Another school shooting - elementary school

[Tigerpine]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

It doesn't fucking matter, can't you see that? Dangerous items are recalled all the time because stupid people or user error killed or injured a small number of kids. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death of children in this country.  There have ALWAYS been bad parents.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to grant a Constitutionally protected personal right to own guns.  That's the highest form of legal protection in the US.  The same cannot be said for other dangerous items.  It's a big difference.

It's a high hurdle to clear if you want to restrict gun ownership, unless the Constitution is amended.  And that's another high hurdle.

[charis]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

It doesn't fucking matter, can't you see that? Dangerous items are recalled all the time because stupid people or user error killed or injured a small number of kids. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death of children in this country.  There have ALWAYS been bad parents.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to grant a Constitutionally protected personal right to own guns.  That's the highest form of legal protection in the US.  The same cannot be said for other dangerous items.  It's a big difference.

It's a high hurdle to clear if you want to restrict gun ownership, unless the Constitution is amended.  And that's another high hurdle.

Oh shoot, thanks for constitutional law reminder, barely anyone mentions the 2A in this debate 🙄.  There are nonetheless a lot of tools and limitations that can be devised to pass constitutional muster.

[JLee]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy needs to step up and do something to help the situation.

I'm not seeing that happen.

Isn’t it racist when we say older, successful African Americans need to “police their own” in response to urban violence?  How is this not the same thing?

Also, isn’t it old white guys who are told STFU we know what’s best for your kids, we don’t want you setting the curriculum in schools?  Is there some sort of guide that lets me know when I can parent and when I’m not welcome?

Strawman much?

Gun owners need to cooperate with society in an effort to reduce gun violence.  Saying "guns aren't the problem" and doing nothing to help solve it is not helpful.  A simple (and popular!) first step would be to require all transactions, including private sales, to go through an FFL for tracking purposes and for a NICS check.  Another great step would be to allow for a real database instead of the antiquated system in place today.

Nearly three of ten gun offenders (73 of 253 or 28.9%) were legal gun possessors but would have been prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if their states had stricter prohibitions. Offenders who were already prohibited under current law acquired their gun from a licensed dealer, where a background check is required, five times less often than offenders who were not prohibited (3.9% vs. 19.9%; χ2=13.31; p≤0.001). Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check.

[GuitarStv]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

It doesn't fucking matter, can't you see that? Dangerous items are recalled all the time because stupid people or user error killed or injured a small number of kids. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death of children in this country.  There have ALWAYS been bad parents.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to grant a Constitutionally protected personal right to own guns.  That's the highest form of protection in the US.The same cannot be said for other dangerous items.

It's a high hurdle to clear if you want to restrict gun ownership, unless the Constitution is amended.  And that's another high hurdle.

That's not really true.  The constitution doesn't say shit about a semi-automatic hand gun . . . any law related to that device has to be interpreted.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution quite differently in the past before they went into the bizarre modern free-for-all reading of the 2nd amendment.  They were fine with restricting sawed off shotguns and machine guns in the 30s when gangs were running rampant in the big cities.  The only thing stopping them from going back to a more restrictive interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the whim of the judges in power . . . and as we've seen with Roe v. Wade, you can just stack the courts to get any outcome you want - precedent be damned.

[Chris22]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy needs to step up and do something to help the situation.

I'm not seeing that happen.

Isn’t it racist when we say older, successful African Americans need to “police their own” in response to urban violence?  How is this not the same thing?

Also, isn’t it old white guys who are told STFU we know what’s best for your kids, we don’t want you setting the curriculum in schools?  Is there some sort of guide that lets me know when I can parent and when I’m not welcome?

Strawman much?

Gun owners need to cooperate with society in an effort to reduce gun violence.  Saying "guns aren't the problem" and doing nothing to help solve it is not helpful.  A simple (and popular!) first step would be to require all transactions, including private sales, to go through an FFL for tracking purposes and for a NICS check.  Another great step would be to allow for a real database instead of the antiquated system in place today.

Nearly three of ten gun offenders (73 of 253 or 28.9%) were legal gun possessors but would have been prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if their states had stricter prohibitions. Offenders who were already prohibited under current law acquired their gun from a licensed dealer, where a background check is required, five times less often than offenders who were not prohibited (3.9% vs. 19.9%; χ2=13.31; p≤0.001). Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check.

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

[Tigerpine]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

It doesn't fucking matter, can't you see that? Dangerous items are recalled all the time because stupid people or user error killed or injured a small number of kids. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death of children in this country.  There have ALWAYS been bad parents.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to grant a Constitutionally protected personal right to own guns.  That's the highest form of protection in the US.The same cannot be said for other dangerous items.

It's a high hurdle to clear if you want to restrict gun ownership, unless the Constitution is amended.  And that's another high hurdle.

That's not really true.  The constitution doesn't say shit about a semi-automatic hand gun . . . any law related to that device has to be interpreted.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution quite differently in the past before they went into the bizarre modern free-for-all reading of the 2nd amendment.  They were fine with restricting sawed off shotguns and machine guns in the 30s when gangs were running rampant in the big cities.  The only thing stopping them from going back to a more restrictive interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the whim of the judges in power . . . and as we've seen with Roe v. Wade, you can just stack the courts to get any outcome you want - precedent be damned.

