[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by michael21

Some members are saying ban guns well I am sure shooting people is already ban

A GREAT point Michael and one which I have repeatedly made - that ONLY the LAWFUL obey laws.

THIS is EXACTLY why we have 'Sleeping Policemen' Speed Bumps on many urban roads where the 30mph Speed Limit is CLEARLY posted at regular intervals - they are there because the lawless do not give a Flying **** for laws so still speed.

NO amount of Gun Restrictive Laws will stop the CRIMINALLY INTENT from buying guns illicitly on the Black Market or stop them from USING them.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

I'm not giving up my individual rights and depending solely on the govt for my own welfare just for a false sense of security. That doesn't work in all other areas of life... no reason it would work with guns. Laws were meant to stop the last few... didn't do squat. Everyone including the FBI dropped the ball.

I'm surprised they haven't gated the schools & installed metal detectors. I'm an hour and a half away and some of the burbs have started to go that direction... but it's been like that in the inner city for a decade now.

It's not surprising though another has happened so soon... the young developing and aspiring terrorists see the hysteria it generates on TV, no doubt... and when they see the news saturated with these shootings, it's like the perfect stage for an evil act such as this to create momentum...

I like that some news organizations have stopped putting up their pictures and names. That is a progressive move in my opinion...

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Apparently they found explosives as well last I heard, when I left the house... not sure where they found them, but they telling people here on local news to be weary of things that look out of place. They were worried they were left around town...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

I'm not giving up my individual rights and solely depending on the govt for my own welfare just for a false sense of security. That doesn't work in all other areas of life... no reason it would work with guns. Laws were meant to stop the last few... didn't do squat.

I'm surprised they haven't gated the schools & installed metal detectors. I'm an hour and a half away and some of the burbs have started to go that direction... but it's been like that in the inner city for a decade now.

It's not surprising though another has happened so soon... the young developing and aspiring terrorists see the hysteria it generates on TV, no doubt... and when they see the news saturated with these shootings, it's like the perfect stage for an evil act such as this to create momentum...

I like that some news organizations have stopped putting up their pictures and names. That is a progressive move in my opinion...

I can not fault you, Maru. That off-duty cop who shot the armed robber the other day PROVES that unilateral disarmament does NOT work.

She would have been 'Dog-Meat' the same as everyone else had she not been armed.

No, I don't believe that stripping away the Right To Bear Arms is the answer.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Apparently they found explosives as well last I heard, when I left the house... not sure where they found them, but they telling people here on local news to be weary of things that look out of place. They were worried they were left around town...

Explosives? I had not heard about this.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

A GREAT point Michael and one which I have repeatedly made - that ONLY the LAWFUL obey laws.

THIS is EXACTLY why we have 'Sleeping Policemen' Speed Bumps on many urban roads where the 30mph Speed Limit is CLEARLY posted at regular intervals - they are there because the lawless do not give a Flying **** for laws so still speed.

NO amount of Gun Restrictive Laws will stop the CRIMINALLY INTENT from buying guns illicitly on the Black Market or stop them from USING them.

It wouldn't make it impossible but it would make it more difficult, and that would dramatically decrease the number of these incidents. Literally all of the data from countries where guns have been banned demonstrates this. The only real difference in America is how deeply baked into the constitution etc. these issues are, and how many guns are already "out there", however, it would still mnake several practical differences.

Number one being... if someone currently sees someone walking down the street with a high powered AR, they don't bat an eyelid. If these weapons were banned - most would call the police and inform them that someone is walking around heavily armed. Those few minutes can make a huge difference.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Explosives? I had not heard about this.

Explosives found at Santa Fe High School; police warn there could be others
https://www.khou.com/article/news/lo.../285-553751332

[FaLaLaLand]

Ffs just how many innocent children are going to die before that country wakes the F up!?

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It wouldn't make it impossible but it would make it more difficult, and that would dramatically decrease the number of these incidents. Literally all of the data from countries where guns have been banned demonstrates this. The only real difference in America is how deeply baked into the constitution etc. these issues are, and how many guns are already "out there", however, it would still mnake several practical differences.

Number one being... if someone currently sees someone walking down the street with a high powered AR, they don't bat an eyelid. If these weapons were banned - most would call the police and inform them that someone is walking around heavily armed. Those few minutes can make a huge difference.

Not true at all. Rifles and AR-15's are very rarely used in crimes. Because it's very difficult to conceal them.

