DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mass shootings & how politics gets in the way of solutions

The U.S. Lawmakers Who Have Received the Most Funding from the NRA

Virginia Chamlee
Fri, May 27, 2022, 11:17 AM·11 min read
link

In the wake of Tuesday's mass shooting at a Texas elementary school — in which a gunman killed 19 students, a teacher and another adult — many lawmakers are calling for gun reform.

But even with hundreds of mass shootings taking place in the U.S. every year, Congress has repeatedly failed to pass any major piece of gun control legislation.

One of the most recent efforts to reform federal gun laws came in 2013 with the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a measure that would have required background checks on all commercial gun sales. The amendment — which came to a vote four months after 20 first-graders and six educators were fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School — failed, getting only 54 of the 60 votes it needed to overcome a filibuster.

Most of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment expressed the opinion that it simply wouldn't work, with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley telling reporters at the time: "Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks."

But they also shared something else in common. According to the non-partisan campaign finance research group OpenSecrets, nearly all of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment had accepted significant campaign contributions from PACs associated with gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association.

Since then, U.S. lawmakers have continued to rack up donations from gun rights groups – some to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Even in the immediate wake of the shooting, many Republicans continue to throw their support behind the NRA. On Friday, just days after the Uvalde school shooting, Republicans including former President Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are scheduled to headline a forum at the group's annual meeting in Houston.

OpenSecrets maintains a list of the top recipients of NRA and gun rights groups funds, with data updates as recently as May 16, 2022.

It's important to note that the NRA contributions on the OpenSecrets list are career totals, some going back as early as 1989 (so lawmakers who have been in office longer will likely have seen more NRA donations). The funds include both direct support to candidates (i.e. money donated by the NRA or NRA employees to a candidate or their PAC) and indirect support, via money spent against their opponent.

Below are the lawmakers who received the most funding from the NRA — either directly or indirectly — according to OpenSecrets data.

In the wake of Tuesday's mass shooting at a Texas elementary school — in which a gunman killed 19 students, a teacher and another adult — many lawmakers are calling for gun reform.

But even with hundreds of mass shootings taking place in the U.S. every year, Congress has repeatedly failed to pass any major piece of gun control legislation.

One of the most recent efforts to reform federal gun laws came in 2013 with the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a measure that would have required background checks on all commercial gun sales. The amendment — which came to a vote four months after 20 first-graders and six educators were fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School — failed, getting only 54 of the 60 votes it needed to overcome a filibuster.

Most of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment expressed the opinion that it simply wouldn't work, with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley telling reporters at the time: "Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks."

But they also shared something else in common. According to the non-partisan campaign finance research group OpenSecrets, nearly all of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment had accepted significant campaign contributions from PACs associated with gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association.

Since then, U.S. lawmakers have continued to rack up donations from gun rights groups – some to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Even in the immediate wake of the shooting, many Republicans continue to throw their support behind the NRA. On Friday, just days after the Uvalde school shooting, Republicans including former President Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are scheduled to headline a forum at the group's annual meeting in Houston.

OpenSecrets maintains a list of the top recipients of NRA and gun rights groups funds, with data updates as recently as May 16, 2022.

It's important to note that the NRA contributions on the OpenSecrets list are career totals, some going back as early as 1989 (so lawmakers who have been in office longer will likely have seen more NRA donations). The funds include both direct support to candidates (i.e. money donated by the NRA or NRA employees to a candidate or their PAC) and indirect support, via money spent against their opponent.

Below are the lawmakers who received the most funding from the NRA — either directly or indirectly — according to OpenSecrets data.

Sen. Mitt Romney, Utah Republican: $13,645,387

What he's received: $1,000 in direct support from the NRA and $3,278,632 in independent support. But the largest contributions to Romney came via NRA spending against his political opponents (including Barack Obama, during the 2012 presidential race), to the tune of $10,369,044. Speaking to The Washington Post, a Romney spokesperson said, "No one owns Senator Romney's vote, as evidenced by his record of independence in the Senate."

His recent take: Following Tuesday's school shooting in Texas, Romney expressed support for gun control measures, telling reporters: "Background checks and updating our background check technology is something that I think is an appropriate federal responsibility."

When he's up for reelection: Romney has said he's undecided regarding whether he'll choose to run for reelection in 2024.



Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican: $6,987,380

What he's received: Burr has received $43,900 in direct support from the NRA; $1,356,247 in independent support; and $5,587,233 in money spent against his political opponents.

His recent take: Burr has declined to make much of a stance one or way or the other regarding whether or not gun laws need to be strengthened. Asked by the New York Times whether he would support a pair of House-passed measures to strengthen background checks for gun buyers, Burr said this: "If somebody's got a solution to this, by all means, let's talk about it. But nobody's proposed that they've got one."