You're quite right, which is why I phrased my OP the way I did.  If the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution evolves over time, then practically speaking, we need to begin any idea of gun control with the current interpretation being used today.  Or the most likely interpretation to come out of the bench today.

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

It doesn't fucking matter, can't you see that? Dangerous items are recalled all the time because stupid people or user error killed or injured a small number of kids. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death of children in this country.  There have ALWAYS been bad parents.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to grant a Constitutionally protected personal right to own guns.  That's the highest form of legal protection in the US.  The same cannot be said for other dangerous items.  It's a big difference.

It's a high hurdle to clear if you want to restrict gun ownership, unless the Constitution is amended.  And that's another high hurdle.

Oh shoot, thanks for constitutional law reminder, barely anyone mentions the 2A in this debate 🙄.  There are nonetheless a lot of tools and limitations that can be devised to pass constitutional muster.

There doesn't seem like much that can be done that won't be undone by the Supreme Court with the right court challenge.

That seems like the real issue from a pragmatic point of view, which is why I bring it up.  For what it's worth, I support a Constitutional amendment in principle.  The devil would of course be in the details.

[JLee]

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

We as a society are responsible for bettering society. 

I'm not responsible for my neighbors' kids, but I support legislation that ensures they have food, shelter, education, and safety. I'm not responsible for your lungs, but I support legislation that takes coal-rolling diesels off the road.

Maybe you and I are different.

[Undecided]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy needs to step up and do something to help the situation.

I'm not seeing that happen.

Isn’t it racist when we say older, successful African Americans need to “police their own” in response to urban violence?  How is this not the same thing?

Also, isn’t it old white guys who are told STFU we know what’s best for your kids, we don’t want you setting the curriculum in schools?  Is there some sort of guide that lets me know when I can parent and when I’m not welcome?

There’s a difference between being told that you’re wrong, when you’re wrong, and being told “STFU we know what’s best for your kids.”

[GuitarStv]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

It doesn't fucking matter, can't you see that? Dangerous items are recalled all the time because stupid people or user error killed or injured a small number of kids. Gun deaths are the leading cause of death of children in this country.  There have ALWAYS been bad parents.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to grant a Constitutionally protected personal right to own guns.  That's the highest form of protection in the US.The same cannot be said for other dangerous items.

It's a high hurdle to clear if you want to restrict gun ownership, unless the Constitution is amended.  And that's another high hurdle.

That's not really true.  The constitution doesn't say shit about a semi-automatic hand gun . . . any law related to that device has to be interpreted.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution quite differently in the past before they went into the bizarre modern free-for-all reading of the 2nd amendment.  They were fine with restricting sawed off shotguns and machine guns in the 30s when gangs were running rampant in the big cities.  The only thing stopping them from going back to a more restrictive interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the whim of the judges in power . . . and as we've seen with Roe v. Wade, you can just stack the courts to get any outcome you want - precedent be damned.

You're quite right, which is why I phrased my OP the way I did.  If the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution evolves over time, then practically speaking, we need to begin any idea of gun control with the current interpretation being used today.  Or the most likely interpretation to come out of the bench today.

Well . . . that's a dark thought.  :P

[seattlecyclone]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

Two ingredients to these massacres: an individual with violent tendencies, and that individual's access to efficient weapons. Eliminate either of those ingredients and the massacre doesn't happen. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is technically correct, but unless you have a concrete plan to ensure that nobody ever acquires violent tendencies during their childhood then maybe addressing the other ingredient to these massacres is the way to go?

We have seen from other countries implementing stricter gun control that such killings are exceedingly rare there. Do other countries have a dramatically lower rate of people experiencing violent thoughts? Seems unlikely. What they do have is less access to semiautomatic weapons. Gun control works! Could we conceivably achieve similar reductions in violence by instead providing easy, free, perhaps mandatory mental health care to all so that the other ingredient to massacres was addressed? Perhaps! Nobody on the right seems to be seriously pursuing this though, so I have to assume the suggestion is merely intended as pointless whataboutism to distract from the gun control policies that we know are likely to be effective.

This is basically my view as well. In some sense I do believe that self-defense is a fundamental right, and limiting that right should not be done lightly. At the same time there's a pretty wide gulf between what's needed for self-defense in any reasonable scenario, and the types of offensive weapons capable of mass killing that are commonly available here. I definitely support legislation to close that gap (up to and including a Constitutional amendment since that's probably what it would take). The problem is that a sufficiently large segment of the population is opposed to such legislation, and I have no idea what it would even take to change their mind. So here we are. The killings will continue until there's a significant change of opinion centered in the red states. It is what it is.

But why do you need to defend yourself?  Because other people are carrying guns, right?

Yes, of course the need to defend oneself derives directly from the possibility of being attacked. 

