School shooting in Texas (shooter arrested)

[SlipZtrEm]

I drove one of these for a few summers:

It was an auto too. Outside of getting used to the sheer size (and terrible ride) it was remarkably similar to driving a regular car.

I think we're picking nits here. Most rentals in Canada/US will be autos (which is what people are used to here). Maybe most trucks available in Europe are manuals (which is what people are used to there). It's sort of missing the point that getting access to a vehicle of that sort is quite difficult for a teenager, unless it's their parents or someone else's they know.

EDIT: Shows me for not updating this page in about an hour...

 

[Scaff]

I can only speak from my experience of doing both. Buying a handgun and renting a moving vehicle took about the same amount of time. I assume the moving company (U-Haul) ran my driving record before letting me take their truck and had me fill out a bunch of insurance papers. The gun shop I was at took my license, ran a quick check, and had me sign some papers.

This was Michigan though where it's fairly easy to buy a gun or rent a vehicle. I'm not sure what it's like in other states.

Sorry, just to be clear, was that the same licence is each case or a specific one for each (as in the UK they are specific).

 

[Joey D]

Sorry, just to be clear, was that the same licence is each case or a specific one for each (as in the UK they are specific).

Nope, driver's license for both. The gun shop needed some sort of legal identification. I could've used a passport too if I'd had it on me. I assume the U-Haul company wanted to know whether or not I could legally drive. So two different purposes, but still the same piece of identification. If I'd had a CCW permit, I could've just presented that and skipped the background check process.

Now that I think about it though, I did have to give my fingerprints for the gun, but that took a couple seconds.

 

[Tornado]

Driver's licence or a direct equivalent is the only identification you need for a huge range of things in the US; with the main exceptions that come to mind being land border crossings (which need an enhanced driver's licence or a passport that both require a bunch of background checks), buying a handgun (which requires a CCW permit that requires a bunch of background checks) or driving a commercial vehicle (which requires a separate, more specific driver's test). And you don't need a CDL to rent a truck with a GVWR under 24,000 pounds. That's generally 20 feet and up, but it depends on whether it starts from a regular pickup/van chassis or something like an Isuzu dedicated box frame.

Yet in majority of the rest of the world, without access to guns in the same way they are still not used by students to target each other.

So my genuine question is why?

Danoff's charts from the other page certainly seem to suggest that people in America just find murdering others a much more reasonable response to things in general than people elsewhere do.

 

[Scaff]

Nope, driver's license for both. The gun shop needed some sort of legal identification. I could've used a passport too if I'd had it on me. I assume the U-Haul company wanted to know whether or not I could legally drive. So two different purposes, but still the same piece of identification. If I'd had a CCW permit, I could've just presented that and skipped the background check process.

Now that I think about it though, I did have to give my fingerprints for the gun, but that took a couple seconds.

So to obtain the vehicle you have to provide proof that you have been able to demonstrate the ability to use a vehicle in a safe and proficient manner (which takes time, practice and testing).

To obtain the gun required simply ID.

I would argue that makes the gun the easier to obtain, yet both (in my view) should require a means of having to demonstrate the ability to safety and correctly use them.

 

[Joey D]

buying a handgun (which requires a CCW permit). .

I'm sure this is a state-to-state thing, but in Michigan, you did not need a CCW to buy a handgun. I bought mine with my driver's license and by filling out a couple of forms. For a rifle, I don't really even remember them checking hardly anything.

So to obtain the vehicle you have to provide proof that you have been able to demonstrate the ability to use a vehicle in a safe and proficient manner (which takes time, practice and testing).

To obtain the gun required simply ID.

I would argue that makes the gun the easier to obtain, yet both (in my view) should require a means of having to demonstrate the ability to safety and correctly use them.

I can't really argue that. At no point when I bought my handgun did they ask me if I knew what I was doing, nor did they really offer to show me. I did take a class later on to at least learn the basics and to make sure I understood aiming, trigger pressure, etc. I still don't believe I'm qualified to carry a handgun, but I really don't think most people who choose to carry are qualified.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yet in majority of the rest of the world, without access to guns in the same way they are still not used by students to target each other.

So my genuine question is why?

