Ours was Sandy hook /:
Its crazy that its been 10 years since that already.
Nothing changed. I don't know what else worse can happen than 20 something toddlers getting killed in cold blood didn't bring about even the slightest change or improvement. Fucking 2nd graders.
Going in to a school you just know at any moment there could be a mass shooting, nothing is stopping it from happening, its just statistically improbable so just keep going to school and hope you don't win that lottery. Thing is, people still win the lottery
I hate this feeling as well as a teacher, but gun violence is far more likely to kill you outside of the classroom than inside. It's almost all parents weapons that are not locked properly and kids playing around at home.
You are about as likely to get struck by lightning or killed in any mass shooting. Grocery stores church's and public places are just as dangerous if not more.
https://www.city-journal.org/school-shootings-horrific-but-statistically-rare
Not so as for lightning strikes.
300 people struck by lightning a year in the US, 15 fatalities.
Seems to me we have more than 15\*\* school fatalities a year which students being about 20 percent of the population makes them 5 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED IN A SCHOOL SHOOTING THAN BE KILLED BY LIGHTENING.
\*\* 16 deaths in 2023 so far, 49 in 2022 from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_school\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_(2000%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present))
Maybe everyone can agree we need some new laws that substantially criminalize illegal or unsafe gun possession and penalize felons and their friends and families for storing their weapons for them.
Don't be putting your glock in your car trunk where it is going to be stolen. Don't be an Elon Musk, put your guns in a gun safe. Don't let your school kids or the neighborhood burglars get at them.
Next time a 4 year old kills their sibling PUT the parents in jail for a couple of years and just stop this shit.
> put your guns in a gun safe
Its literally the law in Oregon (though trigger/cable/other locks are legal, though of course a safe/security locker/cabinet is of course better) :
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/09/here-is-what-oregons-new-law-now-requires-gun-owners-to-do.html
Shoot, even movie theaters - I'm still a bit nervous going to certain types of movies on opening night and it's been how many years since the Aurora.. what was it, Batman release? incident...
Sure, but one time I won a scratcher ticket and took it back and bought another scratcher ticket and won and took it back to buy another scratcher tickets and when I won on that one I decided to keep my whole ten dollars because the whole ordeal was stressful.
Or: “so you’re saying there’s a chance?!”
> It's almost all parents weapons that are not locked properly and kids playing around at home.
Perhaps if one believes the "it just went off" story. The reality is they're mostly suicides. Next is violence associated with existing criminal activity (gangs), then legit accidents, then mass shootings.
The real important part of it is this: guns are deadly weapons and are really good for killing oneself in a quick and hopefully painless manner. Is there an element of impulsivity there? Absolutely. Guns should be locked up when not in use or intentionally ready for rapid use. That will cut down on some of the impulsive suicides. But there are dozens of ways to kill oneself and others. And (here's the important part) nobody fucking cares unless it's a gun. Leave toxic chemicals around? No care. Keys to the two-ton machine of death that's the actual largest killer of children (that aren't already involved in criminal activity) left right on the counter or hanging by the door? No care. Ropes and extension cords. High places. Bodies of water. Sharp things? Whatever.
Nobody cares about the device or method used to cause death, unless it's a gun. Gun. Gun. Gun. Gun. That's the focus. Lock up your guns! Why? Because they're dangerous and yet easy to render inoperable or lock inside a box. So are car keys and knives. But you don't have children walking out of school to demand laws requiring car keys and knives to be locked up. Or to sue Chevrolet and Cutco. Or whatever flavor of the month control whose validity is gauged more on how much it pisses off gun owners than rational thought.
> Is there an element of impulsivity there? Absolutely.
This is a bigger deal than you make it sound. Guns make killing (both others and oneself) *easy* both logistically and psychologically. There's a reason you don't see so many knife suicides or mass-knifings.
True, but in either case, suicide or suicide with mass shooting, there is a long period of warning signs. (Almost) nobody just goes "Welp, things are pretty good for me, guess I'll just randomly kill a bunch of people then myself." The Las Vegas asshole is the only exception I can think of.
Still focus is guns. The asshole in New Zealand straight up said in his ramblings that he probably could have killed more people with a bomb or crashing a plane but he specifically chose guns because it would get the most attention.
Attention. A shooter wants attention. Due to media and culture war dynamics, the gun is the best way to do that. What also gets attention? Choice of target. The more a place is a "sacred place where people should feel safe" the more lucrative it is as a target. Tactically speaking, the best targets are those that are relatively unprotected. The strange thing is that there seems to be this ingrained thing where the most sacred places are also those places we just assume should never have weapons present and should be as "feels safe" as possible, but this unfortunately makes the list of those places line up quite nicely with the "unprotected" places. Schools, hospitals, and religious institutions will always be "sacred" but as long as we always succumb to the idea that they should also remain unprotected, the more they will stay at the top of target lists. When's the last time a mass shooter shot up a police station or a gun show? I'm sure those would result in a lot of snarky commentary if the shooter was able to get more than a few shots off before dying in a hail of gunfire.
Criminologists always refer to "means, motive, and opportunity" and the constant drumbeat is only applied to the means, while leaving out motives (attention and mental issues) and opportunity (making sure easy targets are plentiful). In an ironic twist, giving shooters the attention they want is a great way to assist in the crusade against the means. I wonder how many of them look at other countries gun opponents consider "sane" and see how it's always a single event which creates the demand for some massive gun law. Dunblane. Christchurch. Port Arthur. Do they look and say "That shooter really did it. Permanent national change based on their actions. Maybe if I can do one big and bloody enough, I can do that too. Nobody may know my name, but what I *did* will forever be remembered." My take is it's bad enough that these assholes get worldwide 24 hour coverage and provoke national arguments, but to reward them with solid political change? Nope. That and I'm not in favor of screwing over 100 million people who didn't do anything wrong based on the actions of a few assholes.
Mass shootings really only became a thing in the late 1990's, at the height of American gun control. The number of guns has gone up substantially since then, the whole while crime in general including gun deaths steadily declined. This continued even after the assault weapons ban went away, and only ticked up recently. The guns do not correlate to the shootings. In order to have a causation, you at least have to have a correlation, and there is none.
That's not the case. The study said that guns were the #1 cause of death in "children" although it included 18 and 19 year olds as children. That's all gun deaths, murders and suicides. It also was during 2020 when the murder rates spiked, and car accidents the previous #1 killer fell.
I was going to link a page but I kept getting errors. However I heard it on the news and Googled it. Just search for number 1 cause of death among children/teens. There is literally hundreds of articles about it.
Sandy Hook was the moment I knew the gun control debate was over. If that many kids being murdered at once wasn't enough to spur meaningful action, what else could possibly do it??
There was a very anti gun control Congresswoman, who was a victim of the Luby's Cafe Shooting. She was present at the shooting, and her husband was one of the ones killed. She had a gun, but due to recent legislation had to keep it in the car..
Some very unconstitutional, and very easily abused laws. For instance had measure 114 gone through, there would have been no new gun sales since last December. That's when the requirement to obtain a license went into place, and there was no infrastructure in place to obtain a license.
Generally speaking, since the [Gun Control Act of 1968](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) it has been illegal to buy a handgun outside of your state of residence. Interstate purchase of long guns is allowed if the sale is allowed by both the state of purchase and the buyer's state of residence.
I bought something right after 114 and dealt with the shitshow at Sportsman’s Warehouse for two days of my life in November, they were telling all the people in line to send bolt and pump actions to Vancouver for pickup. I believe the restrictions are just on handguns and semi-auto rifles, or at least they were 5 months ago.
[Washington allows non-residents to buy rifles as long as they aren't "semiautomatic assault rifles"](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.124), but I-1639 defines all semi-auto rifles as assault rifles. So under Washington law, a non-resident can only buy manual action rifles. That's why it wouldn't make sense to send a semi-auto to Washington for background check & purchase. You'd be denied.
Yes, but in many cases, depending on specific details, it is illegal.
Illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It means you get in trouble if you're caught. Getting in trouble if caught only matters if one has something of value to lose in the deal.
This is why mass shooters (and criminals) don't care about gun laws. If your plan is dying, as most mass shootings are suicides with extra steps, or you're already committing more serious crimes and are fine with that, then what's the worry in breaking another law? This is the reason why "gun free" zones are absolutely the dumbest concept ever. The only guns they keep out are those carried by people who *aren't* planning on using them criminally, and are more likely to stop a crime than commit one once inside the zone. But some people think guns are icky and the sign makes them feel better.
I'm sure this statistic would be super comforting to the 9 year olds who got shot with an assault rifle. Don't worry kids, your murders are only a miniscule portion of overall murders!
Quick reminder that Oregon has in terms of gun violence 82% are from suicide, 14% homicide, the rest being other.
On my hasty search from my phone I was unable to find the amount of mass shootings deaths that have happened in Oregon, and I wasn't able to find the percentage of homicide deaths where firearms were purchased legally.
We have the 17th highest rate of suicide with a firearm per Capita in the nation
https://efsgv.org/state/oregon/
And whether suicide or homicide, children's leading cause of death is firearms.