I personally don't own any firearms, and have little fear of violence in my own life. I have been convinced by statistics showing that families are more likely to experience an accidental or suicide death at the hands of their own guns than they are to gain a benefit from carrying a weapon for self-defense purposes. That's a choice I have made. At the same time I don't feel like I should have the right to tell people they shouldn't be able to make a different choice: that if someone invades your home you should be required to sit back and wait for the police to show up, hoping nobody gets hurt in the meantime; that if some rapist tries to capture you while you're out for a jog you should have to just accept the situation.

[scottish]

There's always the baseball bat...

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.    Our politicians routinely propose more legislation to control firearms, but our problem is really weak enforcement of the existing laws.   For example, as a private citizen it is illegal to transport (not carry, transport) a handgun without a government permit.   Even then the handgun has to be stored in a locked container for transport.    These laws don't prevent handgun shootings though.

However, you have to start somewhere.   As a bonus, if the US would start to control their weapons, fewer would leak across the border to Canada, and we'd have less problems, too.

[sixwings]

How come it's always the guns at fault, but never the parents who birthed and were supposed to raise these kids?

The gun collector, shooting enthusiast, NRA member, old white guy that gets talked about isn't doing the killing, unstable kids are.

Access to health care, including mental health care, is talked about all. the. time. And you know what? Republicans have done exactly nothing to address those problems, they just make it worse, and have no real ideas or policies to support mental health care. But you're right, mental health is a major problem with violence, so do you support single payer systems, and the taxes required to support it, so people can get the mental health care they need? Are the politicians you vote for supporting it and trying to implement a single payer system where unstable kids can get the support they need? Or is this just a lame excuse that you're doing exactly nothing about because you're fine with kids getting mowed down?

If you think gun access should be totally unrestricted, then there needs to be a VERY robust public health option to help "unstable kids" who have access to weapons. Currently the republican party supports unrestricted gun access and very restricted health options, which is a total disaster.

[seattlecyclone]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

[Chris22]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

Only if you are interested in looking like you’re doing something instead of actually doing something.


-There are already over 20M AR-15s in circulation, plus many other semi automatic weapons on other platforms
-All long guns represent about 700 deaths annually of the ~35k gun deaths each year, or about 2%.

We don’t have an AR-15 problem, except in a very small number of high visibility situations. It’s like getting angry about the 3 dudes involved in fatal accidents in Ferraris each year (number made up) and ignoring the other 35,997 deaths involving drunk people in Accords and F150s (suicides, gang violence, both primarily involving pistols). 

[getsorted]

Yes, of course the need to defend oneself derives directly from the possibility of being attacked. 

Yes, this. And people who do have that fear will not be supportive of restrictions that will take away their defensive weapons, but they might be very supportive of restrictions that (for example) prohibit violent offenders from having guns.

I do have some fear of violence in my life. To be quite honest, I have been threatened with a gun myself. I made a choice to move toward home security measures as opposed to weaponry, but that was contingent on many factors (living near a police station, having funds to install security devices, etc.) that aren't available to everyone. I grew up in an area where police response times are sometimes 30-45 minutes and violent crime is not at all uncommon. It's unfair (and more importantly, counterproductive) to call the people who live in places like that and want to own guns "gun nuts" or any of the other names ascribed to people who don't support outright bans. 

It's frustrating to see the whole debate turn into my-side-versus-your-side when, like with so many issues, there is plenty of common ground we could address and make progress on.

[former player]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

Only if you are interested in looking like you’re doing something instead of actually doing something.


-There are already over 20M AR-15s in circulation, plus many other semi automatic weapons on other platforms
-All long guns represent about 700 deaths annually of the ~35k gun deaths each year, or about 2%.

We don’t have an AR-15 problem, except in a very small number of high visibility situations. It’s like getting angry about the 3 dudes involved in fatal accidents in Ferraris each year (number made up) and ignoring the other 35,997 deaths involving drunk people in Accords and F150s (suicides, gang violence, both primarily involving pistols).

If there is to be a solution it has to start somewhere. Nothing is going to be instant but that is not a reason for doing nothing.

Saying you want a solution and then disagreeing with every solution offered is an old gun-lobby trick.

[Chris22]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

Only if you are interested in looking like you’re doing something instead of actually doing something.


-There are already over 20M AR-15s in circulation, plus many other semi automatic weapons on other platforms
-All long guns represent about 700 deaths annually of the ~35k gun deaths each year, or about 2%.

We don’t have an AR-15 problem, except in a very small number of high visibility situations. It’s like getting angry about the 3 dudes involved in fatal accidents in Ferraris each year (number made up) and ignoring the other 35,997 deaths involving drunk people in Accords and F150s (suicides, gang violence, both primarily involving pistols).

If there is to be a solution it has to start somewhere. Nothing is going to be instant but that is not a reason for doing nothing.

Saying you want a solution and then disagreeing with every solution offered is an old gun-lobby trick.

Offering up something that is ineffective, probably illegal, and doesn’t solve anything but let’s you say “I’m helping!” Is an old gun-grabber trick.

[former player]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

Only if you are interested in looking like you’re doing something instead of actually doing something.


