to do not include gang violence. Gang violence is not included because of racial overtones. Dead gang bangers don’t pull on heart strings, and most gang bangers are not white. Dead white children selll. It’s the same thing that is painfully obvious when a young white girl disappears vs a young black girl or should we choose to point out the elephant in the room, the hundreds of young girls who are trafficked through the reservation system. Pretty white girls get head lines when they disappear. Media manipulation of facts and minds.



Gang violence whether gangsters or gangbangers is a different issue altogether since both are the criminal mechanization's of business criminal but for business/control reasons.

Those that use mass shootings, more specifically school shootings, are carefully using a social subset of the population as a means to an end. People who refuse to acknowledge the social engineering going on in the media, have their head in the sand.



Well both sides have their soldiers in that war.

Another fact conveniently ignored is that the rate of mass shootings growing exponentially since 1966 also mirrors the growth of the media and access to it. The number of televisions per household since 1966 and the news cycle has gone from not quite one per household with news available at 6am, 6pm, and 11pm. To now more than one media device per person, many individually carried 24/7 with media access available the same.



I suspect the computer with its ancillary internet and movies have had a far larger impact.

In the link I posted the New York Times posted an article almost 150 years ago about the growing numbers of youths forming there own “James gang” requiring police response all over the east coast. It was freely admitted then that this was caused by stories in the press. Now in our enlightened liberal modern lifestyle, media does not influence children. Just ask anyone in the media.



I find this to be somewhat illusive in its impact since I believe social media is far more responsible and nearly all the bigger platforms are owned and run by stout conservative people whose biggest concern is money.

The Dreaded AR15 was available to anyone who wanted one by mail order prior to 1968. Now people want to ban it and rifles like it. The rifle is exactly the same now as it was then. Only the people are different.



And it was the design winner for the military as a weapon most useful for paratroopers.

So if the problem is guns, an inanimate object that existed prior to 1966 when the exponential growth of mass shootings started, an item that has no mind to change, that was freely available to all members of society and has not changed, can not be the source of the change. That leaves the animate object as the culprit, which also existed prior to 1966, and has clearly changed its thought process.



I’ve never said the problem was the gun itself but the industry that cares not a wit other than making money.

Quite simply since 1966, the style of firearms available has not significantly changed. Access to those same firearms has become more and more restrictive. So blaming the firearm is an exercise in futility, and is a good indicator gun control does not work. If you accept that simple fact, then you must concede that the problem is the human.



Again not the firearm but the culture as we have already discussed.

If the problem is the human, you need to research what changed them. Since we have a specific date in time, 1966, we quite simply have to look at what happened in the few years preceding and since. Here’s what becomes painfully obvious. I don’t like the terms liberal and conservative, they are floating definitions. Sadly we are mostly stuck with them. So here’s the question.

Is the United States generally more conservative or liberal since roughly 1950?

Followed up with, Does that change seem to correlate with the time frame of the exponential rise is mass shootings?




I’m a liberal and I do not want to eliminate firearms and neither do my liberal friends. This is a false assumption.

This has been going on for more than 100 years. It won’t change in the next 100. The big difference is that a fire arm can not alter a mind and cause someone to do something stupid with a drug. But all too often we find out that mass shooters have been using a mind altering drug, recreational or prescribed, before doing something really stupid with a gun.

Is it possible to pin an approximate date on the rise of recreational drug use?
Would that date in any way match up to the given date of 1966 for the start of the rise in mass shootings?



Like I said before your correlation leaves out the biggest factor of all I believe Vietnam!

 

[Kracken McGraw]

My last year to hunt Colorado was 2020 and never to return again. Disappointing yes, but it was getting WAY too crazy for me.

1991 for me. And last time we went by there the good access roads were under lock and key by homeowners.

 

[RED DIRT]

If "THEIR LAWS" don`t follow the US Constitution, you ignore "THEIR LAWS".

People need to start standing up against this crap! Do NOT comply with tyrants!

 

[J.d. Popkes]

Encroachment
Screw 'em and exercise your rights with impunity

That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought of that angle. Weed is federally prohibited but Colorado disregarded like several others. So disregard Colorado law.

I mean I would move, or never be there to begin with, and they will probably jail your ass, but the point remains.