When he's up for reelection: Burr said in 2016 that he would not seek reelection in 2022.




Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina Republican: $5,611,796

What he's received: Tillis has received $17,900 in direct support from the NRA; $2,412,153 in independent support; and $3,182,564 in money spent against his political opponents.

His recent take: Asked by the Times whether he supported the House measures to strengthen background checks Tillis said, "I have not seen them, but [Majority Leader Chuck Schumer] hasn't consulted with us, so that's a not a good sign." But in separate statements to CNN, Tillis said, "we need to avoid is the reflexive reaction we have to say this could all be solved by not having guns in anyone's hands."

When he's up for reelection: Tillis' term ends in 2027. It is unclear whether he will run for office again at that point.


Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican: $4,555,722

What he's received: Blunt has received $82,450 in direct support from the NRA; $1,410,401 in independent support; and $3,062,871 in money spent against his political opponents.

His recent take: In a statement sent to PBS News, Blunt expressed a willingness to support some gun laws, but also spoke about the need to expand mental health programs. "As we learn more about the facts in this case, I'm open to looking at what we can do, in a bipartisan way, to prevent another tragedy like this from occurring. That might include the possibility of a red flag law to keep weapons out of the hands of people who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others."

When he's up for reelection: Blunt announced in 2021 that he will not seek reelection, and will retire from office in 2022.


Sen. Joni Ernst, Iowa Republican: $3,688,078

What she's received: Ernst has received $19,800 in direct support from the NRA; $577,396 in independent support; and $3,091,382 in money spent against her political opponents.

Her recent take: Asked if she would support the House-passed measures to strengthen background checks, Ernst told the Times she needed to first better "understand the circumstances" of the Texas school shooting.

When she's up for reelection: Ernst, who was elected to her second term in 2020, won't see her term end until 2027 (it's unclear if she plans to run for reelection at the time).


Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican: $3,303,355

What he's received: $4,950 in direct support from the NRA and $1,008,030 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Rubio is $3,303,355.

His recent take: "The horrific tragedy in Texas should spur Congress to act on proposals that can pass and actually make a difference like our bipartisan Luke & Alex School Safety Act," Rubio reportedly said, referring to a bill that would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish best practices for school safety to be used by state and local educational and law-enforcement agencies.

When he's up for reelection: In 2022, Rubio faces a number of challengers in the Republican primary on Aug. 23. Rep. Val Demings is the likely Democrat who'll be on the ballot in November, hoping to defeat Rubio, who's served in the U.S. Senate since 2011.



Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican: $3,063,327

What he's received: $20,300 in direct support from the NRA and $1,453,432 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Portman is $3,063,327.

His recent take: "My heart goes out to the families of the victims of this horrible tragedy in Uvalde. Our nation mourns for the innocent children, teacher, and all those affected by this senseless act of violence," Portman tweeted. "We also thank the brave first responders who run toward danger in the name of protecting us all."

When he's up for reelection: Portman announced in January, he won't seek reelection in 2022 for a third term. After Ohio's primary elections earlier this month, Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Congressman Tim Ryan will face off in November.

Following the massacre in Uvalde, Vance said in a statement, "Many will call for large scale gun confiscation. This approach would be a mistake."

Rep. Ryan said in a tweet he and his wife are "praying for the Uvalde community and the innocent young lives taken from us in another senseless tragedy. Our babies are being killed by gun violence and we are failing them. We have to do something."

He also tweeted about the Enhanced Background Checks Act and the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, saying those are "two bills we passed in the House that the Senate can take up right now. No more holding the will of the American people hostage. Either stand with us or get the hell out of the way."


Sen. Todd Young, Indiana Republican: $2,899,232

What he's received: $11,950 in direct support from the NRA and $440,645 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Young is $2,899,232.

His recent take: "I am deeply saddened by the horrific shooting today at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Our nation mourns the innocent lives taken in this senseless tragedy," the senator tweeted.

Asked by The New York Times about a pair of House measures to strengthen background checks, Young said, "I'm huddling up with my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike," initiating "conversations about this horrible incident and what we can do to prevent future types of incidents."

When he's up for reelection: In November, Young will face Democrat Thomas McDermott.


Sen. Bill Cassidy, Louisiana Republican: $2,864,547

What he's received: $13,950 in direct support from the NRA and $409,201 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Cassidy is $2,864,547.

His recent take: "Our hearts are with the families in Texas. We owe it to these families to find answers to prevent these events. Real answers that will work. God be with those affected," Cassidy tweeted.

Cassidy is reportedly participating in discussions about gun control measures, including proposals on expanded background checks for firearms purchases and transfers as well as red flag legislation to keep people considered dangerous to themselves or others from possessing firearms, according to The Hill.