If someone wants to reduce gun crime dramatically, we'd need to ban all semi-automatics and handguns... that's most guns, so we might as well talk about a total ban.

But again, this isn't even accounting for the amount of crimes that gun ownership has either prevented or reduced from being far worse. If you look year-by-year, gun crime has dropped quite significantly... the stats have improved, but the media uses fudgy math or funky statistics to make it seem as if it's worse than it is or as if crime has improved significantly... except that that's not the case at all.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Jonnii

Ffs just how many innocent children are going to die before that country wakes the F up!?

People are woke up I think, it's just that we don't all agree on the solution to the problem...

[Tom4784]

More needless deaths and more broken families. Nothing will ever change in America. The gun industry brings in too much money and the NRA has too much influence that the mountains of dead children are offset by it in the government's eyes.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

More needless deaths and more broken families. Nothing will ever change in America. The gun industry brings in too much money and the NRA has too much influence that the mountains of dead children are offset by it in the government's eyes.

guns are okay, but they need better gun control in America


i don't know how many more of these shootings must happen before they realize this themselves

[bots]

The majority of Americans want to carry guns, it's not just the NRA, so nothing will change

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The majority of Americans want to carry guns, it's not just the NRA, so nothing will change

Yes that's the American way.
it will stay that way,
part of their DNA , in a way.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The majority of Americans want to carry guns, it's not just the NRA, so nothing will change

gun control is the magic word, just forbid guns to those who have mental disorder, criminal past


those who can handle guns in a mature way are allowed to have guns i think

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by arista

The Killer Student
was due to shoot himself
but changed his mind and gave himself up to Police.

He killed 9 Students
and 1 Teacher.

now hopefully he can have a life sentence in jail

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

now hopefully he can have a life sentence in jail

no, hopefully he will be executed

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

no, hopefully he will be executed

I hope so too.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

gun control is the magic word, just forbid guns to those who have mental disorder, criminal past


those who can handle guns in a mature way are allowed to have guns i think

Felons (criminal past) are prevented from having guns (i.e. criminals)... felons usually being a violent crime. Obviously, we wouldn't restrict someone from owning who was caught smoking marijuana for example... (which is a misdemeanor usually)

I agree with you about mental health... the issue then becomes a matter of who and what determines who is mentally unfit to own and operate a firearm.

If, for example, anyone who takes an anti-depressant is restricted from owning, then I think most would agree here that's too restrictive...

Personally, I'm in favor of "red flag" laws... where a family member, a diligent citizen, perhaps a therapist etc can take evidence into court that fits strong criteria and have their right to own and bare arms removed under lawful scrutiny... obviously there will be some abuse of this, but I think it's important as a parent particularly to be able to restrict the right to own of a relative, for example, who may be suicidal... or a young adult who is on several medications, but doesn't reliably take those medications (which causes major problems), and has been in various violent confrontations and other acts (such as killing animals, destroying property, violent tantrums, etc)...

I think what we've learned from a lot of these mass shootings, particularly with the ones that are domestic... many of these are being committed by young males. Mental illness is difficult for an adult, but it is even more difficult for a child with their susceptibility to social pressures, their minds not being fully developed (which effects how they respond to medication) and some illnesses may necessarily become apparent until late teens, early 20's, for example, schizophrenia...

So I think giving parents the ability to go to a court to restrict their rights before they turn 18 (and maybe even after with a higher list of evidence) and be able to restrict their ability to own for those years where some kids who are struggling with major illness, it gives them time to do some growing and to adapt to life... and if they show the ability to self-sustain (can hold a job, take medication, are more or less stable).. then that restriction can be removed. And maybe it could "fall off" after a point (like 25-30)... but if someone is violent and builds a rap sheet, by that point, they will have lost that right anyway.

I had a best friend who used to cut and is still more or less unable to take care of herself and she's almost 30... which is quite sad... I think while some people do effectively become adults at 18, maybe a little before or after... when you throw in illness, it does sort of take longer for some people to fully mature and "stabilize"... trauma tends to keep past events fresh, whereas most of us who leave school and are well-adjusted, we tend to move on relatively quickly... so I think, in certain circumstances, a parent should be able to restrict their right to own... it maybe won't stop them from suicide (guns make it more attractive though since it is "quick"), but it would stop someone else from becoming a victim of their poor judgement...

