School shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when we decided as a nation we're OK with this.

**Prestor Jon**

Xenomancers wrote:
Togusa wrote:
Until we get serious about Mental Health in the US, this will continue.

What can you do though? This kid even had treatment and it didn't help him. I guess you could make the treatment mandatory kind of like prison - I don't know how well that would go over though.

There are steps that could be taken but there is no simple answer because it's not a simple problem.

Every first world country is dealing with societal issues that are making people unhealthy. Look at the shooter in this case, he was 19, was adopted out of a broken home, his adopted father died while he was still young, his adoptive mother died last year at 68 (so she was basically old enough to be has grandma so even with her best efforts there was bound to be relatability issues between them), he had acted violently in school and was ultimately expelled, for a limited time in the past he received some form of treatment for his mental health issues, everyone who's been interviewed about him has claimed that he was obviously depressed, he was living in a friend's house apparently enrolled in a GED program, as an adult with a clean criminal record he purchased and owned a rifle. Looking at that description it's clear that this was a troubled, violent teenager who was a possible threat to those around him. So what should have been done about that?

When we are confronted with this type of person our society frequently chooses from 3 options, 1) ignore them, 2) medicate them 3) incarcerate them. All of those responses come with their own host of problems.

He was a legal adult so it's difficult to get him involuntarily committed. If he wanted to pursue treatment on his own, what treatment options are available and how would they be paid for?

He had a clean criminal record so what law could have been in place to prevent him from purchasing a rifle? He wasn't under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist, he wasn't taking medication, he had never been convicted of a crime. Should the state of Florida pass a law that equates being expelled from HS with being convicted of a felony in regards to loss of rights and legal consequences?

Violent crime isn't increasing, armed assaults and murder by firearm aren't increasing but the particular crime of mass shootings are going up. Why? The US has always had access to firearms and gun crime but we've never had the crime of mass shootings occur at the present rate. What is it about our society that is causing this particular anomaly?

Here are some thoughts on it:

Spoiler:

A rampage shooting has never happened in an urban ghetto, for example; in fact, indiscriminate attacks at schools almost always occur in otherwise safe, predominantly white towns. Around half of rampage killings happen in affluent or upper-middle-class communities, and the rest tend to happen in rural towns that are majority-white, Christian, and low-crime.”
“A rampage shooting has never happened in an urban ghetto, for example; in fact, indiscriminate attacks at schools almost always occur in otherwise safe, predominantly white towns. Around half of rampage killings happen in affluent or upper-middle-class communities, and the rest tend to happen in rural towns that are majority-white, Christian, and low-crime.”
“It may be worth considering whether middle-class American life—for all its material good fortune—has lost some essential sense of unity that might otherwise discourage alienated men from turning apocalyptically violent.”
“In effect, humans have dragged a body with a long hominid history into an overfed, malnourished, sedentary, sunlight-deficient, sleep-deprived, competitive, inequitable, and socially-isolating environment with dire consequences.”
“As affluence and urbanization rise in a society, rates of depression and suicide tend to go up rather than down. Rather than buffering people from clinical depression, increased wealth in a society seems to foster it.”
“First agriculture, and then industry, changed two fundamental things about the human experience. The accumulation of personal property allowed people to make more and more individualistic choices about their lives, and those choices unavoidably diminished group efforts toward a common good. And as society modernized, people found themselves able to live independently from any communal group. A person living in a modern city or a suburb can, for the first time in history, go through an entire day—or an entire life—mostly encountering complete strangers. They can be surrounded by others and yet feel deeply, dangerously alone. The evidence that this is hard on us is overwhelming. Although happiness is notoriously subjective and difficult to measure, mental illness is not. Numerous cross-cultural studies have shown that modern society—despite its nearly miraculous advances in medicine, science, and technology—is afflicted with some of the highest rates of depression, schizophrenia, poor health, anxiety, and chronic loneliness in human history. As affluence and urbanization rise in a society, rates of depression and suicide tend to go up rather than down. Rather than buffering people from clinical depression, increased wealth in a society seems to foster it.”
“The findings are in keeping with something called self-determination theory, which holds that human beings need three basic things in order to be content: they need to feel competent at what they do; they need to feel authentic in their lives; and they need to feel connected to others. These values are considered “intrinsic” to human happiness and far outweigh “extrinsic” values such as beauty, money, and status.”
“We are not good to each other. Our tribalism is to an extremely narrow group of people: our children, our spouse, maybe our parents. Our society is alienating, technical, cold, and mystifying. Our fundamental desire, as human beings, is to be close to others, and our society does not allow for that.”
“Modern society has perfected the art of making people not feel necessary. It’s time for that to end.”
“It’s revealing, then, to look at modern society through the prism of more than a million years of human cooperation and resource sharing. Subsistence-level hunters aren’t necessarily more moral than other people; they just can’t get away with selfish behavior because they live in small groups where almost everything is open to scrutiny.”
“A wealthy person who never had to rely on help and resources from his community is leading a privileged life that falls way outside more than a million years of human experience. Financial independence can lead to isolation, and isolation can put people at a greatly increased risk of depression and suicide. This might be a fair trade for a generally wealthier society- but a trade it is.”
“This fundamental lack of connectedness allows people to act in trivial but incredibly selfish ways. Rachel Yehuda pointed to littering as the perfect example of an everyday symbol of disunity in society. “It’s a horrible thing to see because it sort of encapsulates this idea that you’re in it alone, that there isn’t a shared ethos of trying to protect something shared,” she told me. “It’s the embodiment of every man for himself. It’s the opposite of the military.”
“If you want to make a society work, then you don’t keep underscoring the places where you’re different—you underscore your shared humanity,” she told me. “I’m appalled by how much people focus on differences. Why are you focusing on how different you are from one another, and not on the things that unite us?”