-There are already over 20M AR-15s in circulation, plus many other semi automatic weapons on other platforms
-All long guns represent about 700 deaths annually of the ~35k gun deaths each year, or about 2%.

We don’t have an AR-15 problem, except in a very small number of high visibility situations. It’s like getting angry about the 3 dudes involved in fatal accidents in Ferraris each year (number made up) and ignoring the other 35,997 deaths involving drunk people in Accords and F150s (suicides, gang violence, both primarily involving pistols).

If there is to be a solution it has to start somewhere. Nothing is going to be instant but that is not a reason for doing nothing.

Saying you want a solution and then disagreeing with every solution offered is an old gun-lobby trick.

Offering up something that is ineffective, probably illegal, and doesn’t solve anything but let’s you say “I’m helping!” Is an old gun-grabber trick.

Feel free to offer your own solution then.

[OzzieandHarriet]

In the second amendment, “bear arms” refers to allowing people to carry weapons for the purpose of serving in a “well-regulated militia.” Not EVERY damn where.

[CodingHare]

Women are forced to have invasive ultrasounds, forced to look at pictures of children and babies, and forced to have waiting periods to reconsider before they are allowed to get an abortion, even in states that have legal abortion.

I propose that every time a gun owner makes a purchase, they have to look at pictures of every single child murdered by a gun.  Then they need a mandatory 2 week waiting period.  Heck, we'll even skip the invasive medical procedure, just a simple mental health screening.  Gun owners need to be informed of their choices.  If women can take it, why can't you?

[sixwings]

In the second amendment, “bear arms” refers to allowing people to carry weapons for the purpose of serving in a “well-regulated militia.” Not EVERY damn where.

"Arms" at the time also referred to single shot muskets that took quite a while to re-load. But originalists are morons who prefer not to consider the context of when the constitution was written and what life is like now.

[jim555]

2A prevents much from being done, this is a dead issue with no payoff for the Dems.  I don't know why they keep beating a dead horse.  Even if they could get something passed it would only be around the edges, anything more and it would be struck down. 

Repeal the 2A is the answer, which isn't happening.

[CodingHare]

2A prevents much from being done, this is a dead issue with no payoff for the Dems. I don't know why they keep beating a dead horse.  Even if they could get something passed it would only be around the edges, anything more and it would be struck down. 

Repeal the 2A is the answer, which isn't happening.

Maybe because small children keep getting shot in their classrooms?  Hard to ignore... at least for democratic voters.

[jim555]

2A prevents much from being done, this is a dead issue with no payoff for the Dems. I don't know why they keep beating a dead horse.  Even if they could get something passed it would only be around the edges, anything more and it would be struck down. 

Repeal the 2A is the answer, which isn't happening.

Maybe because small children keep getting shot in their classrooms?  Hard to ignore... at least for democratic voters.

Not knowing the rules of the game (US Const.) and you end up wasting time and energy, lead people to wrongly believe that something can be done, when legally it can't.  So now you can't deliver on promises that won't be delivered, when you should be setting expectations based on reality.

[MasterStache]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

Only if you are interested in looking like you’re doing something instead of actually doing something.


-There are already over 20M AR-15s in circulation, plus many other semi automatic weapons on other platforms
-All long guns represent about 700 deaths annually of the ~35k gun deaths each year, or about 2%.

We don’t have an AR-15 problem, except in a very small number of high visibility situations. It’s like getting angry about the 3 dudes involved in fatal accidents in Ferraris each year (number made up) and ignoring the other 35,997 deaths involving drunk people in Accords and F150s (suicides, gang violence, both primarily involving pistols).

So 3 dudes getting a behind the wheel of a car after drinking resulting in their deaths "is like"  an 18 year old legally purchasing a weapon of death and mowing down and a bunch of kids? Neither are a "problem" because in  the grand scheme of things those 3 dudes and those kids lives are merely small potatoes when you reduce them to statistics? I mean, just wow!

[former player]

2A prevents much from being done, this is a dead issue with no payoff for the Dems. I don't know why they keep beating a dead horse.  Even if they could get something passed it would only be around the edges, anything more and it would be struck down. 

Repeal the 2A is the answer, which isn't happening.

Maybe because small children keep getting shot in their classrooms?  Hard to ignore... at least for democratic voters.

Not knowing the rules of the game (US Const.) and you end up wasting time and energy, lead people to wrongly believe that something can be done, when legally it can't.  So now you can't deliver on promises that won't be delivered, when you should be setting expectations based on reality.

Add some new justices to the Supreme Court who favour a restricted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then.  The US Constitution is only as good as the Supreme Court says it is, and the Supreme Court is now just a political/religious animal - adding new justices isn't anything worse than the Republicans have already done to it.

[former player]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

Only if you are interested in looking like you’re doing something instead of actually doing something.


-There are already over 20M AR-15s in circulation, plus many other semi automatic weapons on other platforms
-All long guns represent about 700 deaths annually of the ~35k gun deaths each year, or about 2%.