When he's up for reelection: Cassidy was reelected for a second term in 2020, so he's not up for reelection until 2026 ahead of the end of his term in 2027.



Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican: $1,973,201

What he's received: $12,400 in direct support from the NRA and $1,960,801 in independent support. In addition to spending against his political opponents, the grand total in NRA spending to support Cotton is $1,973,201.

His recent take: Cotton tweeted that he and his wife "join all Arkansans in praying for the victims and the childrens' families in Uvalde. And we're grateful for law enforcement and the first responders who are helping in the face of this unimaginable evil." Asked by The New York Times about a pair of House measures to strengthen background checks, Cotton said, "I have no comment on that."

He released a statement in April on President Biden's restrictions on ghost guns, defined by the administration as "unserialized, privately-made firearms."

"Expanding federal gun regulations only makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns," Cotton said. "If President Biden wants to crack down on crime, he should begin by enforcing existing laws and prosecuting violent criminals."

When he's up for reelection: Cotton's term as a senator ends in 2027, though his name has repeatedly come up on lists of those reportedly mulling a run for the presidency in 2024.

I will say that the definition of an assault rifle should be base on the round being used and the capacity of the magazine.

The single trigger pull per bullet is pretty obvious.

The Brady Bill limited magazines to 10.

Numerous times we have seen the magazine change be the thing that allow someone to stop the shooter.

Have we actually seen that often, if ever? I don't know, but I would love to see some actual data on it.

To be fair a little practice and magazine changes are pretty fast. A little practice and it isn't more than 2 seconds and likely closer to 1, unless you care about keeping your magazines.

I've watched a lot of gun channels on YouTube in my time, there seems to be some people obsessed with the capacity issue.

1911's don't have that much capacity (round is usually 45 though), S&W all usually have 5 or 6 shot swing out cylinders. I've concealed carried a Jframe before and this can be done. If you're a good shot with your weapon there's normally no need for a high number of rounds as FBI statistics show encounters end quickly in less than 10 rounds.

The more rounds a gun has the less concealable it tends to be.

j/c...

The local police need to be held criminally responsible.

I'm no gun expert ... not a constitution expert either ... I do feel efforts need to be made to try to do something, what that something is, I don't know.

What I do know is there is excessive push back when ever a discussion moves to what sort of restrictions might make a difference. To me that's a bit whack. I have lots of friends who own lots of guns - it seems like if you are a gun enthusiast you never, ever own 1 or 2 guns - you literally own 40-50 guns, I know guys that own nearly 100 different types of guns. And I have a friend who legally owns a Barrett 50 Cal sniper rifle that is wicked fun to shoot ... but I can't think of a single logical, sensible reason that owning a 50 Cal sniper riffle is legal. Sure - that's not the issue in these atrocious mass shootings, it's a non-factor in regards to any kind of killings as far as I know, but the reasoning or logic behind allowing civilians to own that weapon makes zero sense to me. And maybe that is part of the issue - this culture where generally a small % of the population think this is normal? Regards the AR15 - that does seem to be the weapon of choice - and personally I'd like to see some options discussed that might make a difference.

I respectfully disagree with your second sentence, and your final sentence.

in a vacuum, he's incorrect. but in reality, there has been at least a couple times were swapping mags was the moment the threat was put down.

the reason why is because most mass shooters don't practice dropping/reloading mags. there's actually a lot of normal law abiding citizens who don't, overall.

however, the magazine change narrative shouldn't even be one. IMO, magazine size is irrelevant because if the shooter has 2 + bodies down with the 1st mag, it's already a disaster. the magazine size is a preventive measure during the OCCURRENCE of the shooting itself. it does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from making the decision to pull the trigger, which is the entire point.

no matter how we try to limit the tools and accessories, it's still available.

Eve is the only one who brought up THE reason this crap happens. not the ONLY reason, but the main one.

Gabby Giffords for sure.

I don't think you are. It's pretty obvious that the NRA is going to support people who believe in 2nd Amendment Rights and not support those who don't.

Just a couple of points.

1. As for abusing rights, I don't, you don't. Bad actors do. I'd also say we don't really know about all of these people. Is it possible some of the kooks doing things like this are actually doing this to push gun control legislation? My replay to you is have you heard it said that it is easy to give up your rights, but you have to fight to get them back?

2. I wouldn't mind if some changes were made, EXCEPT no matter what might be done, it wouldn't be enough until all guns are outlawed. People are going to say that wouldn't happen, but I call BS. I guess what I am saying is I don't really look forward to be legislated in to being a criminal, so I am going to do what I can to see to it that doesn't happen through any legal means possible. If it eventually does happen, I am prepared to live out the rest of my days as a deemed criminal. I wouldn't take part in any amnesty program where you could turn in any firearms one might own.