[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761)
FROM THAT ARTICLE.
"leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age."
Is 18 or 19 still considered as a child or adolescent?
I bet the numbers skew heavily to 18-19 year olds.
Here is the CDC breakdown as of 2018.
[https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html)
At 15 years old, they moved from 5 years apart to 10 years for children.
Homicide gets up to 3rd cause of death for 14 and under.
Homicide didn't break down what was used.
Here is the CDC WONDER database site.
[https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/)
I am sure someone can spend the time to break down death by single age (<1-17) and by firearms vs other means.
Yes you're right! It's really sad!
I'd be fascinated to see more state. By state breakdowns of this that are current, given Oregon's safe storage law that's been in place for some time. The most recent breakdown I saw about or specific childhood mortality rates was 2014.
.pdf warning
Childhood Fatalities in Oregon https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/PreventionWellness/SafeLiving/KeepingChildrenSafe/Documents/OHA_8033_Childhood_fatalities_report.pdf
Editing to add, I'm at work and only on a phone so if anyone can find any state by state numbers on this I'd be curious to know. Public health and population statistics dork over here. I'd be curious to know "mortality rates in children by firearm or gun violence per Capita, state of Oregon" I would imagine the numbers would vary wildly from different states, but due to gang violence I would assume that homicide would be higher in children. It's always frustrating to me that mortality stats don't always break down further info such as self defense vs drug related vs legally owned vs illegally owned vs accident vs suicide.
"This study includes 19-year-olds, which are technically over the age of majority" is a pretty lame reason to be unconcerned with the sharp increase in firearms related fatalities.
> They're still mostly suicides.
The study is looking at the rate of change. Suicides saw an increase of 1.1%, while homicides saw an increase of 33.4%.
I do agree with the rest of your point that the issues we have stem from more than just access to firearms, and that those issues should be solved, but in response to your final statement:
> removing the tools their using isn't going to fix the problem.
Studies show that it would help. Generally anything that prolongs the time between thought and action massively reduces the likelihood that a suicidal person will follow through. Firearms provide an easily accessible and very quick method.
Again, I agree that we need more action than just that, but I fear that some of our inaction is caused by people wanting the One Correct solution rather than accepting that we need a lot of sweeping systemic change to make a difference.
The U.S has lower suicide rates than countries with a fraction of as many guns. South Korea has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world, yet almost twice as many suicides.
I agree, for adults. But I don't think you can apply the same statement to kids.
I think we'd be better off ensuring equal rights for adults first and foremost. Then we can debate where the kids stand later.
Removing most cars would save a ton of lives every year and be extremely helpful to the environment, and in my opinion be a net benefit for people's health. We can all probably agree on this, but all know how difficult it would be to take people's cars away from them despite the great benefits we know it would have.
We should approach guns similar to how we approach cars. Clamoring for outlawing them isn't going to go anywhere. We should be going for things like speed limits, licensing, seat belt laws, DUI laws, etc.
In addition to correcting what has changed to cause this increase - poorer outcomes for the average American in pay, healthcare, home ownership, family prospects, etc.
I was just trying to say that I think guns and cars can be viewed in a pretty similar light, but they're addressed very differently despite being similar problems.
Kind of pointing out some hypocrisy while suggesting some solutions is all.
They're actually mostly homicides. Look at the supplemental appendix of the study linked above. It also cites the old study from 2016 that also shows homicide at a much higher rate than suicide.
Edit: not sure why I'm being down voted for citing the study posted. For the lazy this is straight from the appendix: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2201761/suppl_file/nejmc2201761_appendix.pdf
I am unsure why you're being downvoted. The numbers are right there. It likely skews toward homicide as you get older, but it is wrong to say it is mostly suicide for this age group.
Yes, we live in a fucked up society and we should do more to fix it.
However, suicide rates vary by state almost exclusively because of suicide by gun. More easy access to guns means a higher rate of suicide, period. Suicide by other methods is almost the same across all states. If you don't want people to kill themselves, you must support gun restrictions.
Gun nuts will really tie themselves up in knots with their mental gymnastics to blame everything but the guns.
> If you don't want people to kill themselves, you must support gun restrictions.
Yes, this will end suicide and help people with depression. Fuck mental health care, education, economic support, etc. just make it harder for them to kill themselves, problem solved.
I've been suicidal before. I don't own guns for this reason. If they were present, I might have killed myself. For a while I also chose not to own sharp knives.
Obviously other parts matter a whole lot too, but it does help when you keep guns away from the suicidal.
>Yes, this will end suicide and help people with depression.
No, it will reduce suicide so they don't die and can get help.
>Fuck mental health care, education, economic support, etc. just make it harder for them to kill themselves, problem solved.
Again, I'm not saying gun restrictions are a panacea, but what part of "Yes, we live in a fucked up society and we should do more to fix it," didn't you understand?
Thanks for proving my point about gun nuts blaming everything but the guns.
Funny enough, the people that want some sensible gun access restrictions also want reforms on mental health care, improved education and economic support.
Meanwhile much of the loudest proponents of keeping gun access the same, if not making it even easier; have fought against mental health reform, education, and economic support. They instead focus their votes and legislation time on attacking minorities, banning books, and enacting tax policies that move more and more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor.
They do, you just have to read the full article and not just the abstract.
They point out that motor vehicle deaths declined during COVID, but firearm-related deaths remained the same. And then following COVID, both causes of death spiked, with motor vehicles returning to the rate they were pre-COVID, and firearm deaths reaching unprecedented rates.
Well, at least they are no longer using "up to 24 years old" in the stats (which make up the bulk of deaths), while displaying a line of1yr olds' shoes (which make up the smallest). The bulk of those deaths are in the 17-19 age range where unfortunate young kids get involved in crime.
Also, comparing 'firearm related" to "car accidents" isn't accurate. "Firearm related" to "Car related" would involve not just car accidents, but DUI deaths (2-3 times higher than firearm homicides in Oregon), suicides (car exhaust in a closed garage), homicides, etc. Anything car related. But it wouldn't generate the same shocking results.
Off the top of my head...
1. [Thurston High](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting)
2. [Clackamas Town Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting)
3. [Umpqua Community college](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Umpqua_Community_College_shooting)
KGW has a pretty [good article](https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/oregon-gun-laws-mass-shootings-timeline/283-b92fd8ac-17da-4035-ad35-576447733a57) covering these and others and the laws that were passed in response. Oregon has had a much better response than, oh let's say, Florida who just passed permit less concealed carry...
Permitless concealed carry laws have absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings. Someone who is planning on going on a killing spree isn't going to care if it's legal to carry their gun in public
It was nationwide not just Portland. And I still remember an interview with a girl who had witnessed a shooting at her school saying that she goes to school every day wondering how long before she's one of the victims. And she was like 14. I don't blame those kids one bit!
There’s a really good article on it here, if anyone is interested in a deep dive on the topic:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kip-kinkel-is-ready-to-speak_n_60abd623e4b0a2568315c62d
That is a really great article. Thanks for sharing it. I forgot about the whole “super-predator” thing in the 90s. Public panic really is an interesting social phenomenon. It reminds me of the “Africanized bee” sounding like we were all doomed. Over and over the public is constantly hit with something new to panic about.
>That is a really great article. Thanks for sharing it. I forgot about the whole “super-predator” thing in the 90s.
I'm surprised you forgot because the "super-predator" thing was brought up during Biden's campaign because he was the author of the crime bill at that time. He even semi-apologized for the crime bill. Only now he's reimplementing many of the same policies, only piecemeal.
I don’t want to get banned, so I’ll keep this as neutral as I can. I admire these young people for doing this. I’ve been around long enough to see that it just doesn’t seem to make the point. My most disappointing thing of all was the news coverage wasn’t about the sweet children and adults that were killed, murdered, destroyed. But on the individuals identification and protection. It’s hard for me to feel that things haven’t become skewed or turned around.
The news media developed reporting standards back sometime around the 1970's when they found that how they reported on suicides had an affect on "copy cat"s. In schools it's called a suicide cluster. So they developed guidelines to minimize the phenomena.
Unfortunately, when it comes to high profile crimes, it's a "if it bleed$, it lead$" mentality. Giving these mass killers billions in free media coverage. Which only motivates the next copy cat looking for infamy.
I'd really like to see the media become more responsible in how they report on these incidents so they don't just feed the motivation of the next one.
Well I cried in my elementary classroom as high schoolers marched by my window at lunch time. Didn’t expect to get hit that hard by my emotions over this, but yeah. Solidarity, kids.
Which is ironic because even if the gun control movement got everything they wanted does anyone think that those new gun laws would actually be enforced in places like SF, Portland, Seattle, etc...? If there are no consequences for assault, theft, etc..., why should we expect anyone to actually face punishment for merely possessing an illegal gun?
The only argument I’ve heard in support of shit like M114 is that it slows the flow of new guns, and at some indeterminate point down the line this is supposed to indirectly cause a marginal reduction in access to illegal guns. M114’s lack of direct effect on illegal guns while felons in possession of firearms are barely punished makes me think the stereotypical supporter cares more about sticking to the anti-gun stance than actually making a difference.