 

[dellet]

That is an excellent post! I will need some time to digest what you have posted here. I will say the one aspect you didn't note was the affect on society Vietnam had. That correlates with those times as well. I think we both agree the gun is not responsible for the ongoing tragedy. It does not fire on its own. But the quick reaction in my mind is: the gun being so available to people not deserving of that privilege very well may be! When I go to the range I nearly always meet older fellows who say they choose this time to shoot in order to avoid all the yahoos who are there at other times. That says quite a lot as well.

I deliberately avoided Vietnam as a political hot potato. But look at the timeline.

In 1960 at his farewell address President Eisenhower, warned of the military industrial complex and the destruction it would bring to the American political and social society. I also ignored the civil right movement of the time as another hot potato. They both need to factored in for societal change, but not directly related to gun control.

Ironically or not. The first protests of the Vietnam war started in 1965 with sit ins, and turned into full blown violence and mayhem in, you guessed it, 1966. Largely instigated by college professors on college campuses. College campuses even at that time were known for left leaning if not full blown communist teachings. McCarthy in retrospect, although paranoid, may have been on to something a few years earlier.

President Johnson a firm supporter for civil rights, when pressed why he, a Texan, supported the movement famously referred to using welfare to secure the black vote for something like the next 150 years. The politically motivated destruction of the American family has officially begun.

Unlike the recent BLM protests, the early civil rights protests were civil disobedience and passive. The instigators of violence at that time were the police.

The Johnson administration is firmly tied into the civil unrest surrounding both the war in Vietnam and civil rights for political gain. Trying to play both hands led to his demise.

In 1968 things do not improve with the election of President Nixon. The Vice President of Eisenhower shows to the very man he warned us about. The war spreads to Cambodia and Laos.

War sucks. The media decides who the villain is. It was impossible to imbed American journalists into Viet Cong units. So the media did the only thing they could. “If it bleeds it leads” was the status quo. For the first time in history child victims of war were broadcast nightly in living color for all to see. During WWII, newsreels largely chose to show dead American soldiers. Propaganda to build an anger against the enemy. The next generation of journalists could have taken the upper road and shown both sides of the war, but instead used the same propaganda techniques as before. The difference was that they chose to use that propaganda against their own people. Instead of demonizing the enemy, they chose to demonize their own sons. Largely for political gain and influence peddling. The study of William Randolph Hearst is appropriate to under stand the role media plays in inciting and prolonging wars as well as influencing politics.

We’re left with the question of only whether the hard left turn American society took in the 60’s was natural or manipulated. I think that answer can easily be answered by following the money.

The craziest thing about the times we live in now is that everyone agrees that Amaerican society is currently broken. We just can’t agree on which side is to blame. We currently have probably one of three or four blended administrations in the history of this country. That administration has made a goal of trying to unravel the corruption that has been building since.....1866. A large portion of the citizens of the United States sees that as a bad thing.

dellet I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Here is my response it's obvious you are an educated and thoughtful person:
I will only speak in general terms, because changing a mind with facts, is generally impossible, until you can change the thinking process. In the studies you provided it paints a very clear picture of when the problem of mass shootings started. Mid 1960’s. What’s really interesting about the date of 1966 being the dividing line is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was in its infancy. That should make it painfully obvious that gun control and gun violence are seemingly tied together with an inverse relationship. More control, more shootings.



Other factors are in play here one being age. Young shooters aren’t affected in such a way since they weren’t alive then. I think other factors are more pertinent such as parenting and social media in the 21st century.

Then look at the social changes that occurred in the same time frame. Nothing sums this up better than to have a Kennedy in the Trump Whitehouse. It’s not because the Kennedy moved his political views to the right.



Nothing here but politics and not conducive to a good discussion.

The studies you linked to do not include gang violence. Gang violence is not included because of racial overtones. Dead gang bangers don’t pull on heart strings, and most gang bangers are not white. Dead white children selll. It’s the same thing that is painfully obvious when a young white girl disappears vs a young black girl or should we choose to point out the elephant in the room, the hundreds of young girls who are trafficked through the reservation system. Pretty white girls get head lines when they disappear. Media manipulation of facts and minds.



Gang violence whether gangsters or gangbangers is a different issue altogether since both are the criminal mechanization's of business criminal but for business/control reasons.

Those that use mass shootings, more specifically school shootings, are carefully using a social subset of the population as a means to an end. People who refuse to acknowledge the social engineering going on in the media, have their head in the sand.