3. The one fact some seem to ignore is it takes a goofed up person to do things like this recent attack. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem, and for me, that is the bottom line. So yes, I want to solve the problem. We have to fix the way people think.

4. Kind of back to a earlier point, if we wanted to limit magazine size, I could go for that if that makes people feel better. The reality is that doesn't do all that much good. If you own a 9mm as an example, you know you can drop a clip and inset another in a hurry if you want. Nearly everybody has more than 1 clip because as you know, when you go to a range you don't want to spend a whole lot of time reloading empty chambers. You want to shoot then clean and reload things once you get home.

Just to comment on these two specific points, which I disagree with.

Point 2. Starting a conversation about how to improve something with the false premise that no matter what the negotiation / discussion is the "other side" is going to not accept anything than the nuclear option/outcome is flawed. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with the assumption that there's a predetermined outcome of eliminating all guns. There are nearly 400 million guns in the USA. They aren't all going to disappear. The criminals are not going to hand over their guns. The notion that the end game is to ban legal ownership of guns seems more about preventing a discussion about how to stop these mass shootings than it is about reality.

Point 3. Guns are most definitely part of the problem. The argument that people can kill people with knives, or cars or whatever other option might be available is to not accept that [1] all these mass shootings are carried out by guns [2] that guns are the so deadly, easy to obtain and the fastest way to kill lots of people, especially when we talk about school kids inside a building. . . . . Is it a complicated issue with lots of facets? Yes. Does that mean guns are not one of those facets? That's a completely faulty conclusion. As I have mentioned before - US society is not vastly different than the rest of the first world countries on the planet. Teenage angst, violent video games, loaners that spend their lives on the internet, drugs, poverty etc ... the biggest single difference is the easy access to deadly killing tools.

j/c:

Once again, I support revising some of the gun laws. It would be wise to help make our citizens safer. I also am in favor of trying to make our schools more secure.

With that said, I know a lot of people who own guns who don't shoot their grandmother in her face over an AT&T bill or murder a bunch of elementary school children. They don't shoot black people in a church or the supermarket. They don't slay a bunch of people because girls reject them.

Once again, there are too many people who want to find a shortcut while trashing the opposing political party. It's shortsighted and frankly, ignorant.

We must do a deeper delve into why our society is raising so many social deviants. Examine all of the evidence and try to find ways to see if we create a more positive environment while finding new ways to deal w/those who are threats to our safety. I suspect that is too difficult for some to comprehend and they want to force-feed the same old argument down the throat of everyone else. In the meantime, more and more of these mass murderers are preying on our society.

So what have you researched into the differences between US culture and society vs other first worked countries with much lower gun violence and mass shootings? I've seen you mention this and it's a worthwhile topic to discuss - but while you talk about others not being able to comprehend things that you do - what have you done to do a deep dive into this - or is it merely a talking point to hit others over the head with without actually - you know - backing up your potential talking point.

I've lived in the USA and the UK. I have traveled throughout Australia, Canada, France, Germany Spain and Portugal. I really don't see a deep divide in teenage and youth cultures.

Here's some other interesting links -

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/19/5-ways-americans-and-europeans-are-different/

You specifically mentioned single parent families in one post and the US does lead the world:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-countries-to-live-with-just-one-parent/

But while the US is at 23% - other countries are not far behind: UK at 21% - Russia at 18% - Denmark 17%....

You also have mentioned violent video games being a causation of violence a couple of times. There is lots of information and a lot of articles talking about that being a popular belief - but a lot of data and research showing there is not a link and this belief is convenient but misplaced.

https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/49/8/1.2

If you want to promote a theory - especially one that most will find too difficult to comprehend - I think it's fair to suggest you do some research yourself, back up your talking points .... or stop using it as a way to bash others.

Like I said, I don't mind if some reasonable restrictions were talked about, but once that starts and changes don't have any results, soon it will move on to more restrictions. Come on man, don't lie to yourself.

Are guns a part of the problem? I suppose so as you outline. My position is that the people who shoot are the main problem. A 5 gal can of gasoline and a bic lighter in a classroom would be a horrible, unspeakable act by a horrible, unspeakable person.

To add on another thing. I think we all need to be on the lookout for the red flags that these people usually exhibit. Flags that probably won't show up on a background check, at least with these younger guys, which most are.

After the fact we find out many of these people have said or written something. Many have exhibited anti-social behavior, are described as being outcasts of sorts. I suppose that borders on profiling, which I don't have a problem with, but many segments do.

To me, if it looks like a cat, it probably is a cat. We are just need to try to determine if it is a friendly house cat or a wild lion.