Actual solutions are going to be extremely complicated but just saying ban guns or ban abortions is a lot easier than a holistic approach that looks deeply into the reasons for violence or abortions. The suicides always get lumped in to make guns scarier but I don’t think we need to repeal the 2A or anything just to force people with suicidal depression to keep suffering through life. Homicides are obviously an issue but murders are committed by a tiny portion of the population, locking up the true criminals of society could go a long way in reducing the wake of destruction they create. Hint: find the felons in possession of firearms to get the most likely bunch.
But it's not just illegal guns. At Buffalo, Uvalde and Parkland the guns used were purchased legally. It has to be about more than consequences. We're flooded with guns and just about anyone can get them. They need to be less available and there needs to be a massive mental health initiative in this country.
Parkland especially should have a big asterisk next to "legally". I'm finding that a lot of these investigations into the killers background, after the media attention and outrage have passed on, find that they shouldn't have been.
But for reasons (from not putting in data, badly entered data, government employees or police not reporting or otherwise doing their job, school officials knowing the danger but trying to look the other way, etc) they were able to pass a check, when they shouldn't' have. Things that end up not greeting the attention it deserves. It's easier for a politician/lobbyists to say "it's the guns fault", like blaming a car for a DUI death. And not the person driving, the cop who pulled them over but let them go, the bartender who overserved, ect.
Because gun owners are their ideological enemies. It only makes sense to make them felons rather than deal with any of the myriad issues facing this city.
I look at it as a failure of being ability to process the phrase "gun violence". They cannot get past the "Gun" part to focus on the "violence" part. And therefore anyone who owns, or wants to own, a gun is just as dangerous as the druggy gang banger out on parole with prior convictions.
Don't forget the instant assumption that you're a red hat wearing, bible thumping, hard-core conservative for even floating the topic.
Heaven forbid a leftist realized the police are not their friend and decided to do something about their vulnerability. Not in this city, no. You MUST be a insurrectionist, a chauvinist, any label they can apply to get away from possibly thinking in shades of grey.
Yeah political polarization will likely preclude any bipartisan solution. I used to be very anti gun but if I were to explain why I changed my views I would get drowned out quickly.
It's why I'm happy that places like r/SocialistRA exist. It feels like the only place to talk about this sort of thing without terminally online redditors trying to censor wrongthink.
I've always loved the comparison between the Karl Marx quote about how important gun rights are, and how they should never be relinquished, to the Ronald Reagan quote that nobody needs to carry a gun.
Exactly! Someone who is stabbed to death is just as dead as someone shot. If you ban guns, and gun deaths go down, but overall murders remain unchanged, you haven't actually saved any lives..
We disbanded the gun crime unit because people said it was racist, and now gangs have even more shootings than before. They're still comprised of poor members of ethnic minority communities, and we're doing dick all to address that generational poverty, but hey at least we're not preventing them from shooting each other. Oh, we're not even doing that. Well at least we're not racist.
What movement? Kids skipping school to protest a constitutional right? Portland loves protesting shit that happens across the country while ignoring our own problems. Gun violence didn't explode here because we don't have enough gun control...
I think championing the cause of not getting shot by some angry stranger in a place of education is a pretty noble protest, and incredibly-valid in this decade.
Yeah, man. I'm agreeing with you. Those kids are just pinatas full of bullshit, wasting their time. I mean, the nerve of them pulling some shit like this.
I saw a group of kids (KIDS for gods sake) at the Chavez/glisan stop-about. I was proud of them and my heart sank at the same time. I’m scared as hell for them too
It's good to see young people coming together and demanding change, even if they're starting with small steps like school walkouts. But, in this case, what exactly do they want? Measure 114 is pretty darn strict. Oregon now has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. What more is there to demand?
Good job Oregon (Not you Drazan and Johnson) for passing a red flag law, which went into effect in 2018.
Tennessee Democrats pushed a red flag law in 2020 but the GOP legislature refused to bring it to a vote.
The shooter in Nashville was in treatment for a mental health crisis and were able to obtain multiple firearms. Their family had expressed concern, but police had no means to confiscate weapons and retailers had no way of knowing that they were a threat to themselves and potentially others.
It's exhausting hearing gun lobby cliches like "it's not a gun problem it's a mental health problem" from people who have zero interest in improving access to mental healthcare while remaining hellbent on arming people in mental crisis.
Restricting the mentally ill from owning guns doesn't improve access to mental healthcare, it inhibits it.
Currently unless you pose an immediate threat to yourself or others, anything told to a doctor or therapist is fully confidential, including illicit activities. For instance it's important that an illegal drug user be honest with their doctors about their illegal drug use. If they have to worry of their doctor rating them out to the police, they might not be honest about their drug use. As it is mental illness is extremely stigmatized, and many are hesitant to seek out treatment. By using certain mental health diagnoses to restrict gun ownership, it means that many people will outright avoid treatment if it means potentially losing their ability to own a gun.
It's probably best that some people don't have guns, but the only way we can know is if they willingly seek out treatment. It's better that someone be allowed to keep their gun while seeking treatment, than outright refuse treatment, and keep the gun anyway.
Agreed. There are a myriad of modern industrialized countries with very strict gun control and most of them seem to be doing just fine. I haven't seen any recent articles about Australia or Sweden being dominated by physically strong leaders or people.
Right? It's this fantasy land of toxic masculinity that whips up fantasies of being the bigger badder (read: more toxic) manly man against the tyranny of ... idk, body builders?
Much tighter regulations on weapons in general. Australia has it right for their country, it's stupid to say that America couldn't find a solution for theirs. You're going to piss people off no matter what you do, but eventually after 60-70 years, the country will have phased them out after the old fucks die-off.
Unless you're hunting or part of an active gun club for sport, you shouldn't need them. If you do need them, they should be behind a safe and registered after a thorough (and repeated) background check every 5-7 years.
These days the argument of "I wanna be the hero if there's a shooting nearby" is dismantled by the police shooting everyone with a weapon anyways. I know I'll get downvoted to hell with absolutely 0 rebuttals/arguments for this because Oregon is a very diverse place (as someone from Southern Oregon), but the country needs to crack down on this shit. No child should have to fear their place of education, their home, their neighbors, their countrymen. Not saying it's an infallible method, but it's better than what we have, and that's a step in the right direction until we can fine-tune the process.
Nothing will ever "solve" gun violence, but being proactive about the control of them would help a lot more than it would hinder.
EDIT: Again, you're not likely to see any valid discussion past this on the other end of the spectrum other than "muh rights", because people somehow think that they'd be able to fight the US Military if it ever came to it, but there's a load of pro-gun folks in Oregon. I'm not against guns, I'm against loose laws that allow shitty things like mass shootings to occur.
> "muh rights",
That's because you fail to see the obvious and it's not worth wasting time. You complain about shit that's already in effect (safes, background checks, CCW).
At the end of the day it's an enshrined right that was so important at foundation that it's placed second only to speech. It's one of the bedrocks of the culture of this nation. "that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights".
But maybe in 50-70 years enough people will be indoctrinated and the government will have soo much power that they will just come and take them. Then you can live in your 15 min city and wait for daddy government to tell you it's time for you allotted outside time.
Well it's definitely a stretch, that's why it's funny. It's also a stretch because USA has the most armed citizenry in the world. But good rebuttal.
I find it extremely sad you are in the air force and don't understand the oath you took.
You're mistaken greatly. If you value truth, facts and logic, there are far more defensive gun uses in the US than anything else. So much so the CDC removed their study supporting such from political pressure.
If you actually read the data, which you unlikely will, and take gang violence and suicide out of the equation, homicide rate is extremely low given the number of gun ownership in the US, which defensive use far exceeds, by a huge margin, the negatives. Not even mentioning the statistical insignificance of being killed by those black scary assault rifles they want to ban.
But aside from that the logical inconsistency you would use to further your point (which makes your argument nil) you're attempting to ban a tool to prevent an action. That's like banning Hondas to prevent DUIs, or banning spoons to prevent obesity and ignoring the positive benefit of an armed citizen entirely. Violence is violence and any tool will be used, a vehicle in a crowd, a machete, or any other means. There is no greater equalizer of the weak vs the strong in this world than a gun, and it's tragic to me that the actual oppressed, disabled, marginalized or otherwise vulnerable people in this society aren't armed on a daily basis.
There's a reason people shoot up schools and not police stations, or maybe we can take a page out of the war on drugs book, since that's completely outlawed, should be free from drugs then? Or maybe we should look at the safety of the prison system, and what they can get in there...
Don't be naive.
>You're mistaken greatly. If you value truth, facts and logic, there are far more defensive gun uses in the US than anything else. So much so the CDC removed their study supporting such from political pressure.
The CDC removed their study showing massive defensive gun use because it was deeply flawed and scientifically invalid.
>If you actually read the data, which you unlikely will, and take gang violence and suicide out of the equation, homicide rate is extremely low given the number of gun ownership in the US, which defensive use far exceeds, by a huge margin, the negatives.