The reason why such occurences are less likely to happen in Europe is the much higher standard of public education. Although the US have some of the best (high) schools in the world....the public system is apparently way underfunded. Violence is sadly almost always more prevalent in places with a lower standard in education.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Nope, driver's license for both. The gun shop needed some sort of legal identification. I could've used a passport too if I'd had it on me. I assume the U-Haul company wanted to know whether or not I could legally drive. So two different purposes, but still the same piece of identification. If I'd had a CCW permit, I could've just presented that and skipped the background check process.

Now that I think about it though, I did have to give my fingerprints for the gun, but that took a couple seconds.

Some car rental places do a soft credit check on you as well as make sure you have a valid driver's license. Firearm purchases require valid identification too to prove state residency mostly. It's not as simple as just giving your license and signing some forms. You also had to fill out federal form 4473, which includes your social security number so be submitted in a criminal background check that would include looking for any discrepancies in residency or identity, any felony convictions, misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, active restraining orders and a check to see if you've ever been adjudicated mentally defective through an NICS database. The check doesn't take very long but it's not as easy as just giving your license to a gun shop.

 

[Scaff]

I'm sure this is a state-to-state thing, but in Michigan, you did not need a CCW to buy a handgun. I bought mine with my driver's license and by filling out a couple of forms. For a rifle, I don't really even remember them checking hardly anything.



I can't really argue that. At no point when I bought my handgun did they ask me if I knew what I was doing, nor did they really offer to show me. I did take a class later on to at least learn the basics and to make sure I understood aiming, trigger pressure, etc. I still don't believe I'm qualified to carry a handgun, but I really don't think most people who choose to carry are qualified.

Which may point to a cultural issue being a major factor, sensible gun owners and families will teach these things, but I suspect that's a minority.

The ease of availability combined with the casual attitude, it makes sense when compared to the Swiss who have similar levels of ownership (per head), but a very different approach to ownership.

The reason why such occurences are less likely to happen in Europe is the much higher standard of public education. Although the US have some of the best (high) schools in the world....the public system is apparently way underfunded. Violence is sadly almost always more prevalent in places with a lower standard in education.

Yet most of the attacks in schools don't seem to be carried out by people from that kind of demographic.

 

[PocketZeven]

So to obtain the vehicle you have to provide proof that you have been able to demonstrate the ability to use a vehicle in a safe and proficient manner (which takes time, practice and testing).

To obtain the gun required simply ID.

I would argue that makes the gun the easier to obtain, yet both (in my view) should require a means of having to demonstrate the ability to safety and correctly use them.

The problem is gun lobbiest will always claim a gun "license" obtained by training and clearing a shooting/gun proficiency test (periodically renewing) under carefull view of a government body, is a violation of the 2nd amendment...

 

[Tornado]

So to obtain the vehicle you have to provide proof that you have been able to demonstrate the ability to use a vehicle in a safe and proficient manner (which takes time, practice and testing).

Well, you need to provide proof that you passed your driver's test. While it certainly should be proof of those things, all it actually demonstrates in New York (as an example) is that you went to a four hour class at some point, had your parents sign a form saying you knew what you were doing and maybe managed to scrape past the actual practical exam (which in my case was driving around a block and parallel parking in a car with an automatic, parking sensors and parking assist mirrors) in your first two attempts.

To obtain the gun required simply ID.

Which they use to run background checks, the comprehensiveness of which depending on the state and gun in question.

I'm sure this is a state-to-state thing, but in Michigan, you did not need a CCW to buy a handgun

I said "CCW" but I meant "pistol permit"; which is admittedly a New York thing. My bad.

 

[Scaff]

Well, you need to provide proof that you passed your driver's test. While it certainly should be proof of those things, all it actually demonstrates in New York (as an example) is that you went to a four hour class at some point, had your parents sign a form saying you knew what you were doing and managed to scrape past the actual practical exam (which in my case was driving around a block and parallel parking in a car with an automatic, parking sensors and parking assist mirrors) in your first two attempts.

Which would still be more than is required for the gun.

Which they use to run background checks, the comprehensiveness of which depending on the state and gun in question.

To what degree do they vary and do they always require you to wait for them to be carried out?