Well there is no magic bullet. Making it harder for the people who are the major problem to get hold of their tool of choice would seem to be a step in the right direction. Advocating for doing nothing seems be suggesting or accepting that, as a gun enthusiast or 2A advocate, people are willing to accept these atrocities.

5 Gallons of gasoline, explosives, knives ... all could be horrible. But that's not what is happening either in the USA or in countries where they have tighter gun control. In the UK knife crimes are certainly more pervasive than gun crimes - which is a reflection of the numbers and availability of guns vs the availability of knives ... but taken as incidence per population, they are no where near gun death or incidence totals in the USA.

This raises the question of, is our society raising a significantly higher percentage of social deviants than throughout history?
Here are a few questions, I am sure there are some I haven't thought about.

1, Are we creating the same percentage but given the significantly higher population the pure number is much higher?

2, Has the internet made it easier for social deviants to connect further propagating their deviant thoughts?

3, Has the development of more advanced weaponry given them a modality for higher devastation?
If it was 1722 instead of 2022 and someone went into a school/church/marketplace with a musket, how many people would he have been able to kill?
Doubt enough to make it into the history books.

Pretty long article. To be honest, I didn't finish it, but if looks promising so thought I ould share it before I lsot it and couldn't find it again.



Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?

AP
Melanie Warner
Fri, May 27, 2022, 2:54 PM·11 min read
In this article:

James Densley
British-American sociologist
Each time a high-profile mass shooting happens in America, a grieving and incredulous nation scrambles for answers. Who was this criminal and how could he (usually) have committed such a horrendous and inhumane act? A few details emerge about the individual’s troubled life and then everyone moves on.

Three years ago, Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, decided to take a different approach. In their view, the failure to gain a more meaningful and evidence-based understanding of why mass shooters do what they do seemed a lost opportunity to stop the next one from happening. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, their research constructed a database of every mass shooter since 1966 who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces and places of worship since 1999.

Peterson and Densley also compiled detailed life histories on 180 shooters, speaking to their spouses, parents, siblings, childhood friends, work colleagues and teachers. As for the gunmen themselves, most don’t survive their carnage, but five who did talked to Peterson and Densely from prison, where they were serving life sentences. The researchers also found several people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic, reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions. POLITICO talked to Peterson and Densely from their offices in St. Paul, Minn., about how our national understanding about mass shooters has to evolve, why using terms like “monster” is counterproductive, and why political talking points about mental health need to be followed up with concrete action.

POLITICO: Since you both spend much of your time studying mass shootings, I wonder if you had the same stunned and horrified reaction as the rest of us to the Uvalde elementary school shooting. Or were you somehow expecting this?

Jillian Peterson: On some level, we were waiting because mass shootings are socially contagious and when one really big one happens and gets a lot of media attention, we tend to see others follow. But this one was particularly gutting. I have three elementary school kids, one of which is in 4th grade.

James Densley: I’m also a parent of two boys, a 5-year-old and a 12-year-old. My 12-year-old knows what I do for a living and he’s looking to me for reassurance and I didn’t have the words for him. How do I say, “This happened at a school, but now it’s OK for you to go to your school and live your life.” It’s heartbreaking.

POLITICO: Are you saying there’s a link between the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings?

Peterson: We don’t know for sure at this point, but our research would say that it’s likely. You had an 18-year-old commit a horrific mass shooting. His name is everywhere and we all spend days talking about "replacement theory." That shooter was able to get our attention. So, if you have another 18-year-old who is on the edge and watching everything, that could be enough to embolden him to follow. We have seen this happen before.

Densley: Mass shooters study other mass shooters. They often find a way of relating to them, like, “There are other people out there who feel like me.”

POLITICO: Can you take us through the profile of mass shooters that emerged from your research?

Peterson: There’s this really consistent pathway. Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.

What’s different from traditional suicide is that the self-hate turns against a group. They start asking themselves, “Whose fault is this?” Is it a racial group or women or a religious group, or is it my classmates? The hate turns outward. There’s also this quest for fame and notoriety.

POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings?

Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed.

It’s hard to focus on the suicide because these are horrific homicides. But it’s a critical piece because we know so much from the suicide prevention world that can translate here.

POLITICO: I’ve heard many references over the last few weeks to “monsters” and “pure evil.” You’ve said this kind of language actually makes things worse. Why?

Densley: If we explain this problem as pure evil or other labels like terrorist attack or hate crime, we feel better because it makes it seem like we’ve found the motive and solved the puzzle. But we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just explained the problem away. What this really problematic terminology does is prevent us from recognizing that mass shooters are us. This is hard for people to relate to because these individuals have done horrific, monstrous things. But three days earlier, that school shooter was somebody’s son, grandson, neighbor, colleague or classmate. We have to recognize them as the troubled human being earlier if we want to intervene before they become the monster.