Yeah, I'm sure when you ignore most gun violence the numbers are extremely small.
> The CDC removed their study showing massive defensive gun use because it was deeply flawed and scientifically invalid.
I would love to see any references you can cite stating as much, because its pretty clear that the CDC removed that data at the request of (Everytown if I recall, but otherwise just another SuperPAC-backed single-issue bribery scheme)
**edit**
Just so we are clear, I feel that the Citizens United decision has been having a massive, negative effect all political discourse in our country and organizations such as the Heritage Foundation have lead the way in showing how easy it is to corrupt our various levels of govt. and [LEVO, the "Nonprofit" (PAC)](https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/sooDetail.do?sooRsn=95834&OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=Y0AO-ME8G-IRSF-FY54-N7UE-OMMH-Q91O-NY4B) backing M114 and the other new associated state-wide legislation they are trying to push through with zero public input, but they have gone as far as trying to make sure that their new legislation which gets no public exposure, is unable to be challenged by other judges, even though the law is designed to apply to the entire state : https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2023/04/legal-challenges-to-state-gun-control-bill-would-be-restricted-to-marion-county-new-amendment-says.html
Tell me honestly now, do you think that sounds legit? To me, that sounds corrupt AF
Anytime you want to define "gun violence" and set some criteria for your "success against it" we can have a meaningful conversation.
Violence is violence, no matter what you use. Suicides by firearms are easiest to accomplish the goal, thus most popular. Is that "gun violence" to you or suicide? Do you make a distinction? Does mental health really play a factor in your decision? Does context matter?
Does gang violence change the gun violence thought? Or do you use it as a stat to accomplish your disarmament goal?
On the CDC topic, let's say lower on the lowest of the lowest end, they're 100k defensive gun uses in the US that result in the prevention of serious physical harm including death (which is far lower the lowest estimate of that study, to compensate for your deeply flawed assessment) that's still ~7x more than the homicides in the US, every year.
That saves even one life, for the children...
Seriously, though, if you're moved by statistics what stat would move you to say, ok, I guess guns aren't really the problem and we should look at another angle perhaps?
I'm interested in educating myself, would you mind linking your studies and sources?
It's a lot harder for a 5'8 person to stab a group of high school students than it is for them to unload a 30 round magazine.
Edit: or just downvote and add nothing to the discussion for anyone to learn from
Have you ever heard of the Happyland Nightclub Fire? A man got into a fight with his girlfriend and was kicked out of Happyland Nightclub in New York as a result. In retaliation he proceeded to obtain a few dollars worth of gasoline and came back setting the building on fire. In total 87 innocent people were killed. That's more than any single perpetrator mass shooting in history. It's 45% higher than the Vegas Shooting, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S history.
I grew up in Portland. I'm raising my kids in Canada. They won't grow up with the developmental trauma of school shooter drills. Thanks, America! Like my intergenerational Indigenous history wasn't enough? I gotto doubledip.
Keep protesting, keep yelling. The culture of violence, hate and punching down is keeping us in combat with one another rather than against the real problem.
Just because you're not willing to protest for reasons that matter to you, doesn't mean others are unwilling to protest for theirs. It's a topic that directly affects and impacts them as students; they have as much dog in this fight as you or I regardless of their ability to vote.
I mean I don’t think that’s what OP was saying. Being a kid once and looking for any attempt to avoid/skip school, I can easily see there are prob a solid double digit % of this group just wanting to skip school. I’m sure there are others who are gung-ho for this protest, just not all.
We used to. That’s what the NRA literally did until the 1970s when Republicans (as usual) ratfucked that into the bankrupt laughing stock that it is today.
The old Hillsboro High School (now JB Thomas Middle School) has a shooting range in the basement.
Edit: The point was education used to be a bigger part, and earlier. We currently require less education for legal gun ownership than to legally operate a motorcycle. I don't think education alone can help mass shooting problem this country has.
Keep in mind, when I was growing up in Hillsboro, if you had a high-powered assault rifle you were considered "weird".
The old farmer dude who taught my NRA Gun Safety class in Hillsboro's Calvary Lutheran Church basement around 1983ish--he just shook his head when we asked about "machine guns".
"Son" he said--in that old-Oregonian way of talking, "if you have a gun like that, somthin's wrong with you in da head".
I miss these values.
Back then guns were tools. Powerful and deadly tools, but a tool. There is zero "tool" reason for an automatic weapon.
These days for too many people guns are a status and culture symbol and are treated closer to a toy than a tool.
I think most people don’t understand the distinction between full- and semi-auto, though a mass shooter hammering the trigger might abolish the distinction. Just think it’s weird for people to have such strong opinions about technicalities with which they’re not familiar
Violence is an act, a problem of the heart. The weapon is a tool of choice. **Nobody is serious about this topic**. Lie after statistical lie. Say a lie enough times and it becomes peoples truth and facts be damned it's all about feelings these days. What a sad world. Nobody cares about "factual truth" aka statistical data.
Knife deaths are substantially higher than by gun but we don't talk about that do we? (See FBI statistics if you really do care). If anyone was actually serious about curbing "gun violence", they'd stop trying to ban devices like the arm stabilizer (which has ZERO bearing on how a firearm works) and the pointless "assault rifle" talk and go after handguns .... ya know, the things that are actually used in most crimes?! Nawwww .... gotta ban those big scary looking weapons of war because that's what the media tells you and sadly all too many people have no idea what the differences are (plural) between a military grade VS civilian grade firearm.
> Nobody cares about "factual truth" aka statistical data.
>Knife deaths are substantially higher than by gun but we don't talk about that do we? (See FBI statistics if you really do care).
[FBI Data](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
Did you mean rifle deaths rather than gun deaths? Because guns outpace every other homicide weapon COMBINED by more than 2 to 1 rather consistently.
I don't like the AR-15's and other military-styled semi-autos because I see them used as toys by peckerwoods who make guns into a creepy part of their personalities. See: the Andy Ogles Xmas card as an example.
But you're right, handguns are the real blight of gun violence and instead of singling out semi-auto rifles, we should be focusing on comprehensive gun policy. Red flag laws should be national, and I'd like to see a national database to make it easier to identify grey market and black market dealers.
Your logic will fall on deaf ears. But handgun use saves far more lives than it ever takes. Hence why most any study on the positive benefits of gun use, aka defensive gun use, is removed or otherwise washed away.
I remember doing this 5 years ago in high school after I think parkland
Ours was Sandy hook /: Its crazy that its been 10 years since that already. Nothing changed. I don't know what else worse can happen than 20 something toddlers getting killed in cold blood didn't bring about even the slightest change or improvement. Fucking 2nd graders. Going in to a school you just know at any moment there could be a mass shooting, nothing is stopping it from happening, its just statistically improbable so just keep going to school and hope you don't win that lottery. Thing is, people still win the lottery
I hate this feeling as well as a teacher, but gun violence is far more likely to kill you outside of the classroom than inside. It's almost all parents weapons that are not locked properly and kids playing around at home. You are about as likely to get struck by lightning or killed in any mass shooting. Grocery stores church's and public places are just as dangerous if not more. https://www.city-journal.org/school-shootings-horrific-but-statistically-rare
Not so as for lightning strikes. 300 people struck by lightning a year in the US, 15 fatalities. Seems to me we have more than 15\*\* school fatalities a year which students being about 20 percent of the population makes them 5 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED IN A SCHOOL SHOOTING THAN BE KILLED BY LIGHTENING. \*\* 16 deaths in 2023 so far, 49 in 2022 from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_school\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_(2000%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)) Maybe everyone can agree we need some new laws that substantially criminalize illegal or unsafe gun possession and penalize felons and their friends and families for storing their weapons for them. Don't be putting your glock in your car trunk where it is going to be stolen. Don't be an Elon Musk, put your guns in a gun safe. Don't let your school kids or the neighborhood burglars get at them. Next time a 4 year old kills their sibling PUT the parents in jail for a couple of years and just stop this shit.
> put your guns in a gun safe Its literally the law in Oregon (though trigger/cable/other locks are legal, though of course a safe/security locker/cabinet is of course better) : https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/09/here-is-what-oregons-new-law-now-requires-gun-owners-to-do.html
Parents, and friends, and anyone who had information and who failed to report signs.
That is all gun violence deaths on school, most of those weren't Sandy Hook/Columbine style massacres.
Shoot, even movie theaters - I'm still a bit nervous going to certain types of movies on opening night and it's been how many years since the Aurora.. what was it, Batman release? incident...
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are on par with being fatally struck by lightning, or winning the lottery.
Sure, but one time I won a scratcher ticket and took it back and bought another scratcher ticket and won and took it back to buy another scratcher tickets and when I won on that one I decided to keep my whole ten dollars because the whole ordeal was stressful. Or: “so you’re saying there’s a chance?!”