 

[Joey D]

Some car rental places do a soft credit check on you as well as make sure you have a valid driver's license. Firearm purchases require valid identification too to prove state residency mostly. It's not as simple as just giving your license and signing some forms. You also had to fill out federal form 4473, which includes your social security number so be submitted in a criminal background check that would include looking for any discrepancies in residency or identity, any felony convictions, misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, active restraining orders and a check to see if you've ever been adjudicated mentally defective through an NICS database. The check doesn't take very long but it's not as easy as just giving your license to a gun shop.

I mean it really was that simple though and I did mention the background check in my first post on the subject. I'm sure in other states, it differs but I've only ever bought guns in Michigan. The shop didn't need a ton of information from me and the only thing I had to do after buying the gun was stop by the police station a couple miles from my house and put a copy of the gun's license in a drop box.

Which may point to a cultural issue being a major factor, sensible gun owners and families will teach these things, but I suspect that's a minority.

The ease of availability combined with the casual attitude, it makes sense when compared to the Swiss who have similar levels of ownership (per head), but a very different approach to ownership.

I've always been a bit bewildered at people I know with guns that never grew up with them or had any form of training with them. I grew up in a family that hunted and my dad and grandpa repeatedly drilled gun safety in my head to make sure I knew that it was a tool capable of killing. My grandpa also took the time to take me to the range frequently so I knew how to safely handle a rifle.

To what degree do they vary and do they always require you to wait for them to be carried out?

My background check took just a few minutes. They input some information into a computer that was in the backroom and once it was complete they came out and took my credit card. So, yes, I had to wait but in Michigan at least there wasn't any additional waiting period.

 

[Scaff]

I've always been a bit bewildered at people I know with guns that never grew up with them or had any form of training with them. I grew up in a family that hunted and my dad and grandpa repeatedly drilled gun safety in my head to make sure I knew that it was a tool capable of killing. My grandpa also took the time to take me to the range frequently so I knew how to safely handle a rifle.

Almost exactly the same for me.

My background check took just a few minutes. They input some information into a computer that was in the backroom and once it was complete they came out and took my credit card. So, yes, I had to wait but in Michigan at least there wasn't any additional waiting period.

Thanks, for comparison are any kind of checks required when you obtain/renew your driving licence?

 

[MustangRyan]

CNN's parameters for their numbers:

The time period: From January 1, 2009 to May 21, 2018.
The definition: The parameters we followed in this count are -

• Shooting must involve at least one person being shot (not including the shooter)
• Shooting must occur on school grounds
• We included gang violence, fights and domestic violence (but our count is NOT limited to those categories)
• We included grades Kindergarten through college/university level as well as vocational schools
• We included accidental discharge of a firearm as long as the first two parameters are met

A more scrutinizing analysis has significantly reduced similar all-encompassing numbers previously provided. For example, a claim that there had been 74 school shootings from the time of Sandy Hook (Dec 2012) to the summer of 2014, a rate of nearly 1 school shooting per week.

Our Breakdown

We reviewed news reports for all 74 shootings and did our best to sort them into five categories. Here’s our breakdown. (See individual shootings by category here, with clickable links to news reports on each shooting.)

• Incidents such as Sandy Hook or Columbine in which the shooter intended to commit mass murder: 10 instances

• Incidents related to criminal activity (such as drug dealing or robbery), or personal altercations: 39 instances

• Incidents unconnected to members of school community and/or that took place outside school hours: 16 instances

• Suicides: 6 instances

• Accidental discharges: 3 instances

In all, these 74 incidents resulted in 38 deaths and 53 injuries. The biggest death toll in one incident was a shooting spree that ended at Santa Monica College. Six people died, though not all of them took place on the campus.

While the list includes a lot of gunfire, deaths and injuries, only about 14 percent were shootings that mirrored Columbine and Sandy Hook.

In addition, almost half -- 35 -- occurred at a college or university rather than a K-12 school. This clashes with the imagery invoked by the line in the chart’s introduction, that "we should feel secure in sending our children to school — comforted by the knowledge that they’re safe."



Is it misleading?

The experts we consulted agreed that Everytown’s broad definition of "school shooting" could be misleading, encouraging them to assume that there have been 74 incidents similar to Columbine or Sandy Hook.