My husband works in mental health in detentions, and he'd say 1/3rd are simply people who don't take medication or take it correctly when they are out... because once they are put back on a steady regimen under supervision, they self-correct. Not only do they become more compliant, i.e. not violent, prone to confrontation.. but they are very thoughtful, can be quite well-spoken and are self-aware of the situation they've put themselves in... and sometimes it's a case of how they're being "medicated" when they are out... (i.e. drugs and alcohol)...

[AarynGriesfan]

The majority of American citizens do want sensible gun control laws but the problem is that the elected officials specifically the ones in the Republican party care more the kickbacks they get from the NRA then they care about kids safety. Until that changes this will keep happening on a regular basis.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by AarynGriesfan

The majority of American citizens do want sensible gun control laws but the problem is that the elected officials specifically the ones in the Republican party care more the kickbacks they get from the NRA then they care about kids safety. Until that changes this will keep happening on a regular basis.

Not true.

Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b7b44418c087

WaPo: Why are Senate Dems torpedoing their own gun bill?
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/...oing-gun-bill/

Answer: Because it might pass — and this tells you everything you need to know about Washington DC. When Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) first proposed the Fix-NICS act last November, he had four members of each party as sponsors, calling it “the most important piece of bipartisan guns legislation since Manchin-Toomey.” The bill would plug the gaps in reporting by federal agencies to the background-check system, failings that contributed to the fatal church shooting that month in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

It’s not that Democrats don’t want to patch up what both sides say are obvious holes in the background-check system; it’s that they think this is a small step to reinforce an existing law rather than expand it. And if they support it, that might be the end of gun control reforms in this Congress, since Republicans will be reluctant to act on much else.

This leaves Democrats toying with opposing the one gun-control bill that has a realistic shot of passing Congress right now, one championed by their most vocal gun-control advocate, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). It’s a weird look, for sure.

Murphy doesn’t want his own bill brought up for a vote without a guarantee from Republicans to allow votes on other Democratic priorities, like universal background checks. “If we were only to debate the Fix NICS Act,” Murphy told reporters Tuesday, “we would be slamming the door in the face of all these kids who are demanding change.”

That’s a sharp turn from what Murphy said in November, calling his bill the most important piece of bipartisan gun-control legislation since the Senate voted on (and didn’t pass) a universal background check proposal after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Conn.

I'll grant the Republicans are quite difficult to work with when it comes to dealing with their particular pet issues.. but the same could be said vice-versa...

Congress is a mess, and it's because both parties would rather engage in smear tactics and grandstanding than building upon a consensus.. the other issue, they always seem to default to these rather large larger bills... because both parties want everything and the kitchen sink, so they put up these un-passable bills because the publicity will damage may very well damage the opposing side if it doesn't get enough votes... but why change their method of governing? They've all gotten by and kept their seats on grandstanding before... so no reason to risk their seats now. The other issue, the people who do vote in primaries for example (who select candidates) tend to be more partisan... what this means is that if any of these individuals cede on what are considered "traditional" bread and butter positions for those parties, they're almost always penalized by it...

Moderates need to get involved in primaries and politics in general and stop making excuses to not show up to vote... so I'd argue, until that changes... then progress at a national level will be incremental at best.

Our govt really does work better at the state level, which is what our system is 'optimized' for... some states have been looking into or passing red flags since Parkland, and it's a growing push... if enough states pass legislation, then it's more likely that the Republicans will cede on those issues at the federal level... but keep in mind, Republicans tend to be more in favor of federalism... they are not in favor of laws that are too broad and are setup at the national level... they prefer that certain things are handled and remain at the state level... for example, the health care exchanges.

More states approving 'red flag' laws to keep guns away from people perceived as threats
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...story,amp.html

So yes, while it's not the national wave of the hand that the Democrats prefer when it comes to governing... there is progress occurring in the US, but most of it is going on at the state level atm. Different states are trying different things... and sometimes that's where it starts before federal laws (national) can get that broad of a consensus.

[arista]

The First person this Evil Killer
shot was Girl he was stalking.
And he used his dads guns.

on all media.

[Livia]

I thought this New York front cover was particularly poignant, although some people are apparently angry with it:

Spoiler:

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Livia

I thought this New York front cover was particularly poignant, although some people are apparently angry with it:

Spoiler:

Yeah it felt weird having both going on at the same time.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Yeah it felt weird having both going on at the same time.

Life goes on despite the greatest of tragedies, doesn't it, Maru. I doubt that anyone NOT directly involved with this terrible murder will allow it to impact upon their lives outside of the genuine shock, horror and sympathy.