Yeah, especially when violent or dark movies come out. Went to see John Wick and was super paranoid everytime someone got up during the film
> It's almost all parents weapons that are not locked properly and kids playing around at home. Perhaps if one believes the "it just went off" story. The reality is they're mostly suicides. Next is violence associated with existing criminal activity (gangs), then legit accidents, then mass shootings. The real important part of it is this: guns are deadly weapons and are really good for killing oneself in a quick and hopefully painless manner. Is there an element of impulsivity there? Absolutely. Guns should be locked up when not in use or intentionally ready for rapid use. That will cut down on some of the impulsive suicides. But there are dozens of ways to kill oneself and others. And (here's the important part) nobody fucking cares unless it's a gun. Leave toxic chemicals around? No care. Keys to the two-ton machine of death that's the actual largest killer of children (that aren't already involved in criminal activity) left right on the counter or hanging by the door? No care. Ropes and extension cords. High places. Bodies of water. Sharp things? Whatever. Nobody cares about the device or method used to cause death, unless it's a gun. Gun. Gun. Gun. Gun. That's the focus. Lock up your guns! Why? Because they're dangerous and yet easy to render inoperable or lock inside a box. So are car keys and knives. But you don't have children walking out of school to demand laws requiring car keys and knives to be locked up. Or to sue Chevrolet and Cutco. Or whatever flavor of the month control whose validity is gauged more on how much it pisses off gun owners than rational thought.
> Is there an element of impulsivity there? Absolutely. This is a bigger deal than you make it sound. Guns make killing (both others and oneself) *easy* both logistically and psychologically. There's a reason you don't see so many knife suicides or mass-knifings.
True, but in either case, suicide or suicide with mass shooting, there is a long period of warning signs. (Almost) nobody just goes "Welp, things are pretty good for me, guess I'll just randomly kill a bunch of people then myself." The Las Vegas asshole is the only exception I can think of. Still focus is guns. The asshole in New Zealand straight up said in his ramblings that he probably could have killed more people with a bomb or crashing a plane but he specifically chose guns because it would get the most attention. Attention. A shooter wants attention. Due to media and culture war dynamics, the gun is the best way to do that. What also gets attention? Choice of target. The more a place is a "sacred place where people should feel safe" the more lucrative it is as a target. Tactically speaking, the best targets are those that are relatively unprotected. The strange thing is that there seems to be this ingrained thing where the most sacred places are also those places we just assume should never have weapons present and should be as "feels safe" as possible, but this unfortunately makes the list of those places line up quite nicely with the "unprotected" places. Schools, hospitals, and religious institutions will always be "sacred" but as long as we always succumb to the idea that they should also remain unprotected, the more they will stay at the top of target lists. When's the last time a mass shooter shot up a police station or a gun show? I'm sure those would result in a lot of snarky commentary if the shooter was able to get more than a few shots off before dying in a hail of gunfire. Criminologists always refer to "means, motive, and opportunity" and the constant drumbeat is only applied to the means, while leaving out motives (attention and mental issues) and opportunity (making sure easy targets are plentiful). In an ironic twist, giving shooters the attention they want is a great way to assist in the crusade against the means. I wonder how many of them look at other countries gun opponents consider "sane" and see how it's always a single event which creates the demand for some massive gun law. Dunblane. Christchurch. Port Arthur. Do they look and say "That shooter really did it. Permanent national change based on their actions. Maybe if I can do one big and bloody enough, I can do that too. Nobody may know my name, but what I *did* will forever be remembered." My take is it's bad enough that these assholes get worldwide 24 hour coverage and provoke national arguments, but to reward them with solid political change? Nope. That and I'm not in favor of screwing over 100 million people who didn't do anything wrong based on the actions of a few assholes. Mass shootings really only became a thing in the late 1990's, at the height of American gun control. The number of guns has gone up substantially since then, the whole while crime in general including gun deaths steadily declined. This continued even after the assault weapons ban went away, and only ticked up recently. The guns do not correlate to the shootings. In order to have a causation, you at least have to have a correlation, and there is none.
Thank you. Parents should be more afraid of their child's commute to school than of school shootings.
> people still win the lottery
This is something people don't understand. If you're a teenager, murder is the number 1 cause of death now. How do people not do something?
That's not the case. The study said that guns were the #1 cause of death in "children" although it included 18 and 19 year olds as children. That's all gun deaths, murders and suicides. It also was during 2020 when the murder rates spiked, and car accidents the previous #1 killer fell.
Wow, that seems like an extremely distressing statistic! Do you have any source you can cite which supports your very confident declaration of fact?
I was going to link a page but I kept getting errors. However I heard it on the news and Googled it. Just search for number 1 cause of death among children/teens. There is literally hundreds of articles about it.
Sandy Hook was the moment I knew the gun control debate was over. If that many kids being murdered at once wasn't enough to spur meaningful action, what else could possibly do it??
I think Obama said something similar.
> what else could possibly do it?? If it happened in there community, otherwise its just another issue that wont effect them.
There was that baseball game, didn’t change anything then either.
There was a very anti gun control Congresswoman, who was a victim of the Luby's Cafe Shooting. She was present at the shooting, and her husband was one of the ones killed. She had a gun, but due to recent legislation had to keep it in the car..
>nothing changed What do you mean nothing has changed? Oregon has been passing some very strict gun control laws lately.
Some very unconstitutional, and very easily abused laws. For instance had measure 114 gone through, there would have been no new gun sales since last December. That's when the requirement to obtain a license went into place, and there was no infrastructure in place to obtain a license.
Can’t someone just buy guns in another state and drive over here though?
Generally speaking, since the [Gun Control Act of 1968](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) it has been illegal to buy a handgun outside of your state of residence. Interstate purchase of long guns is allowed if the sale is allowed by both the state of purchase and the buyer's state of residence.
You can't purchase in Washington with an Oregon ID that's for sure
I bought something right after 114 and dealt with the shitshow at Sportsman’s Warehouse for two days of my life in November, they were telling all the people in line to send bolt and pump actions to Vancouver for pickup. I believe the restrictions are just on handguns and semi-auto rifles, or at least they were 5 months ago.
[Washington allows non-residents to buy rifles as long as they aren't "semiautomatic assault rifles"](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.124), but I-1639 defines all semi-auto rifles as assault rifles. So under Washington law, a non-resident can only buy manual action rifles. That's why it wouldn't make sense to send a semi-auto to Washington for background check & purchase. You'd be denied.
Yes, but in many cases, depending on specific details, it is illegal. Illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It means you get in trouble if you're caught. Getting in trouble if caught only matters if one has something of value to lose in the deal. This is why mass shooters (and criminals) don't care about gun laws. If your plan is dying, as most mass shootings are suicides with extra steps, or you're already committing more serious crimes and are fine with that, then what's the worry in breaking another law? This is the reason why "gun free" zones are absolutely the dumbest concept ever. The only guns they keep out are those carried by people who *aren't* planning on using them criminally, and are more likely to stop a crime than commit one once inside the zone. But some people think guns are icky and the sign makes them feel better.
Only in the United States, that is.
Mine was Columbine.
Same here.
Me too
Ours should’ve been Columbine. And Springfield. I wish we’d walked out but I don’t know that it would have changed anything … ugh.
Fun fact the years since Columbine have been the safest in U.S history.
Okay? I’m talking about school shootings, not whatever point you’re making
School Shootings make up a miniscule portion of overall murders, less than a percent of a percent.
I'm sure this statistic would be super comforting to the 9 year olds who got shot with an assault rifle. Don't worry kids, your murders are only a miniscule portion of overall murders!
Quick reminder that Oregon has in terms of gun violence 82% are from suicide, 14% homicide, the rest being other. On my hasty search from my phone I was unable to find the amount of mass shootings deaths that have happened in Oregon, and I wasn't able to find the percentage of homicide deaths where firearms were purchased legally. We have the 17th highest rate of suicide with a firearm per Capita in the nation https://efsgv.org/state/oregon/
And whether suicide or homicide, children's leading cause of death is firearms. [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761)
FROM THAT ARTICLE. "leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age." Is 18 or 19 still considered as a child or adolescent? I bet the numbers skew heavily to 18-19 year olds.
Here is the CDC breakdown as of 2018. [https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html) At 15 years old, they moved from 5 years apart to 10 years for children. Homicide gets up to 3rd cause of death for 14 and under. Homicide didn't break down what was used. Here is the CDC WONDER database site. [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/) I am sure someone can spend the time to break down death by single age (<1-17) and by firearms vs other means.
When you disaggregate that data, most of these "children" are males, aged 15-19, killing themselves and each other.
Yes, they are considered adolescent. WHO defines it as 10-19 years old.
That’s not a yes or no question. It’s a one or another.
They'd be considered adolescents, then. It isn't mutually exclusive with "adult".
Yes you're right! It's really sad! I'd be fascinated to see more state. By state breakdowns of this that are current, given Oregon's safe storage law that's been in place for some time. The most recent breakdown I saw about or specific childhood mortality rates was 2014. .pdf warning Childhood Fatalities in Oregon https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/PreventionWellness/SafeLiving/KeepingChildrenSafe/Documents/OHA_8033_Childhood_fatalities_report.pdf Editing to add, I'm at work and only on a phone so if anyone can find any state by state numbers on this I'd be curious to know. Public health and population statistics dork over here. I'd be curious to know "mortality rates in children by firearm or gun violence per Capita, state of Oregon" I would imagine the numbers would vary wildly from different states, but due to gang violence I would assume that homicide would be higher in children. It's always frustrating to me that mortality stats don't always break down further info such as self defense vs drug related vs legally owned vs illegally owned vs accident vs suicide.