https://www.amazon.com/Tribe-Homecoming-Belonging-Sebastian-Junger/dp/1455566381

**nels1031**

Ouze wrote:
No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when we decided as a nation we're OK with this.

I feel thats another statement that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. I guess its a divergence about what constitutes “significant changes”?

According to Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook, more than 210 new smart gun laws have been enacted in 45 states and DC.

Also (same source) :

And, perhaps even more importantly, the gun violence prevention movement has consistently defeated gun lobby–sponsored legislation that would allow hidden, loaded weapons into public spaces like schools, government buildings, and even bars, as well as many other similarly dangerous bills. While the gun lobby achieves some wins each year, an overwhelming majority of its legislative efforts fail. Defensive victories, like stopping bad bills from advancing through the legislature, are a significant part of the progress the Law Center and our allies make each year.

**Nostromodamus**

I think a good indicator of a thread being done is when people are disagreeing about whether they agree to disagree.

**kronk**

Xenomancers wrote:
Togusa wrote:
Until we get serious about Mental Health in the US, this will continue.

What can you do though? This kid even had treatment and it didn't help him. I guess you could make the treatment mandatory kind of like prison - I don't know how well that would go over though.

Edit: The only thing I can find on his going to another school is that he was enrolled in an adult education center to get his GED. I can't find that he was placed in an special school for his emotional issues.

"Obviously, he'd lost his mom. But they helped him get a job at a Dollar Tree store. They got him going to an adult education so he could try to get his GED and he seemed to be doing better," Lewis said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html

**Prestor Jon**

Ouze wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when we decided as a nation we're OK with this.

Connecticut passed significant new laws that increased gun regulations in that state beyond what was already in place and they were already one of the stricter states in that regard. So did the state of New York. There was no Federal action on the matter but I don't see why it would have been reasonable to expect any. The murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook was tragic but it wasn't a national emergency that required the Federal govt to take some sort of dramatic action. The federal govt couldn't have made murdering your mother and stealing her rifle more illegal. Nor could the Feds have forced states to prevent gun sales to adults who were otherwise qualified to make a lawful gun purchase from doing so because they had offspring being treated for mental health problems living in their home. It was a local crime and it generated a response by the local government. It was handled appropriately.

**Vaktathi**

Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
That moment when you're watching a RAW vs a RAI argument in OT.

This really needs some sort of Gif to go with it.... but I am fresh out! :(

However, we can also see why, in this very thread; nothing will change in the near future. Maybe this one was different, but not enough to break through. If Sandy Hook didn't chang ethe game, then nothing will.

Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

Well, in an attempt to avoid discussing the exact politics of the issue, I'm going to attempt to talk about the electorate, hopefully without directly taking a side, though my personal biases are probably known here anyway.

There is a small but active section of the US electorate that votes on guns and almost nothing but guns (or a subset of issues that are tied so closely together as to be indistinguishable). They organize, they advocate, they donate & fundraise, they engage in citizen activism, they boycott, they donate, they speak out. They contact their representatives, they comment on ATF proposals in droves, etc. Most importantly, these people show up to vote reliably and consistently, they step up and do their part and make their voice heard loud and clear in the democratic process, as it currently exists. They can and will engage in recall efforts against candidates that push agendas they disagree with (such as Colorado's magazine limit). The firearms community in general is highly politicized and active.

Their opposition tends to treat guns as a seasonal issue, something that pops up once in a while, but otherwise plays 2nd fiddle, it's something people may feel strongly about, but not so strongly about to make themselves single issue voters over, practically nobody is going to cease support of a candidate because they're not tough enough on guns if they tick the other social boxes, and they aren't going to wage recall campaigns over failures to enact more gun control legislation. People will sign petitions, make facebook posts condemning X organization or group of legislators, decry the situation and how nothing is done, but comparatively, there's practically nobody voting on pro-gun-control stances as energized single issue voters (in a relative sense at least).

So while lots of social pressure exists to do *something*, even if nobody can agree on exactly what, all the primary communications channels to decision makers and government on the issue are dominated by one side, and the electoral consequences largely swing only one way.

**Prestor Jon**

Vaktathi wrote:
Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
That moment when you're watching a RAW vs a RAI argument in OT.

This really needs some sort of Gif to go with it.... but I am fresh out! :(

However, we can also see why, in this very thread; nothing will change in the near future. Maybe this one was different, but not enough to break through. If Sandy Hook didn't chang ethe game, then nothing will.

Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?
Well, in an attempt to avoid discussing the exact politics of the issue, I'm going to attempt to talk about the electorate, hopefully without directly taking a side, though my personal biases are probably known here anyway.

There is a small but active section of the US electorate that votes on guns and almost nothing but guns (or a subset of issues that are tied so closely together as to be indistinguishable). They organize, they advocate, they donate & fundraise, they engage in citizen activism, they boycott, they donate, they speak out. They contact their representatives, they comment on ATF proposals in droves, etc. Most importantly, these people show up to vote reliably and consistently, they step up and do their part and make their voice heard loud and clear in the democratic process, as it currently exists. They can and will engage in recall efforts against candidates that push agendas they disagree with (such as Colorado's magazine limit). The firearms community in general is highly politicized and active.

Their opposition tends to treat guns as a seasonal issue, something that pops up once in a while, but otherwise plays 2nd fiddle, it's something people may feel strongly about, but not so strongly about to make themselves single issue voters over, practically nobody is going to cease support of a candidate because they're not tough enough on guns if they tick the other social boxes, and they aren't going to wage recall campaigns over failures to enact more gun control legislation. People will sign petitions, make facebook posts condemning X organization or group of legislators, decry the situation and how nothing is done, but comparatively, there's practically nobody voting on pro-gun-control stances as energized single issue voters (in a relative sense at least).

So while lots of social pressure exists to do *something*, even if nobody can agree on exactly what, all the primary communications channels to decision makers and government on the issue are dominated by one side, and the electoral consequences largely swing only one way.

I don't disagree with your synopsis but I think you also need to remember how easily our Federal legislature lets low populous states like Idaho and Wyoming cancel out heavily populated states like California and New Jersey. The gun culture in Idaho and Wyoming is never going to let their Federal Senators vote for gun control laws whereas the restrictive gun control atmosphere in CA and NJ would never let their Senators vote against gun control laws. Our Federalism is designed to negate the tyranny of the majority so millions of anti gun voters in states with low gun ownership rates and restrictive laws really can't affect Federal legislation on the matter.

**Howard A Treesong**

Ouze wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when we decided as a nation we're OK with this.

How prevalent is the conspiracy theory of ‘crisis actors’? Is it just an internet meme or is there genuine belief these shootings are staged?