Peterson: The Buffalo shooter told his teacher that he was going to commit a murder-suicide after he graduated. People aren’t used to thinking that this kind of thing could be real because the people who do mass shootings are evil, psychopathic monsters and this is a kid in my class. There’s a disconnect.

POLITICO: Do you get criticism about being too sympathetic toward mass shooters?

Peterson: We’re not trying to create excuses or say they shouldn’t be held responsible. This is really about, what is the pathway to violence for these people, where does this come from? Only then can we start building data-driven solutions that work. If we’re unwilling to understand the pathway, we’re never going to solve this.

POLITICO: So, what are the solutions?

Densley: There are things we can do right now as individuals, like safe storage of firearms or something as simple as checking in with your kid.

Peterson: Then we really need resources at institutions like schools. We need to build teams to investigate when kids are in crisis and then link those kids to mental health services. The problem is that in a lot of places, those services are not there. There’s no community mental health and no school-based mental health. Schools are the ideal setting because it doesn’t require a parent to take you there. A lot of perpetrators are from families where the parents are not particularly proactive about mental health appointments.

POLITICO: In your book, you say that in an ideal world, 500,000 psychologists would be employed in schools around the country. If you assume a modest salary of $70,000 a year, that amounts to over $35 billion in funding. Are you seeing any national or state-level political momentum for even a sliver of these kind of mental health resources?

Densley: Every time these tragedies happen, you always ask yourself, “Is this the one that’s going to finally move the needle?” The Republican narrative is that we’re not going to touch guns because this is all about mental health. Well then, we need to ask the follow-up question of what’s the plan to fix that mental health problem. Nobody’s saying, “Let’s fund this, let’s do it, we’ll get the votes.” That’s the political piece that’s missing here.

POLITICO: Are Democrats talking about mental health?

Densley: Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.

Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.

Densley: In Uvalde, there was an army of good guys with guns in the parking lot. The hard approach doesn’t seem to be getting the job done.

POLITICO: Do you support red flag laws?

Peterson: Our research certainly supports them, because so many perpetrators are actively showing warning signs. They are talking about doing this and telling people they’re suicidal. But what Buffalo showed us is that just because you have a red flag law on the books doesn’t mean people are trained in how it works and how they should be implementing it.

POLITICO: What has to change to make the laws more effective?

Densley: There are two pieces. One is training and awareness. People need to know that the law exists, how it works and who has a duty to report an individual. The second piece is the practical component of law enforcement. What is the mechanism to safely remove those firearms? Especially if you have a small law enforcement presence, maybe one or two officers, and you’re asking them to go into somebody’s rural home and take care of their entire arsenal of weapons.

POLITICO: What should have happened in Buffalo, given that the state of New York has a red flag law?

Peterson: From what we know, it sounds like there should have been more education with the police, the mental health facility and the school. If any one of those three had initiated the red flag process, it should have prevented the shooter from making the purchase.

It really shows the limitations of our current systems. Law enforcement investigated, but the shooter had no guns at that moment, so it was not an immediate threat. The mental health facility concluded it was not an immediate crisis, so he goes back to school. If it’s not a red-hot situation in that moment, nobody can do anything. It was none of these people’s jobs to make sure that he got connected with somebody in the community who could help him long term.

Densley: Also, something happens to put people on the radar. Even if they’re not the next shooter, something’s not right. How can we help these individuals reintegrate in a way that’s going to try and turn their lives around? That gets lost if we fixate just on the word “threat.”

POLITICO: I was struck by a detail in your book about one of the perpetrators you investigated. Minutes before he opened fire, you report that he called a behavior health facility. Is there always some form of reaching out or communication of intent before it happens?

Peterson: You don’t see it as often with older shooters who often go into their workplaces. But for young shooters, it’s almost every case. We have to view this “leakage” as a cry for help. If you’re saying, “I want to shoot the school tomorrow,” you are also saying, “I don’t care if I live or die.” You’re also saying, “I’m completely hopeless,” and you’re putting it out there for people to see because part of you wants to be stopped.

We have to listen because pushing people out intensifies their grievance and makes them angrier. The Parkland shooter had just been expelled from school and then came back. This is not a problem we can punish our way out of.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/really-consistent-pathway-society-stop-185445896.html

Just to end the conversation on my part, I have never advocated we do nothing. I just said magazine size would be discussed. I wouldn't be adverse to maybe the age of 21 for some types of firearms.

I also advocated a strong police presence in the schools, with common sense restrictions on entry points that are open, and having parents or some sort of volunteer program for having more eyes on the ball on a daily basis.