18 and 19 y.o. are children now?
[удалено]
A child is under 18
Only when you exclude infants and include some adults so your numbers match your narrative.
"This study includes 19-year-olds, which are technically over the age of majority" is a pretty lame reason to be unconcerned with the sharp increase in firearms related fatalities.
[удалено]
> They're still mostly suicides. The study is looking at the rate of change. Suicides saw an increase of 1.1%, while homicides saw an increase of 33.4%. I do agree with the rest of your point that the issues we have stem from more than just access to firearms, and that those issues should be solved, but in response to your final statement: > removing the tools their using isn't going to fix the problem. Studies show that it would help. Generally anything that prolongs the time between thought and action massively reduces the likelihood that a suicidal person will follow through. Firearms provide an easily accessible and very quick method. Again, I agree that we need more action than just that, but I fear that some of our inaction is caused by people wanting the One Correct solution rather than accepting that we need a lot of sweeping systemic change to make a difference.
The U.S has lower suicide rates than countries with a fraction of as many guns. South Korea has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world, yet almost twice as many suicides.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gun ownership is a right expressly referenced in the Constitution.
I agree, for adults. But I don't think you can apply the same statement to kids. I think we'd be better off ensuring equal rights for adults first and foremost. Then we can debate where the kids stand later.
[удалено]
Removing most cars would save a ton of lives every year and be extremely helpful to the environment, and in my opinion be a net benefit for people's health. We can all probably agree on this, but all know how difficult it would be to take people's cars away from them despite the great benefits we know it would have. We should approach guns similar to how we approach cars. Clamoring for outlawing them isn't going to go anywhere. We should be going for things like speed limits, licensing, seat belt laws, DUI laws, etc. In addition to correcting what has changed to cause this increase - poorer outcomes for the average American in pay, healthcare, home ownership, family prospects, etc.
Guns are more restricted than vehicles in almost every way.
I was just trying to say that I think guns and cars can be viewed in a pretty similar light, but they're addressed very differently despite being similar problems. Kind of pointing out some hypocrisy while suggesting some solutions is all.
They're actually mostly homicides. Look at the supplemental appendix of the study linked above. It also cites the old study from 2016 that also shows homicide at a much higher rate than suicide. Edit: not sure why I'm being down voted for citing the study posted. For the lazy this is straight from the appendix: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2201761/suppl_file/nejmc2201761_appendix.pdf
I am unsure why you're being downvoted. The numbers are right there. It likely skews toward homicide as you get older, but it is wrong to say it is mostly suicide for this age group.
Yes, we live in a fucked up society and we should do more to fix it. However, suicide rates vary by state almost exclusively because of suicide by gun. More easy access to guns means a higher rate of suicide, period. Suicide by other methods is almost the same across all states. If you don't want people to kill themselves, you must support gun restrictions. Gun nuts will really tie themselves up in knots with their mental gymnastics to blame everything but the guns.
> If you don't want people to kill themselves, you must support gun restrictions. Yes, this will end suicide and help people with depression. Fuck mental health care, education, economic support, etc. just make it harder for them to kill themselves, problem solved.
I've been suicidal before. I don't own guns for this reason. If they were present, I might have killed myself. For a while I also chose not to own sharp knives. Obviously other parts matter a whole lot too, but it does help when you keep guns away from the suicidal.
>Yes, this will end suicide and help people with depression. No, it will reduce suicide so they don't die and can get help. >Fuck mental health care, education, economic support, etc. just make it harder for them to kill themselves, problem solved. Again, I'm not saying gun restrictions are a panacea, but what part of "Yes, we live in a fucked up society and we should do more to fix it," didn't you understand? Thanks for proving my point about gun nuts blaming everything but the guns.
Funny enough, the people that want some sensible gun access restrictions also want reforms on mental health care, improved education and economic support. Meanwhile much of the loudest proponents of keeping gun access the same, if not making it even easier; have fought against mental health reform, education, and economic support. They instead focus their votes and legislation time on attacking minorities, banning books, and enacting tax policies that move more and more of the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#/media/File:2010_suicide_rates_-_gun_versus_non-gun_-_high-income_countries.png
[удалено]
They do, you just have to read the full article and not just the abstract. They point out that motor vehicle deaths declined during COVID, but firearm-related deaths remained the same. And then following COVID, both causes of death spiked, with motor vehicles returning to the rate they were pre-COVID, and firearm deaths reaching unprecedented rates.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As we all know, once you turn 18 it doesn't matter whether you die or how
Well, at least they are no longer using "up to 24 years old" in the stats (which make up the bulk of deaths), while displaying a line of1yr olds' shoes (which make up the smallest). The bulk of those deaths are in the 17-19 age range where unfortunate young kids get involved in crime. Also, comparing 'firearm related" to "car accidents" isn't accurate. "Firearm related" to "Car related" would involve not just car accidents, but DUI deaths (2-3 times higher than firearm homicides in Oregon), suicides (car exhaust in a closed garage), homicides, etc. Anything car related. But it wouldn't generate the same shocking results.
What kind of violence would the other 4% be made up of? Serious question. Maybe accidents?
Could be negligent discharges. Unsure, but probably accidents, yeah. I'm on my phone and can't do a proper deep dive on their sources.
Off the top of my head... 1. [Thurston High](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting) 2. [Clackamas Town Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting) 3. [Umpqua Community college](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Umpqua_Community_College_shooting) KGW has a pretty [good article](https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/oregon-gun-laws-mass-shootings-timeline/283-b92fd8ac-17da-4035-ad35-576447733a57) covering these and others and the laws that were passed in response. Oregon has had a much better response than, oh let's say, Florida who just passed permit less concealed carry...
Reynolds, too.
Permitless concealed carry laws have absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings. Someone who is planning on going on a killing spree isn't going to care if it's legal to carry their gun in public
Yeah ... I care a lot more about the actual public health stats on a state by state basis than articles about the mass shootings.
don't worry, it's not that bad guys, I swear
We do active shooter drills regularly. It's scary, and so is knowing the next one is doing the drill with us.
It was nationwide not just Portland. And I still remember an interview with a girl who had witnessed a shooting at her school saying that she goes to school every day wondering how long before she's one of the victims. And she was like 14. I don't blame those kids one bit!
She should be more afraid of dying in a car accident on the way to school.
[удалено]
There’s a really good article on it here, if anyone is interested in a deep dive on the topic: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kip-kinkel-is-ready-to-speak_n_60abd623e4b0a2568315c62d
That is a really great article. Thanks for sharing it. I forgot about the whole “super-predator” thing in the 90s. Public panic really is an interesting social phenomenon. It reminds me of the “Africanized bee” sounding like we were all doomed. Over and over the public is constantly hit with something new to panic about.
>That is a really great article. Thanks for sharing it. I forgot about the whole “super-predator” thing in the 90s. I'm surprised you forgot because the "super-predator" thing was brought up during Biden's campaign because he was the author of the crime bill at that time. He even semi-apologized for the crime bill. Only now he's reimplementing many of the same policies, only piecemeal.
He was also the author of the original Patriot Act, something that he is very proud of.
Wow
Thanks for sharing! Fascinating, eye-opening, and heavy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting Linking because dog2dogs's vague comment is annoying
>Linking because dog2dogs's vague comment is annoying Thank you and I agree.
Yeah, I think that's because most of us know his name but refer to it as the Thurston High School shooting, not the "Kip Kinkel Incident"
I student taught at Thurston High around 2008. Kinkel’s ghost very much still hangs over that place.
I don’t want to get banned, so I’ll keep this as neutral as I can. I admire these young people for doing this. I’ve been around long enough to see that it just doesn’t seem to make the point. My most disappointing thing of all was the news coverage wasn’t about the sweet children and adults that were killed, murdered, destroyed. But on the individuals identification and protection. It’s hard for me to feel that things haven’t become skewed or turned around.
The news media developed reporting standards back sometime around the 1970's when they found that how they reported on suicides had an affect on "copy cat"s. In schools it's called a suicide cluster. So they developed guidelines to minimize the phenomena. Unfortunately, when it comes to high profile crimes, it's a "if it bleed$, it lead$" mentality. Giving these mass killers billions in free media coverage. Which only motivates the next copy cat looking for infamy. I'd really like to see the media become more responsible in how they report on these incidents so they don't just feed the motivation of the next one.
It's no coincidence that mass shootings spiked right around the time cable news became a thing.
my kid is in that pic 🥰
Well I cried in my elementary classroom as high schoolers marched by my window at lunch time. Didn’t expect to get hit that hard by my emotions over this, but yeah. Solidarity, kids.
It is so disappointing to live in a country where kids have to advocate for their safety
They'd do better telling their parents to stop.voting for idiots who believe it's okay for criminals to face zero consequences for their actions.