We don’t have an AR-15 problem, except in a very small number of high visibility situations. It’s like getting angry about the 3 dudes involved in fatal accidents in Ferraris each year (number made up) and ignoring the other 35,997 deaths involving drunk people in Accords and F150s (suicides, gang violence, both primarily involving pistols).

If there is to be a solution it has to start somewhere. Nothing is going to be instant but that is not a reason for doing nothing.

Saying you want a solution and then disagreeing with every solution offered is an old gun-lobby trick.

Offering up something that is ineffective, probably illegal, and doesn’t solve anything but let’s you say “I’m helping!” Is an old gun-grabber trick.

Feel free to offer your own solution then.

No suggestions yet?  Either you aren't trying, or you don't want any new restrictions.  And in either case that's more kids dead and you a collaborator with it.

[RetiredAt63]

You know, we have had these threads before and they deteriorate into being locked every single time.  Because until attitudes in the US change, these debates can accomplish nothing.

There have been over 200 mass shootings in the US so far this year and we aren't even 5 months in.  Had anyone noticed that huge number?

The US is #1 for civilian gun ownership per capita at 120.50.  The Falkland Islands are 2nd at 62.1, Canada is #7 at 34.7.   So per capita ownership in the US is twice that of the second country in the listing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

This also looks at registered and unregistered estimates - in the US a huge number are unregistered, in Canada a huge number are registered.  Why?  Because after the Ecole Polytechnique shootings (December 1989) there was a big push for registration.

And yes people with issues will do things.  There was a man in Toronto who drove a van through a crowd, aiming at women.  How many more would he have killed if he could have gained access to a semi-automatic?


Trump was right - the US should build a wall with Mexico.  While the US is at it, it should build a wall with Canada.  It would keep us safer from American guns.  /s

Actually only partly /s.  A lot of our illegal guns (mostly handguns) are smuggled in from the US.  And the number of Americans who try to bring their personal guns over the border is surprising.  Including LEOs, who have no jurisdiction here.  I mean, seriously, a LEO here does not have jurisdiction in a neighbouring city, so why a foreign one would think they have the right to bring a gun is beyond me.

[GuitarStv]

In the second amendment, “bear arms” refers to allowing people to carry weapons for the purpose of serving in a “well-regulated militia.” Not EVERY damn where.

"Arms" at the time also referred to single shot muskets that took quite a while to re-load. But originalists are morons who prefer not to consider the context of when the constitution was written and what life is like now.

If you want to be truly originalist, then we're talking about arms for a well-regulated militia . . . which means only white men of military age should have the right to their muskets.  :P

[Chris22]

In the second amendment, “bear arms” refers to allowing people to carry weapons for the purpose of serving in a “well-regulated militia.” Not EVERY damn where.

"Arms" at the time also referred to single shot muskets that took quite a while to re-load. But originalists are morons who prefer not to consider the context of when the constitution was written and what life is like now.

This is always a cute response. In reality, what is also true is that the 2A allowed citizens to have exactly the same (then) state of the art firearms they military had.

A d Joe Biden’s famous comments about “you couldn’t own a cannon!” shows a gross lack of understanding of history, given that “privateers” were common in our history, literally privately owned ships equipped with…cannons.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I feel that I have mellowed on this issue somewhat. I get extremely frustrated when I see people mentioned in the video posted earlier who tie guns to masculinity. I do not like the NRA at all.

I feel that if we get beyond the memes and cliched arguments, the real uniqueness of the situation with guns is this. As a whole, access to guns, without a doubt, makes it easier for people to kill and injure more people than they would otherwise. No question.

That being said, the other unique side of the issue is removing guns from people's hands overall would take guns from the hands of people who have not and will not hurt anyone with them.

I'll bring up two anecdotal points. I know of two people who directly and unequivocally benefited from having guns. One was a friend, 40ish year old man who would without a doubt have been mugged by a large group of young men if he hadn't had and displayed his gun. The other is a relative, 60's-70's who, without a doubt would have been injured in a home invasion, possibly seriously hurt or killed, by a person high on drugs who had broken down his door to make his way inside and was out of his mind about to hurt him but who maintained enough mental capacity to at least run from a gun.

In both of these situations, I 100% know that the guns in question have not been used to hurt anyone but instead have been used for good to help prevent theft, injury, or possibly death. These situations simply are not unique.

Restrictions on guns are so unique because they punish millions of people for the crimes of hundreds. Hundreds of millions of guns will never hurt anyone.

So, if the discussion is around longer waiting periods for gun purchases or more training to allow for purchases or the like, I'm definitely up for it (with the caveat that there are counties that have abused permitting privileges to not give them out even when they should because the people in charge just don't like guns). If it involves removing the ability of non-criminal law abiding citizens who have some training in the matter to possess firearms for defense, I'm not going to be good with it. This includes guns that tend to come up for restrictions like handguns. My rationale for this will always be, in the vast, vast majority of the situations, keeping them from having guns won't stop someone from being hurt with their guns - it will only remove their ability to protect themselves. TLDR, the vast majority of people giving up their guns won't actually make you any safer.

[ministashy]

But seriously, there are so many firearms in the US that gun control legislation isn't going to help much.