Some laughed it off, saying I wanted the PTA involved...well you know what, that wouldn't hurt a damn thing. We just saw a lot of parents wanting to get involved a few days ago. As I said then, time is critical. That gives people a chance to prepare and respond.

I will even add that I would be all for various school administrators, teachers, whoever to be trained and armed. Start shooting some of these freaks dead 40 feet inside the building will put a end to much of this crap.

We need to have classes on conflict resolution, empathy, and emotional IQ be a consistent part of our curriculums. Maybe we need our history classes to be darker and more illustrative of the horrors of war instead of glossing over the harsh realities and boiling things down to names, numbers, and dates. Maybe we should have field trips to morgues. Have young adults senses take in the aftermath of gun violence and not just be exposed to bright images of sterile animated bodies that quickly fade away as "killstreaks" climb. Maybe we need more mentoring programs. People associated with schools having positive relationships with students and being able to sense when issues may be cropping up. Just giving them adults to talk to about things not necessarily curricula related.

Maybe we just need our culture to not be so full of opinionated assholes confident in their "sides" righteousness and unwilling to truly consider other points of view. Our society seems intent on getting everyone to fit themselves in one "box" (job, political party, race, religion, etc) or another. When some people can't find a box that fits and they're constantly pushed to find one, while being denied some, their response is to tear down the boxes. Maybe we need to reframe our paradigm away from such boxes. It should probably be okay to be unique instead of being ostracized for being different.

Guns aren't my thing. I get the knee jerk reaction to do away with them. However, I don't think it's a good idea. People bring up the guns aren't going to stop a drone argument, but in a way, the threat of armed violence does stop drone attacks. Guns make politicians/everyone vulnerable. It levels the playing field. Politicians are protected, but if they start wiping out civilians, there would be a violent, armed civilian response. Having the government be the only ones with guns is the first step to full blown despotism. Yes, there is a difference between military hardware and civilian arms, but widening the gap from potentially able to react to completely helpless seems potentially problematic- especially in a world where the likes of Trump can get elected. The government is unlikely to give up its weapons, and the branches of government weren't the only systems of checks in balances that the Framers put in place with good reason.

It's already illegal to kill people with firearms. Will we start only selling minivans to transportation companies because semis can cause giant accidents?

Here's the problem I see with what you're saying. Your pointing to only one side. As of now one side wants to do too much just as you said. I don't disagree with you there. The other side wants to do nothing. They have fought every bit of any change or join in finding logical solutions. Much as myself you seem to agree we do need some common sense solutions. Being a gun owner myself I certainly have my limits as to what I think going too far is as well. You actually mentioned some points we both agree on.

But here's the point at which we disagree. So far advocating we do nothing I believe has the opposite effect you claim it will have. The anti gun people can show that as of now the other side wants to do NOTHING! That looks terrible in terms of the optics. I understand the slippery slope concept you're talking about. I also understand if the pro gun people would go along with just a few common sense concepts like raising the age to 21 as an example, they would then have the grounds to say they were willing to compromise while the anti gun people just keep pushing and will never be happy. I think that's a much better position of stength for them than fighting everything tooth and nail.

I'm not sure if PTA involvement inside the building all the time is a good idea. In theory it could be, but in practice, parents can be crueler than kids. Some sort of 3rd party screened "counselors"/mentors/"hall monitors" independent of the academic stuff might be a better idea.

How do we avoid creating "freaks" (your word) in the first place? If we keep creating damaged people, they'll keep finding ways to spread the damage.

j/c

I've seen people mention all of these measures to make schools safe. And don't get me wrong it all sounds good in theory. But let's look at this very latest mass school shooting.

They had a school resource officer. (a good guy with a gun)

He wasn't even at the school when the shooting began. Yet somehow with just a phone call he managed to rush to the school...... a little late to help.

Secure the building.

The policy to keep every entrance to the school locked and secured was in place. Yet for some reason one of the teachers not only had a back door unlocked, but it was propped open.

And I see people saying "Let's arm the teachers". Once again that sounds great in theory but people who have never been involved in an active shooter situation or actually first hand faced a life threatening, violent situation, there's no telling how they might react when it happens. I think that's a very dangerous idea. Having even more projectiles being fired by individuals that have no experience in such situations flying in different directions in rooms full of children is something I don't believe people have thought through very well.

I'm not sure how I feel about having a bunch of armed people in our schools, locking down classrooms every time a class is conducted and some of these more restrictive measures. If such an idea has to be adopted to have armed people in our schools, I would conclude that retired military and retired police officers would be the best equipped to handle these situations and I wouldn't want a lot of them in any school.

Once we reach the point that our children feel more like they're in a secured prison than a school, so much for a positive learning environment.