**Ouze**

It's a very small, very fringe belief.

**Prestor Jon**

Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
That moment when you're watching a RAW vs a RAI argument in OT.

This really needs some sort of Gif to go with it.... but I am fresh out! :(

However, we can also see why, in this very thread; nothing will change in the near future. Maybe this one was different, but not enough to break through. If Sandy Hook didn't chang ethe game, then nothing will.

Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

What is the change you'd like to see? It would be easier to deal with that question working backwards from the effect to the cause.

**kronk**

I would like to see fewer shootings at schools.

**XuQishi**

A rampage shooting has never happened in an urban ghetto, for example; in fact, indiscriminate attacks at schools almost always occur in otherwise safe, predominantly white towns. Around half of rampage killings happen in affluent or upper-middle-class communities, and the rest tend to happen in rural towns that are majority-white, Christian, and low-crime.”

Well, people with no actual, life-threatening problems have time to make some for themselves and for others. Some get depressed, some turn to religion, some invent their religion (a lot of civil movements like environmentalism do indeed share religious traits with a saviour figure, a tendency towards asceticism, dietary laws, an apocalyptic vision etc.), some bully people, and some, often bullied ones, fly completely off the rail and kill people. If they don't have guns, they use a knife or drive a car into a gathering or build a bomb or whatever. Guns just make it a little easier.
In Germany we once had a dude who ran amok with a flame thrower he built himself and a spear.

I guess it doesn't happen in ghettos because people there get enough violence every day as is, also poor people have other problems to worry about.

**Ouze**

XuQishi wrote:
In Germany we once had a dude who ran amok with a flame thrower he built himself and a spear.

I'm conflicted now, because while that is obviously bad, it's also obviously kind of awesome.

**jmurph**

Yeah, pointing out that these mass shooting don't happen in urban ghettos really illustrates the problem in even addressing the issue, but not in a good way. Poor areas have a much higher rate of gun violence, but do not prompt near the reaction that these school shootings in more affluent, predominately white areas do. So we get these knee jerks reactions, while we have thousands of children getting shot and killed (an average of 19 per day!) and it barely makes a ripple. And then people get hung up on the semantics of it all so they don't have to look at the real issues, including the fact that as gun ownership has increased so has the rate of the shootings (shocker). It's bonkers.

**Prestor Jon**

jmurph wrote:
Yeah, pointing out that these mass shooting don't happen in urban ghettos really illustrates the problem in even addressing the issue, but not in a good way. Poor areas have a much higher rate of gun violence, but do not prompt near the reaction that these school shootings in more affluent, predominately white areas do. So we get these knee jerks reactions, while we have thousands of children getting shot and killed (an average of 19 per day!) and it barely makes a ripple. And then people get hung up on the semantics of it all so they don't have to look at the real issues, including the fact that as gun ownership has increased so has the rate of the shootings (shocker). It's bonkers.

The context of the quote about the lack of urban mass shootings was pointing out that people in low income urban areas typically have large interpersonal support networks and connectedness in contrast to the often isolating conditions of the suburbs. Urban areas tend to large groups of people who know each other and interact on a regular basis and help each other. Oftentimes those groups are organized along national, ethnic, familial or geographic lines or some combination thereof. Even criminal gangs provide support for each other. In contrast in suburban communities it can much easier to consider people who may live in your neighborhood or go to your school as complete strangers, dehumanize them and murder them en masse.

Of course this doesn't invalidate your point, that there is a more dispersed number of gun deaths in urban areas that are largely ignored by the media and society because it happens in an area and to a group of people that most of us don't pay much attention to anyway and don't readily identify with.

**Vaktathi**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
That moment when you're watching a RAW vs a RAI argument in OT.

This really needs some sort of Gif to go with it.... but I am fresh out! :(

However, we can also see why, in this very thread; nothing will change in the near future. Maybe this one was different, but not enough to break through. If Sandy Hook didn't chang ethe game, then nothing will.

Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?
Well, in an attempt to avoid discussing the exact politics of the issue, I'm going to attempt to talk about the electorate, hopefully without directly taking a side, though my personal biases are probably known here anyway.