Well both sides have their soldiers in that war.

Another fact conveniently ignored is that the rate of mass shootings growing exponentially since 1966 also mirrors the growth of the media and access to it. The number of televisions per household since 1966 and the news cycle has gone from not quite one per household with news available at 6am, 6pm, and 11pm. To now more than one media device per person, many individually carried 24/7 with media access available the same.



I suspect the computer with its ancillary internet and movies have had a far larger impact.

In the link I posted the New York Times posted an article almost 150 years ago about the growing numbers of youths forming there own “James gang” requiring police response all over the east coast. It was freely admitted then that this was caused by stories in the press. Now in our enlightened liberal modern lifestyle, media does not influence children. Just ask anyone in the media.



I find this to be somewhat illusive in its impact since I believe social media is far more responsible and nearly all the bigger platforms are owned and run by stout conservative people whose biggest concern is money.

The Dreaded AR15 was available to anyone who wanted one by mail order prior to 1968. Now people want to ban it and rifles like it. The rifle is exactly the same now as it was then. Only the people are different.



And it was the design winner for the military as a weapon most useful for paratroopers.

So if the problem is guns, an inanimate object that existed prior to 1966 when the exponential growth of mass shootings started, an item that has no mind to change, that was freely available to all members of society and has not changed, can not be the source of the change. That leaves the animate object as the culprit, which also existed prior to 1966, and has clearly changed its thought process.



I’ve never said the problem was the gun itself but the industry that cares not a wit other than making money.

Quite simply since 1966, the style of firearms available has not significantly changed. Access to those same firearms has become more and more restrictive. So blaming the firearm is an exercise in futility, and is a good indicator gun control does not work. If you accept that simple fact, then you must concede that the problem is the human.



Again not the firearm but the culture as we have already discussed.

If the problem is the human, you need to research what changed them. Since we have a specific date in time, 1966, we quite simply have to look at what happened in the few years preceding and since. Here’s what becomes painfully obvious. I don’t like the terms liberal and conservative, they are floating definitions. Sadly we are mostly stuck with them. So here’s the question.

Is the United States generally more conservative or liberal since roughly 1950?

Followed up with, Does that change seem to correlate with the time frame of the exponential rise is mass shootings?




I’m a liberal and I do not want to eliminate firearms and neither do my liberal friends. This is a false assumption.

This has been going on for more than 100 years. It won’t change in the next 100. The big difference is that a fire arm can not alter a mind and cause someone to do something stupid with a drug. But all too often we find out that mass shooters have been using a mind altering drug, recreational or prescribed, before doing something really stupid with a gun.

Is it possible to pin an approximate date on the rise of recreational drug use?
Would that date in any way match up to the given date of 1966 for the start of the rise in mass shootings?



Like I said before your correlation leaves out the biggest factor of all I believe Vietnam!

I addressed Vietnam and the civil rights above, you’re thoughts above are appreciated and show the dangers of generalization. I was not able to read what was remove by a moderator, if it’s pertinent, send it by pm.

A lot of liberals own guns, and a lot of conservatives do drugs. That’s why the deep red state of Montana voted to legalize the Sale of marijuana.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. But I will leave you with one more thing to ponder.

You stated that you don’t think that children of today are not effected as much do to age and not being alive then. The grand parents of today’s teenager came of age in the 60’s. Their parenting skills and ideals molded during that turmoil. How could they not be influenced by that?

The other item left off the table was that the 60’s was also when the state started to get more control of the education system. Children’s rights became a cause. Now it’s so far gone that today in many states it appears the school has more rights than parents in the raising of their children. Tonthe point where the school can cover illegal activity by the child. Not only from the parents but law enforcement.

And for the record, let me be Chrystal clear about any of the above statements. I have left out entirely( I hope, it was the goal) all party references. Sighting individuals. As I firmly believe both parties, and both conservative and liberals got us to where we are now. This was mostly about gun control, which sadly can not be separate from politics. With that in mind I must mention the assault weapons ban of 1986 and the Brady Bill.

The bigger question addressed was societal change regarding guns. 150 years ago apparently it was socially acceptable for a teacher to beat a young girl to a certain limit. Past that limit it was acceptable for her brother to shoot the teacher dead. Times change. People not so much.