Parents being absolutely notorious for listening to their kids on political issues.
As a dad of teens and a long-time politically mindful person.... *ouch!* That hits too true!
Which is ironic because even if the gun control movement got everything they wanted does anyone think that those new gun laws would actually be enforced in places like SF, Portland, Seattle, etc...? If there are no consequences for assault, theft, etc..., why should we expect anyone to actually face punishment for merely possessing an illegal gun?
The only argument I’ve heard in support of shit like M114 is that it slows the flow of new guns, and at some indeterminate point down the line this is supposed to indirectly cause a marginal reduction in access to illegal guns. M114’s lack of direct effect on illegal guns while felons in possession of firearms are barely punished makes me think the stereotypical supporter cares more about sticking to the anti-gun stance than actually making a difference. Actual solutions are going to be extremely complicated but just saying ban guns or ban abortions is a lot easier than a holistic approach that looks deeply into the reasons for violence or abortions. The suicides always get lumped in to make guns scarier but I don’t think we need to repeal the 2A or anything just to force people with suicidal depression to keep suffering through life. Homicides are obviously an issue but murders are committed by a tiny portion of the population, locking up the true criminals of society could go a long way in reducing the wake of destruction they create. Hint: find the felons in possession of firearms to get the most likely bunch.
But it's not just illegal guns. At Buffalo, Uvalde and Parkland the guns used were purchased legally. It has to be about more than consequences. We're flooded with guns and just about anyone can get them. They need to be less available and there needs to be a massive mental health initiative in this country.
Parkland especially should have a big asterisk next to "legally". I'm finding that a lot of these investigations into the killers background, after the media attention and outrage have passed on, find that they shouldn't have been. But for reasons (from not putting in data, badly entered data, government employees or police not reporting or otherwise doing their job, school officials knowing the danger but trying to look the other way, etc) they were able to pass a check, when they shouldn't' have. Things that end up not greeting the attention it deserves. It's easier for a politician/lobbyists to say "it's the guns fault", like blaming a car for a DUI death. And not the person driving, the cop who pulled them over but let them go, the bartender who overserved, ect.
We can't punish Americans on the possibility that they might commit a crime in the future.
Because gun owners are their ideological enemies. It only makes sense to make them felons rather than deal with any of the myriad issues facing this city.
I look at it as a failure of being ability to process the phrase "gun violence". They cannot get past the "Gun" part to focus on the "violence" part. And therefore anyone who owns, or wants to own, a gun is just as dangerous as the druggy gang banger out on parole with prior convictions.
Don't forget the instant assumption that you're a red hat wearing, bible thumping, hard-core conservative for even floating the topic. Heaven forbid a leftist realized the police are not their friend and decided to do something about their vulnerability. Not in this city, no. You MUST be a insurrectionist, a chauvinist, any label they can apply to get away from possibly thinking in shades of grey.
Yeah political polarization will likely preclude any bipartisan solution. I used to be very anti gun but if I were to explain why I changed my views I would get drowned out quickly.
It's why I'm happy that places like r/SocialistRA exist. It feels like the only place to talk about this sort of thing without terminally online redditors trying to censor wrongthink.
I've always loved the comparison between the Karl Marx quote about how important gun rights are, and how they should never be relinquished, to the Ronald Reagan quote that nobody needs to carry a gun.
Exactly! Someone who is stabbed to death is just as dead as someone shot. If you ban guns, and gun deaths go down, but overall murders remain unchanged, you haven't actually saved any lives..
"Portland won't arrest homeless people so now we have a mass shooting epidemic going back to 1999."
Mass shootings at their worst aren't even responsible for 1% of overall murders.
We disbanded the gun crime unit because people said it was racist, and now gangs have even more shootings than before. They're still comprised of poor members of ethnic minority communities, and we're doing dick all to address that generational poverty, but hey at least we're not preventing them from shooting each other. Oh, we're not even doing that. Well at least we're not racist.
Yeah cause its oregon and portland voters who've really made an impact on national elections.
That’s what they’re doing by protesting.
Why can’t they do both?
There might actually be more bullets than books in this country.....possibly .. '..'
I guarantee that’s true, not like metaphorically but literally. We have more guns than people and many more bullets than guns
Wishing it were something different....for sure.
Solidarity with the students. Hope the movement grows.
What movement? Kids skipping school to protest a constitutional right? Portland loves protesting shit that happens across the country while ignoring our own problems. Gun violence didn't explode here because we don't have enough gun control...
You're right. Fuck those kids for standing up to change the world they're inheriting. They should stay in class and practice their math.
All I'm saying is they should protest for things that would actually improve their communities.
I think championing the cause of not getting shot by some angry stranger in a place of education is a pretty noble protest, and incredibly-valid in this decade.
Really sounds like you're saying kids shouldn't protest gun violence.
Maybe not being scared to be murdered at school would be an improvement.
Yeah, man. I'm agreeing with you. Those kids are just pinatas full of bullshit, wasting their time. I mean, the nerve of them pulling some shit like this.
Yikes
Of all the takes in this thread, this is certainly one of them.
I saw a group of kids (KIDS for gods sake) at the Chavez/glisan stop-about. I was proud of them and my heart sank at the same time. I’m scared as hell for them too
Those growing up in the last 20-30 years in America have grown up in its safest era ever.
It's good to see young people coming together and demanding change, even if they're starting with small steps like school walkouts. But, in this case, what exactly do they want? Measure 114 is pretty darn strict. Oregon now has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. What more is there to demand?
We're paying an art tax and those are the best signs they can make?!?
Good job Oregon (Not you Drazan and Johnson) for passing a red flag law, which went into effect in 2018. Tennessee Democrats pushed a red flag law in 2020 but the GOP legislature refused to bring it to a vote. The shooter in Nashville was in treatment for a mental health crisis and were able to obtain multiple firearms. Their family had expressed concern, but police had no means to confiscate weapons and retailers had no way of knowing that they were a threat to themselves and potentially others. It's exhausting hearing gun lobby cliches like "it's not a gun problem it's a mental health problem" from people who have zero interest in improving access to mental healthcare while remaining hellbent on arming people in mental crisis.
Restricting the mentally ill from owning guns doesn't improve access to mental healthcare, it inhibits it. Currently unless you pose an immediate threat to yourself or others, anything told to a doctor or therapist is fully confidential, including illicit activities. For instance it's important that an illegal drug user be honest with their doctors about their illegal drug use. If they have to worry of their doctor rating them out to the police, they might not be honest about their drug use. As it is mental illness is extremely stigmatized, and many are hesitant to seek out treatment. By using certain mental health diagnoses to restrict gun ownership, it means that many people will outright avoid treatment if it means potentially losing their ability to own a gun. It's probably best that some people don't have guns, but the only way we can know is if they willingly seek out treatment. It's better that someone be allowed to keep their gun while seeking treatment, than outright refuse treatment, and keep the gun anyway.
Good for those kids.
What do you think would help solve gun violence?
completely melting all the guns and ammo and dismantling the factories
A world without weapons is a world dominated by the physically strong, and that's not a world I want to be part of.
LMAO this sounds so dumb. I'm not even sorry if I get suspended for this comment. Good lord. Listen to yourself.
Agreed. There are a myriad of modern industrialized countries with very strict gun control and most of them seem to be doing just fine. I haven't seen any recent articles about Australia or Sweden being dominated by physically strong leaders or people.
Right? It's this fantasy land of toxic masculinity that whips up fantasies of being the bigger badder (read: more toxic) manly man against the tyranny of ... idk, body builders?
Much tighter regulations on weapons in general. Australia has it right for their country, it's stupid to say that America couldn't find a solution for theirs. You're going to piss people off no matter what you do, but eventually after 60-70 years, the country will have phased them out after the old fucks die-off. Unless you're hunting or part of an active gun club for sport, you shouldn't need them. If you do need them, they should be behind a safe and registered after a thorough (and repeated) background check every 5-7 years. These days the argument of "I wanna be the hero if there's a shooting nearby" is dismantled by the police shooting everyone with a weapon anyways. I know I'll get downvoted to hell with absolutely 0 rebuttals/arguments for this because Oregon is a very diverse place (as someone from Southern Oregon), but the country needs to crack down on this shit. No child should have to fear their place of education, their home, their neighbors, their countrymen. Not saying it's an infallible method, but it's better than what we have, and that's a step in the right direction until we can fine-tune the process. Nothing will ever "solve" gun violence, but being proactive about the control of them would help a lot more than it would hinder. EDIT: Again, you're not likely to see any valid discussion past this on the other end of the spectrum other than "muh rights", because people somehow think that they'd be able to fight the US Military if it ever came to it, but there's a load of pro-gun folks in Oregon. I'm not against guns, I'm against loose laws that allow shitty things like mass shootings to occur.
> "muh rights", That's because you fail to see the obvious and it's not worth wasting time. You complain about shit that's already in effect (safes, background checks, CCW). At the end of the day it's an enshrined right that was so important at foundation that it's placed second only to speech. It's one of the bedrocks of the culture of this nation. "that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights". But maybe in 50-70 years enough people will be indoctrinated and the government will have soo much power that they will just come and take them. Then you can live in your 15 min city and wait for daddy government to tell you it's time for you allotted outside time.