There is a small but active section of the US electorate that votes on guns and almost nothing but guns (or a subset of issues that are tied so closely together as to be indistinguishable). They organize, they advocate, they donate & fundraise, they engage in citizen activism, they boycott, they donate, they speak out. They contact their representatives, they comment on ATF proposals in droves, etc. Most importantly, these people show up to vote reliably and consistently, they step up and do their part and make their voice heard loud and clear in the democratic process, as it currently exists. They can and will engage in recall efforts against candidates that push agendas they disagree with (such as Colorado's magazine limit). The firearms community in general is highly politicized and active.

Their opposition tends to treat guns as a seasonal issue, something that pops up once in a while, but otherwise plays 2nd fiddle, it's something people may feel strongly about, but not so strongly about to make themselves single issue voters over, practically nobody is going to cease support of a candidate because they're not tough enough on guns if they tick the other social boxes, and they aren't going to wage recall campaigns over failures to enact more gun control legislation. People will sign petitions, make facebook posts condemning X organization or group of legislators, decry the situation and how nothing is done, but comparatively, there's practically nobody voting on pro-gun-control stances as energized single issue voters (in a relative sense at least).

So while lots of social pressure exists to do *something*, even if nobody can agree on exactly what, all the primary communications channels to decision makers and government on the issue are dominated by one side, and the electoral consequences largely swing only one way.

I don't disagree with your synopsis but I think you also need to remember how easily our Federal legislature lets low populous states like Idaho and Wyoming cancel out heavily populated states like California and New Jersey. The gun culture in Idaho and Wyoming is never going to let their Federal Senators vote for gun control laws whereas the restrictive gun control atmosphere in CA and NJ would never let their Senators vote against gun control laws. Our Federalism is designed to negate the tyranny of the majority so millions of anti gun voters in states with low gun ownership rates and restrictive laws really can't affect Federal legislation on the matter.

Aye, nothing about the issue is one dimensional, its a product of many factors in many ways.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
That moment when you're watching a RAW vs a RAI argument in OT.

This really needs some sort of Gif to go with it.... but I am fresh out! :(

However, we can also see why, in this very thread; nothing will change in the near future. Maybe this one was different, but not enough to break through. If Sandy Hook didn't chang ethe game, then nothing will.

Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

If there was a Brevik style massacre at the NRA Jr and RNC JR camp, and perhaps in congress while in session, that might just tip things a bit. Maybe.
I am not advocating anything, but trying to think of a scenario that might affect the people who lobby for and write laws.

**ChargerIIC**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
That moment when you're watching a RAW vs a RAI argument in OT.

This really needs some sort of Gif to go with it.... but I am fresh out! :(

However, we can also see why, in this very thread; nothing will change in the near future. Maybe this one was different, but not enough to break through. If Sandy Hook didn't chang ethe game, then nothing will.

Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

If there was a Brevik style massacre at the NRA Jr and RNC JR camp, and perhaps in congress while in session, that might just tip things a bit. Maybe.
I am not advocating anything, but trying to think of a scenario that might affect the people who lobby for and write laws.

You know there was a shooting attack on the GOP's baseball game last year, right? It didn't change the politics much.

Of course, using politics to regulate evil is never going to be an issue of quick fixes. It's a round hole with a terribly inefficient square peg. You'll get it to fit -mostly- eventually, but not without a LOT of hammering and more than a few broken square pegs along the way.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Yeah, I know. That's why I used the qualifiers that I did.

**AdeptSister**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Easy E wrote:
djones520 wrote:
That moment when you're watching a RAW vs a RAI argument in OT.

This really needs some sort of Gif to go with it.... but I am fresh out! :(

However, we can also see why, in this very thread; nothing will change in the near future. Maybe this one was different, but not enough to break through. If Sandy Hook didn't chang ethe game, then nothing will.

Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

If there was a Brevik style massacre at the NRA Jr and RNC JR camp, and perhaps in congress while in session, that might just tip things a bit. Maybe.
I am not advocating anything, but trying to think of a scenario that might affect the people who lobby for and write laws.

Nope. A congressional GOP baseball practice was attacked by a crazed liberal with a rifle and that did not change anything. Country musical lovers were massacred with legal weapons that had devices to get around automatic weapon laws (bump stocks). I do not see there being any new federal legislation coming. As people mentioned, research is limited and actively being stopped. Activities to expand mental health coverage is also being actively stopped. This status quo is acceptable.