I disagree. There are a ton of guns out there, yes. However if the existing gun owners were interested in shooting up an elementary school they probably would have done it by now. Most of the time in these big shootings it turns out that the gun was acquired relatively recently. Make these transactions harder going forward and it should make a difference.

Here in the US it's still legal to buy a fully automatic weapon, as long as it was manufactured before new ones were banned in 1986 and you file the appropriate paperwork with the government to record the transfer. This seems to be enough of a barrier than in practice the criminals opt for the easier-to-obtain weapons. Apply similar restrictions to the semiautomatic assault rifles of today and I fully expect the situation would improve in time.

Only if you are interested in looking like you’re doing something instead of actually doing something.


-There are already over 20M AR-15s in circulation, plus many other semi automatic weapons on other platforms
-All long guns represent about 700 deaths annually of the ~35k gun deaths each year, or about 2%.

We don’t have an AR-15 problem, except in a very small number of high visibility situations. It’s like getting angry about the 3 dudes involved in fatal accidents in Ferraris each year (number made up) and ignoring the other 35,997 deaths involving drunk people in Accords and F150s (suicides, gang violence, both primarily involving pistols).

You're absolutely right.  Which means we need to regulate ALL guns, not AR-15s.  No exceptions.

Oh wait.  Was that not the answer you were looking for?

[ministashy]

So, if the discussion is around longer waiting periods for gun purchases or more training to allow for purchases or the like, I'm definitely up for it (with the caveat that there are counties that have abused permitting privileges to not give them out even when they should because the people in charge just don't like guns). If it involves removing the ability of non-criminal law abiding citizens who have some training in the matter to possess firearms for defense, I'm not going to be good with it. This includes guns that tend to come up for restrictions like handguns. My rationale for this will always be, in the vast, vast majority of the situations, keeping them from having guns won't stop someone from being hurt with their guns - it will only remove their ability to protect themselves. TLDR, the vast majority of people giving up their guns won't actually make you any safer.

I think the statistics on suicide and accidental gun deaths might disagree with you.

But even if you're right, then gun owners need to be leading the charge for sensible, rational, FEDERAL gun reform that promotes responsible ownership and prevents these tragedies.  Because if it's left to non gun owners, with gun owners standing in the way of every possible regulation while kids continue to die, then sooner or later the non gun owners are going to have enough, and then the bans will happen.

Given my personal experience with gun owners and the 2A crowd - which is fairly extensive at this point - I'm not holding my breath that they'll do anything.

[waltworks]

There is nothing to discuss here. There are a ton of guns in circulation and there is zero possibility of significant (mass confiscation) legislation that would actually have a meaningful effect.

We are a society that is heavily armed, prefers to remain heavily armed for a variety of reasons, and doesn't care to invest in mental health/healthcare in general. Being cheapskates and simultaneously having a lot of dangerous tech around is pretty, dumb, but hey.

A lot of people are going to get killed with guns, including kids. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

C'est la vie.

-W

[SunnyDays]

I would love to see a study of the families of victims of mass shootings.  Surely they are representative of the general public and many have been supporters of gun ownership.  Do their views change after losing a family in these shootings?  Or do they find ways to rationalize keeping their viewpoint?

That may be the only way to change gun culture - to have enough people lose a family member that the balance starts to shift.

[Sibley]

I would love to see a study of the families of victims of mass shootings.  Surely they are representative of the general public and many have been supporters of gun ownership.  Do their views change after losing a family in these shootings?  Or do they find ways to rationalize keeping their viewpoint?

That may be the only way to change gun culture - to have enough people lose a family member that the balance starts to shift.

Doesn't seem to have worked with covid, probably helped some. Killed a bunch of people though. Still killing people. No idea what the overlap is between the  hard core gun culture and the anti-vaxx/anti-mask crowd.

[Fishindude]

I'm an old guy and my views are unpopular with many, but I still say it goes back to how the kids are raised:
* Majority of marriages end up in divorce leaving single parents
* Huge percentage of unwed mothers having kids
* Large percentage of mixed race, mixed lifestyle, blended, unwed family units
* Huge percentage of children are raised by single parents, largely unsupervised
* Religion and church are absent in most families
* Kids are not made to work anymore
* Every kid has 24/7 access to a smartphone or computer with round the clock access to filth, porn and any number of bad influences
* Too much screen time, not enough exercise or outdoor time
* Being gay, trans, etc. is constant mainstream discussion overheard by children, even discussed in schools, girls in boy scouts, etc.
* Huge percentage of parents on various forms of government support teaching next generation of kids to live that way
* Paddling and corporal punishment has been taken away from the teachers
* Entertaining kids with violent television, video games, etc. that illustrate murder, killing and bloodshed
* Everybody is a winner and gets a trophy

Sheesh !   With what's going on above, it's a surprise there isn't one of these random killings weekly.

[MOD NOTE:  Are you kidding me?  Mixed race families are the problem?  Banned.]

[FrugalToque]

Watching these threads is always an experience for a non-American for a variety of reasons.