While the Everytown definition is certainly one way of calculating it, there is such a range of motivations, degrees of planning and outcomes that it ceases to be an especially useful measurement, said Jay Corzine, a University of Central Florida sociology professor.

Mark Safarik, president of Forensic Behavioral Services Inc. and a former member of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, agreed that when the average person thinks of a school shooting, they think of a mass murder like Sandy Hook.

"There is an ocean of difference between Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine and a depressed student who (commits suicide) at school, or an accidental discharge," Safarik said. "To call them all school shootings may be true in a technical sense but is quite disingenuous on an emotional level, which is where they are trying to capture for their audience."

Source

 

[Tornado]

Which would still be more than is required for the gun.

That's yet another interestingly assertive statement from someone who in the same post asks this:

To what degree do they vary and do they always require you to wait for them to be carried out?

And has as far as I know neither gotten a driver's license in New York or bought/sold guns in New York. Maybe you have done these things and are asking these questions and getting things wrong for the lulz, but I feel I could be forgiven for misunderstanding at this point.


Is there any standard by which you would be satisfied that getting a driver's licence in the US is easier to do than purchasing a gun under the same government? Because otherwise I don't see much point in attempting to explain it further as someone who has done all three things.

 

[Danoff]

To rent a truck from Penske or U-Haul the minimum age requirement is 18 years old, nationwide as far as I can tell; the former of which even advertises not having any surcharges at all for those under 25.

Wow... fair enough. U-haul does say 18. That would catch a high school senior.

 

[Scaff]

That's yet another interestingly assertive statement from someone who in the same post asks this:

Given that buying the gun seems to require no specific licence across the US it's also a statement I would stand by.

 

[Joey D]

Thanks, for comparison are any kind of checks required when you obtain/renew your driving licence?

Background checks? Sorta. They look to see if you have any outstanding warrants, too many points on your license, and things like that. So mostly driving related stuff.

To obtain a license (when you're 16) requires various things depending on the state. In Michigan, it was something like 40 hours of driving on a permit, a passed driving test that was stupidly simple, a short written test, and an eye exam.

To renew, in Michigan I think I just got a new picture, took the same eye test, and paid some amount of money - oh and waited at the Secretary of State for something like 2 hours because I stupidly went in the afternoon.

In Utah, I'm not sure how the renewal process works, but when I moved here I had to take a fairly extensive written exam I almost failed because many of the driving laws here are vastly different than back home.

 

[Blood Eagle]

If driving were a right would anyone need a license?

 

[Johnnypenso]

CNN's parameters for their numbers:


A more scrutinizing analysis has significantly reduced similar all-encompassing numbers previously provided. For example, a claim that there had been 74 school shootings from the time of Sandy Hook (Dec 2012) to the summer of 2014, a rate of nearly 1 school shooting per week.


Source

You'd think I'd now better than to trust CNN as a source.

 

[Scaff]

CNN's parameters for their numbers:


A more scrutinizing analysis has significantly reduced similar all-encompassing numbers previously provided. For example, a claim that there had been 74 school shootings from the time of Sandy Hook (Dec 2012) to the summer of 2014, a rate of nearly 1 school shooting per week.


Source

All excellent points, but as long as the same criteria has been used for all the countries reviewed it doesn't invalidate the comparison itself.

However I agree that the wording certainly should have been clearer.

 

[UKMikey]

If driving were a right would anyone need a license?

If a licence were not needed, would the roads become more dangerous?

 

[Blood Eagle]

If a licence were not needed, would the roads become more dangerous?

No real way to know. If we applied firearm laws to driving laws you'd have to be 18-21 to legally drive, require a criminal background check and felons would be barred from driving. Once you commit a crime, you lose the right to drive. What I'm saying is it's not so cut and dry when comparing licensed driver requirements to private firearm ownership requirements. It's a convenient way for anti gun people to compare it to something that is more regulated. Imagine getting caught driving without a license or getting caught with a firearm you are not allowed to have. Which penalty is more severe? We can probably all agree that all laws are more or less a suggestion. A right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to take a life with it without recognized justification in the same manner freedom of travel does not grant you the right to take a life with a vehicle. There is still someone to answer to when the line gets crossed. Driving while intoxicated whether alcohol or illicit substance for example, would still not be permitted. Neither is firearm ownership as an addict of an illicit substance. There is a lot of people who shouldn't be able to drive that do. There are a lot of people who own firearms that shouldn't.