We as a nation shrug and just wait for the next killing and hope it is not us.

**Spetulhu**

Xenomancers wrote:
What can you do though? This kid even had treatment and it didn't help him. I guess you could make the treatment mandatory kind of like prison - I don't know how well that would go over though.

Aye, I don't think forced treatment for everyone will fly in the US. Every civil liberty organisation will be up in arms about that, and few if any lawmakers would dare risk their re-election on it. But it can be done under certain emergency conditions, IIRC if the patient is suicidal. I even recall some dirty cops in, eh, New York? dragging the colleague who wanted to report them into a psych ward so he'd be locked up while they worked on making the evidence go away.

**Howard A Treesong**

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/briannasacks/authorities-were-called-to-alleged-florida-school-shooter?

How does someone his age afford a rifle? Aren’t they expensive?

**feeder**

What about a law that prevents people from storing a gun in the same residence as someone who is barred from owing one? So if your severely unwell adult son is living in your home, you need to store your gun somewhere else?

**XuQishi**

Poor areas have a much higher rate of gun violence, but do not prompt near the reaction that these school shootings in more affluent, predominately white areas do.

As an outsider: isn't this mostly gang related stuff or - if you want to say so - criminals killing criminals? It wouldn't be much of a wonder if most people were quite indifferent about that.

How does someone his age afford a rifle? Aren’t they expensive?

I've read that you can get AR-15 clones for less than 500 dollars. That's half an iPhone X.

**ChargerIIC**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/briannasacks/authorities-were-called-to-alleged-florida-school-shooter?

How does someone his age afford a rifle? Aren’t they expensive?

Yes - but given how many 18 year olds have dropped $1000 on their miniatures collections I doubt it's out of place for one to drop that kind of cash on any other purchase. THere seem to be conflicting reports about where he got the rifle - some say it was bought it from a gunshop (probably a used one, going anywhere from $750+) or from the leader of his White Supremeist organization - who has claimed to have sold him a used AR-15 (in which case the sale was probably part of the kid's recruitment and could have been dirt cheap).

**Howard A Treesong**

Ok, I thought AR-15s cost a good bit more than that. Sounds like this ‘kid’ had quite a collection of firearms, worrying it’s so easy for someone so young and deranged to acquire all these.

**ChargerIIC**

XuQishi wrote:
Poor areas have a much higher rate of gun violence, but do not prompt near the reaction that these school shootings in more affluent, predominately white areas do.

As an outsider: isn't this mostly gang related stuff or - if you want to say so - criminals killing criminals? It wouldn't be much of a wonder if most people were quite indifferent about that.

Having grown up in a high-gang area I can tell you that a lot of gang shootings don't necessarily strike or are even aimed at active gang members. They just tend to not take place at schools, where mutliple gangs are represented (and might consider it an attack against them) and it's hard to get away. A gang-sponsored party is the traditional choice, since noone is in a position to pursue and shooting a relative or friend of an opposing gang member is just as good as the actual target.

It depresses me how I much I experienced and now know this crap. At least my kids won't have a freakin' clue what I'm talking bout. I live in hippie country now, where they sit around and tut about what's to be done about those 'other' people.

**XuQishi**

Thanks for the info, that was helpful.
Gangs aren't much of a thing here and the few that exist tend to - if at all - kill mostly each other and then mostly with knives, which is their problem, not anybody else's.

**Vaktathi**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/briannasacks/authorities-were-called-to-alleged-florida-school-shooter?

How does someone his age afford a rifle? Aren’t they expensive?

sort of? In 2013, youd be lucky to find any AR under $1200.

Now?

Currently they are actually at historically low prices as a result of panic buying dying down and the Hillary bubble bursting. AR's are cheaper than they have ever been.

You can get a decently made name brand Ruger AR15 for...$450? You can buy an AR15 Lower Receiver (the controlled part that needs a background check and that everything plugs into) for like $50 and then throw in all your own components over time into whatever configuration you want, basically just like a PC.

That said, AK's are...historically expensive now interestingly.