The rest of the world occasionally has a problem with people committing mass murders with guns, and they fix it by making it harder for angry/unbalanced individuals to get mass-killing guns.

Canada had one a few decades ago, and we made a bunch of laws that made that sort of thing way harder to accomplish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre#Gun_control

And, as a result, Canadians are not any "less free" for having to get certified and licensed in order to own their guns.

But when we try to look at such laws in the U.S., we get met with this strange, disconnected screed from the pro-gun, NRA, 2A crowd.
1. There are already too many guns.  It's too late to do anything.
-- But many of these killers buy their guns just before they commit their murders, so regulation would help

2. The real solution is good guys with guns.
-- That didn't help in the recent murders.  In New York, the available good-guy was killed.  In Texas recently, and in other cases, the police apparently stood by and waited, since they didn't want to get shot.

3. The Second Amendment says..
-- It's an amendment.  That means a "change".  You can change it again, or amend it further to at least check for mental issues and criminal backgrounds.

4.  Large magazine capacity weapons are part my hobby/identity etc.
-- Get a new hobby, or get properly licensed for this one.

The worst part, to me, is the number of people who just refuse to discuss solutions.
Firearms injury is now the leading cause of child death in the United States:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

And the solutions are?  Nothing?  No training?  No regulation?  More "good guys with guns" even though you don't want to test for who the "good guys" are or force them to take courses to make sure they know how to be safe?  I mean, hell, my son is taking lessons in how to use a drone, and there are courses, tests and licensing requirements for that.

As long as the portion of your population which loves its guns and is scared of "the government stealing my guns" gets to set the debate, though, I agree that nothing will happen.  You shouldn't be giving up because of that, though, but instead try to defeat those arguments and vote like - I don't know - it's the leading cause of death of your children.

Toque.

[Sibley]

Oh FrugalToque, if only it were that easy. See, children only matter before they're born! The moment they've drawn breath, then it's not important to feed them, provide clothing, shelter, a decent education, health care, etc. Also, we certainly can't give women the legal ability to control when or how many babies they have.

I'd add an indication of sarcasm but unfortunately there are people in the US who actually seem to believe all that crap, and they're certainly voting for politicians who are making it happen. There were people complaining that Biden was going to provide baby formula to migrant babies just a few days ago.

[GuitarStv]

I would love to see a study of the families of victims of mass shootings.  Surely they are representative of the general public and many have been supporters of gun ownership.  Do their views change after losing a family in these shootings?  Or do they find ways to rationalize keeping their viewpoint?

That may be the only way to change gun culture - to have enough people lose a family member that the balance starts to shift.

Doesn't seem to have worked with covid, probably helped some. Killed a bunch of people though. Still killing people. No idea what the overlap is between the  hard core gun culture and the anti-vaxx/anti-mask crowd.

Gun ownership seems to increase with fear levels.  "It's a big scary world out there, so you need a gun" is only more effective if guns are used to mow down people in your life.  The action reinforces the sales pitch.

[Undecided]

I'm an old guy and my views are unpopular with many, but I still say it goes back to how the kids are raised:
* Huge percentage of parents on various forms of government support teaching next generation of kids to live that way

Sheesh !   With what's going on above, it's a surprise there isn't one of these random killings weekly.

I wanted to hear what people taking tax deductions for their mortgage interest had to do with all this, but I can wait.

[Kris]

I'm an old guy and my views are unpopular with many, but I still say it goes back to how the kids are raised:
* Huge percentage of parents on various forms of government support teaching next generation of kids to live that way

Sheesh !   With what's going on above, it's a surprise there isn't one of these random killings weekly.

I wanted to hear what people taking tax deductions for their mortgage interest had to do with all this, but I can wait.

Right? You can’t make this stuff up…

Oh, wait. That’s exactly what he did.

[MasterStache]

Oh FrugalToque, if only it were that easy. See, children only matter before they're born! The moment they've drawn breath, then it's not important to feed them, provide clothing, shelter, a decent education, health care, etc. Also, we certainly can't give women the legal ability to control when or how many babies they have.

I'd add an indication of sarcasm but unfortunately there are people in the US who actually seem to believe all that crap, and they're certainly voting for politicians who are making it happen. There were people complaining that Biden was going to provide baby formula to migrant babies just a few days ago.

It's insanity isn't it? You have to give birth no matter what. But once your kid is born my right to own some iron and gun powder now supersedes their right to life.

[JLee]

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

We as a society are responsible for bettering society. 

I'm not responsible for my neighbors' kids, but I support legislation that ensures they have food, shelter, education, and safety. I'm not responsible for your lungs, but I support legislation that takes coal-rolling diesels off the road.

Maybe you and I are different.

With three responses from you in this thread since this unacknowledged post, I suppose you and I are indeed different.

And the solutions are?  Nothing?  No training?  No regulation?  More "good guys with guns" even though you don't want to test for who the "good guys" are or force them to take courses to make sure they know how to be safe?  I mean, hell, my son is taking lessons in how to use a drone, and there are courses, tests and licensing requirements for that.