This school had a sold course of action. They had a solid security plan. But those plans are only as good as the people you have in the building that are supposed to follow them. And keeping the body count low is only as good as the police response that deals with the situation after it begins.

These children were failed on both levels.

I don't want to discuss much on the subject except to say:

Around the year 2003 III The politicians first nationally advertised the idea of concealed carry laws and laws to give more access to guns.

Now, Prior to that, about years, I980-2002 Nobody was trying to take your flippin guns, there was nothing wrong with the gun laws that existed except for the liberals not enforcing them probably, but,
because it could further politicians careers, idiot leaders tried making laws about concealed carry and more access to more guns for more times of day, and more times of the week, and just like scribes and Pharisees that they are, made everythying worse.

Now, imagine a small building, like a public school, just one school, IF, you continure to pour more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more guns into that building, and create laws to where everyone must have a gun, not just one but 5 guns, and clean them each hourly, and unload and reload them and test fire all five of them daily, twice, thrice daily,
and then make each person responsible for more and more guns, 20 guns per person not 5, not... Zero

Then, as the number of guns increases, the likelihood that somebody is going to be shot and killed in that building by a gun goes up.

But, between 2003, and 2022, just think of the politicians that got votes because they supported nobody taking yer guns, who nobody was trying to take for the 20 years prior to 2003, but they needed to make new laws.
Because that's what they do, ruin everything by not leaving well enough alone.

There has been a lot of comment about the different political parties regarding this debate. The following comments are in regards to actual politicians in the party not necessarilypeople who identify with each party.

The democrats see mass shootings as a problem and want to do something about it. You can argue that it won't work, or disagree with it, but here is no denying that they want to address the issue. The republicans on the other hand don't want to do a thing about it. So which is the do nothing party?

Who has tried to take away your guns?


I guess you need to be reminded that Texas is a Republican state. Many of these mass shootings happen in Republican states. A mass shooter doesn't care what political party runs a state when he commits the act. So are you saying red states aren't enforcing gun laws too?

The NRA paid out over 29 million dollars during the 2020 elections to politicians that promote doing nothing. I mean if you want to talk about the political side. Pretending only one side is using their stance on guns as a political weapon is dishonest at best.

#hogwash

No argument from me. I'm not some big gun guy. I used to hunt a lot. Bow and arrow and shotgun. Loved grouse hunting because it was so freaking hard. Grouse disappeared in Ohio for the most part. None in SC. I went a couple of trips to the Dakotas to hunt grouse and pheasant, but that has been years ago now. I have my two shotguns and a handgun for home protection. I do some skeet shooting at some land my son-in-law's family own and it's a good time. But, I am not a gun enthusiast. I support measures and laws to keep our country safer.

I just think we have to go deeper. I won't reply to 888 because of how he makes things up about what I say and just wants to fight, but to you and others.........I am NOT claiming to have the answers. I do have some experience dealing w/troubled kids. I know what I have seen. I am not ignorant and know that some of these social misfits exhibit behaviors for years and are often coddled. This actually widens the divide between them and their peers. The social media bullying can be intense. There are so many factors. Again, I am not an expert, but I do think that we need to do a deeper delve into why we are creating so many monsters. Jester mentioned our history and the numbers. I'm older and I can tell you that my generation didn't have so many troubled youths. You are probably in my age bracket, mac. You know what I'm talking about.

Again, I am not fighting you on how we deal w/the gun issue. Let's just not limit it to that.

I would like to add something about the teacher who left the door propped open. I was going to mention this even before I knew that particular teacher did that, but it was a pet peeve of mine while I was teaching. We had multiple teachers use a chair or a small piece of wood to keep doors open because they were too lazy to walk all the way around the school from our wing to the wing where the fine arts classrooms were and instead wanted to cut through the courtyard so their fat asses wouldn't have to walk so far. I used to kick the crap out of the way and allow the door to lock each time I noticed it. My room was at the end of the hallway and across from the courtyard door.

I always felt my number one priority as a teacher was to keep my students safe. I know that is what I wanted from my own children's teachers. Being lazy and sacrificing a child's safety is inexcusable in my world and you have no idea how many teachers do exactly that.

I do not envy this woman having to make the decision to fire, but I am thankful to her for doing so.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/west-virginia-woman-shoots-kills-man-fired-party

I saw that story - and I'm glad lives appear to be saved. It'll be interesting to see if this becomes and intensifies the "see, more good individuals with guns is the answer" mantra.

If you implement gun control measures that are successful, the shooters will move on to something else. Guns are not the only way to mass murder people. Personally, I want to stop these kids from murdering people regardless of how they do it. Too many people want to tunnel vision on guns. Putting doors on airplane cockpits would stop another 9/11, it did not stop terrorism altogether.

Do something for the sake of doing something is how we ended up with the TSA.