 

[UKMikey]

What I'm saying is it's not so cut and dry when comparing licensed driver requirements to private firearm ownership requirements. It's a convenient way for anti gun people to compare it to something that is more regulated.

What kind of training would you require in a driving rights scenario before being allowed to get behind a wheel? If the answer is less or none then I think such a scenario would lead to (even) more deaths on the roads than are happening currently.

 

[Danoff]

If driving were a right would anyone need a license?

No real way to know. If we applied firearm laws to driving laws you'd have to be 18-21 to legally drive, require a criminal background check and felons would be barred from driving. Once you commit a crime, you lose the right to drive. What I'm saying is it's not so cut and dry when comparing licensed driver requirements to private firearm ownership requirements. It's a convenient way for anti gun people to compare it to something that is more regulated. Imagine getting caught driving without a license or getting caught with a firearm you are not allowed to have. Which penalty is more severe? We can probably all agree that all laws are more or less a suggestion. A right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to take a life with it without recognized justification in the same manner freedom of travel does not grant you the right to take a life with a vehicle. There is still someone to answer to when the line gets crossed. Driving while intoxicated whether alcohol or illicit substance for example, would still not be permitted. Neither is firearm ownership as an addict of an illicit substance. There is a lot of people who shouldn't be able to drive that do. There are a lot of people who own firearms that shouldn't.

What kind of training would you require in a driving rights scenario before being allowed to get behind a wheel? If the answer is less or none then I think such a scenario would lead to (even) more deaths on the roads than are happening currently.

Driving your own personal property on your own personal property is a right. No license required. You only need licensing to drive on public property. In lots of cases guns are not even permitted on public property. The 2nd amendment does not guarantee a right to carry on property that doesn't belong to you, and is limited when it comes to public property.

 

[Blood Eagle]

What kind of training would you require in a driving rights scenario before being allowed to get behind a wheel? If the answer is less or none then I think such a scenario would lead to (even) more deaths on the roads than are happening currently.

If they plan on buying the car, keeping it in the garage and only using it on their own property, in an emergency situation or maybe even never like many millions of guns in the US, no training required. If they plan to use it daily or have access to it daily like a CCW holder or law enforcement officer, insert state or federal agreed upon number here. Does it sound dumb? It should because they are two different things that don't directly correlate with one another like the whole "if we just treated guns like cars" argument. Just showing you what it would look like if driving was a right and regulated like firearms.

 

[UKMikey]

Does it sound dumb? It should because they are two different things that don't directly correlate with one another like the whole "if we just treated guns like cars" argument. Just showing you what it would look like if driving was a right and regulated like firearms.

If it's an imperfect analogy, then I wonder why it was invoked on this thread in the first place. It sounds like it was invented to make the case for less gun regulation look better.

 

[Northstar]

If it's an imperfect analogy, then I wonder why it was invoked on this thread in the first place. It sounds like it was invented to make the case for less gun regulation look better.

Actually the pro-gun control side brought it up.

Personally I agree that it’s a bad analogy as both are way too easy to obtain.

 

[Blood Eagle]

If it's an imperfect analogy, then I wonder why it was invoked on this thread in the first place. It sounds like it was invented to make the case for less gun regulation look better.

It makes gun regulation look better by cherry picking the finer points of automobile regulation as somehow connected with each other although being 2 different things with their own set of regulations. When the gun is used in a murder, gun culture, private ownership, the NRA, sheer numbers of guns in the country, ease of access, type of gun used (only in certain situations depending on what it looks like), mental health problems in America, Republicans, violent video games and many more are to blame. When something besides a gun is used it's a much different debate and one could almost get the sense that the same people who blame the gun think "well, at least it wasn't a gun". Nobody can tell me that 100% of the people on the road with them are even licensed to drive a vehicle, have insurance, valid registration, nothing illegal on or in the car (modifications/drugs etc), the vehicle is even safe for the road, if the person is even proficient at driving a motor vehicle or even abiding by all the traffic laws. So I say again, it's not that cut and dry.