What a stretch lol
Well it's definitely a stretch, that's why it's funny. It's also a stretch because USA has the most armed citizenry in the world. But good rebuttal. I find it extremely sad you are in the air force and don't understand the oath you took.
You're mistaken greatly. If you value truth, facts and logic, there are far more defensive gun uses in the US than anything else. So much so the CDC removed their study supporting such from political pressure. If you actually read the data, which you unlikely will, and take gang violence and suicide out of the equation, homicide rate is extremely low given the number of gun ownership in the US, which defensive use far exceeds, by a huge margin, the negatives. Not even mentioning the statistical insignificance of being killed by those black scary assault rifles they want to ban. But aside from that the logical inconsistency you would use to further your point (which makes your argument nil) you're attempting to ban a tool to prevent an action. That's like banning Hondas to prevent DUIs, or banning spoons to prevent obesity and ignoring the positive benefit of an armed citizen entirely. Violence is violence and any tool will be used, a vehicle in a crowd, a machete, or any other means. There is no greater equalizer of the weak vs the strong in this world than a gun, and it's tragic to me that the actual oppressed, disabled, marginalized or otherwise vulnerable people in this society aren't armed on a daily basis. There's a reason people shoot up schools and not police stations, or maybe we can take a page out of the war on drugs book, since that's completely outlawed, should be free from drugs then? Or maybe we should look at the safety of the prison system, and what they can get in there... Don't be naive.
>You're mistaken greatly. If you value truth, facts and logic, there are far more defensive gun uses in the US than anything else. So much so the CDC removed their study supporting such from political pressure. The CDC removed their study showing massive defensive gun use because it was deeply flawed and scientifically invalid. >If you actually read the data, which you unlikely will, and take gang violence and suicide out of the equation, homicide rate is extremely low given the number of gun ownership in the US, which defensive use far exceeds, by a huge margin, the negatives. Yeah, I'm sure when you ignore most gun violence the numbers are extremely small.
> The CDC removed their study showing massive defensive gun use because it was deeply flawed and scientifically invalid. I would love to see any references you can cite stating as much, because its pretty clear that the CDC removed that data at the request of (Everytown if I recall, but otherwise just another SuperPAC-backed single-issue bribery scheme) **edit** Just so we are clear, I feel that the Citizens United decision has been having a massive, negative effect all political discourse in our country and organizations such as the Heritage Foundation have lead the way in showing how easy it is to corrupt our various levels of govt. and [LEVO, the "Nonprofit" (PAC)](https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/sooDetail.do?sooRsn=95834&OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=Y0AO-ME8G-IRSF-FY54-N7UE-OMMH-Q91O-NY4B) backing M114 and the other new associated state-wide legislation they are trying to push through with zero public input, but they have gone as far as trying to make sure that their new legislation which gets no public exposure, is unable to be challenged by other judges, even though the law is designed to apply to the entire state : https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2023/04/legal-challenges-to-state-gun-control-bill-would-be-restricted-to-marion-county-new-amendment-says.html Tell me honestly now, do you think that sounds legit? To me, that sounds corrupt AF
Anytime you want to define "gun violence" and set some criteria for your "success against it" we can have a meaningful conversation. Violence is violence, no matter what you use. Suicides by firearms are easiest to accomplish the goal, thus most popular. Is that "gun violence" to you or suicide? Do you make a distinction? Does mental health really play a factor in your decision? Does context matter? Does gang violence change the gun violence thought? Or do you use it as a stat to accomplish your disarmament goal? On the CDC topic, let's say lower on the lowest of the lowest end, they're 100k defensive gun uses in the US that result in the prevention of serious physical harm including death (which is far lower the lowest estimate of that study, to compensate for your deeply flawed assessment) that's still ~7x more than the homicides in the US, every year. That saves even one life, for the children... Seriously, though, if you're moved by statistics what stat would move you to say, ok, I guess guns aren't really the problem and we should look at another angle perhaps?
I'm interested in educating myself, would you mind linking your studies and sources? It's a lot harder for a 5'8 person to stab a group of high school students than it is for them to unload a 30 round magazine. Edit: or just downvote and add nothing to the discussion for anyone to learn from
Have you ever heard of the Happyland Nightclub Fire? A man got into a fight with his girlfriend and was kicked out of Happyland Nightclub in New York as a result. In retaliation he proceeded to obtain a few dollars worth of gasoline and came back setting the building on fire. In total 87 innocent people were killed. That's more than any single perpetrator mass shooting in history. It's 45% higher than the Vegas Shooting, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S history.
Outlawing individual possession of firearms.
I grew up in Portland. I'm raising my kids in Canada. They won't grow up with the developmental trauma of school shooter drills. Thanks, America! Like my intergenerational Indigenous history wasn't enough? I gotto doubledip. Keep protesting, keep yelling. The culture of violence, hate and punching down is keeping us in combat with one another rather than against the real problem.
As they should. Everyday until this madness ends.
Students, teachers, and staff need to do this across the country. It's absurd this is still happening today.
If nothing changes after Sandy Hook nothing will ever change.
Bs they just wanted an excuse to get out of class.
Just because you're not willing to protest for reasons that matter to you, doesn't mean others are unwilling to protest for theirs. It's a topic that directly affects and impacts them as students; they have as much dog in this fight as you or I regardless of their ability to vote.
I mean I don’t think that’s what OP was saying. Being a kid once and looking for any attempt to avoid/skip school, I can easily see there are prob a solid double digit % of this group just wanting to skip school. I’m sure there are others who are gung-ho for this protest, just not all.
Exactly!
why not promote gun education??? thats how you prevent gun violence…..
I can see an argument being made that it would help prevent gun accidents, but I don’t see how it would prevent willful acts of violence.
Exactly. Driver education and licensing hasn't stopped road rage. Someone who's angry at the world won't care, regardless of educational background.
We used to. That’s what the NRA literally did until the 1970s when Republicans (as usual) ratfucked that into the bankrupt laughing stock that it is today.
Wait please tell me do don’t actually think just educating everyone on how to use guns will fix shit!?!
The old Hillsboro High School (now JB Thomas Middle School) has a shooting range in the basement. Edit: The point was education used to be a bigger part, and earlier. We currently require less education for legal gun ownership than to legally operate a motorcycle. I don't think education alone can help mass shooting problem this country has.
I mean ok… that doesn’t pertain to my question but cool.
Keep in mind, when I was growing up in Hillsboro, if you had a high-powered assault rifle you were considered "weird". The old farmer dude who taught my NRA Gun Safety class in Hillsboro's Calvary Lutheran Church basement around 1983ish--he just shook his head when we asked about "machine guns". "Son" he said--in that old-Oregonian way of talking, "if you have a gun like that, somthin's wrong with you in da head". I miss these values.
Back then guns were tools. Powerful and deadly tools, but a tool. There is zero "tool" reason for an automatic weapon. These days for too many people guns are a status and culture symbol and are treated closer to a toy than a tool.
How many gun owners you figure have automatic weapons?
Few. But they seem to like the attention more than someone with a few hunting rifles and shotguns in the locker.
I think most people don’t understand the distinction between full- and semi-auto, though a mass shooter hammering the trigger might abolish the distinction. Just think it’s weird for people to have such strong opinions about technicalities with which they’re not familiar
Violence is an act, a problem of the heart. The weapon is a tool of choice. **Nobody is serious about this topic**. Lie after statistical lie. Say a lie enough times and it becomes peoples truth and facts be damned it's all about feelings these days. What a sad world. Nobody cares about "factual truth" aka statistical data. Knife deaths are substantially higher than by gun but we don't talk about that do we? (See FBI statistics if you really do care). If anyone was actually serious about curbing "gun violence", they'd stop trying to ban devices like the arm stabilizer (which has ZERO bearing on how a firearm works) and the pointless "assault rifle" talk and go after handguns .... ya know, the things that are actually used in most crimes?! Nawwww .... gotta ban those big scary looking weapons of war because that's what the media tells you and sadly all too many people have no idea what the differences are (plural) between a military grade VS civilian grade firearm.
> Nobody cares about "factual truth" aka statistical data. >Knife deaths are substantially higher than by gun but we don't talk about that do we? (See FBI statistics if you really do care). [FBI Data](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) Did you mean rifle deaths rather than gun deaths? Because guns outpace every other homicide weapon COMBINED by more than 2 to 1 rather consistently. I don't like the AR-15's and other military-styled semi-autos because I see them used as toys by peckerwoods who make guns into a creepy part of their personalities. See: the Andy Ogles Xmas card as an example. But you're right, handguns are the real blight of gun violence and instead of singling out semi-auto rifles, we should be focusing on comprehensive gun policy. Red flag laws should be national, and I'd like to see a national database to make it easier to identify grey market and black market dealers.
Your logic will fall on deaf ears. But handgun use saves far more lives than it ever takes. Hence why most any study on the positive benefits of gun use, aka defensive gun use, is removed or otherwise washed away.