As long as the portion of your population which loves its guns and is scared of "the government stealing my guns" gets to set the debate, though, I agree that nothing will happen.  You shouldn't be giving up because of that, though, but instead try to defeat those arguments and vote like - I don't know - it's the leading cause of death of your children.

Toque.

Conservatives fought for decades and looks like they're eventually getting their wish with Roe v Wade getting repealed.  They need to realize with their attitude of "fuck you it's the law and you can't do anything about it," eventually they will no longer be in power and decades of failure to cooperate will result in them being ran over by an angry majority (see below).

2A prevents much from being done, this is a dead issue with no payoff for the Dems. I don't know why they keep beating a dead horse.  Even if they could get something passed it would only be around the edges, anything more and it would be struck down. 

Repeal the 2A is the answer, which isn't happening.

Maybe because small children keep getting shot in their classrooms?  Hard to ignore... at least for democratic voters.

Not knowing the rules of the game (US Const.) and you end up wasting time and energy, lead people to wrongly believe that something can be done, when legally it can't.  So now you can't deliver on promises that won't be delivered, when you should be setting expectations based on reality.

IMO this attitude is the most likely route to seeing the 2nd amendment become the amended 2nd amendment.  It's been 30 years since the last one - maybe we're due.

[Chris22]

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

We as a society are responsible for bettering society. 

I'm not responsible for my neighbors' kids, but I support legislation that ensures they have food, shelter, education, and safety. I'm not responsible for your lungs, but I support legislation that takes coal-rolling diesels off the road.

Maybe you and I are different.

With three responses from you in this thread since this unacknowledged post, I suppose you and I are indeed different.

Indeed we are, because I don’t believe removing rights from the innocent does anything to stop the guilty. Feel free to indulge in that fantasy yourself, however.


On the rest of your post, during the pandemic a record number of Americans saw A) the tacit acceptance of violence in their cities and B) the understanding that the government was not necessarily concerned for their personal well-being, and they went out and bought firearms in record numbers. I’m not sure the demographics are moving where you think they are.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/26/989699122/1st-time-gun-buyers-help-push-record-u-s-gun-sales-amid-string-of-mass-shootings

[JLee]

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

We as a society are responsible for bettering society. 

I'm not responsible for my neighbors' kids, but I support legislation that ensures they have food, shelter, education, and safety. I'm not responsible for your lungs, but I support legislation that takes coal-rolling diesels off the road.

Maybe you and I are different.

With three responses from you in this thread since this unacknowledged post, I suppose you and I are indeed different.

Indeed we are, because I don’t believe removing rights from the innocent does anything to stop the guilty. Feel free to indulge in that fantasy yourself, however.

You are the reason people talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment.

[FrugalToque]

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

We as a society are responsible for bettering society. 

I'm not responsible for my neighbors' kids, but I support legislation that ensures they have food, shelter, education, and safety. I'm not responsible for your lungs, but I support legislation that takes coal-rolling diesels off the road.

Maybe you and I are different.

With three responses from you in this thread since this unacknowledged post, I suppose you and I are indeed different.

Indeed we are, because I don’t believe removing rights from the innocent does anything to stop the guilty. Feel free to indulge in that fantasy yourself, however.

The reason you're having problems here is that you don't seem to notice that you're responding to already refuted arguments.

For instance, this recent shooter in Texas?  He purchased a gun right after his 18th birthday, then went and used it shoot children at an elementary school.  So, in this case, as was pointed out to you, new regulations on gun purchasing would have made it more difficult for this mass shooting to occur.

But you responded with "20 million AR-15s are already in circulation" which ignores the point that this shooter bought a new gun from a store right before he went and killed people.

You see how that makes you look disingenuous?  The rest of us are trying to find a way to have fewer children killed, and you just sort of glossed over an effective solution for at least some of the mass shootings by ignoring that sales regulations would have slowed or maybe stopped this guy.

In Canada, we instituted a 28 day waiting period after we had a mass shooting several decades ago.  Our country is still "free".  People still have all their "rights".  They just don't have the ability to angrily and instantly acquire a gun and go on a killing spree.  Nothing was "lost" here.

It turned out that "removing the rights of the innocent" (making sane, non-criminals wait 28 days and get safely licensed to own firearms) actually did "stop the guilty" (the unbalanced angry people with criminal records who wanted to immediately buy a weapon and shoot someone with it).

Toque.

[GuitarStv]

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

We as a society are responsible for bettering society. 

I'm not responsible for my neighbors' kids, but I support legislation that ensures they have food, shelter, education, and safety. I'm not responsible for your lungs, but I support legislation that takes coal-rolling diesels off the road.

Maybe you and I are different.

With three responses from you in this thread since this unacknowledged post, I suppose you and I are indeed different.

Indeed we are, because I don’t believe removing rights from the innocent does anything to stop the guilty. Feel free to indulge in that fantasy yourself, however.

That's some pretty silly logic.  We limit the rights of the innocent ALL THE TIME when is seems prudent.  Part of living in a society is agreeing to have your rights limited in a great number of cases for the greater good.

I've never crashed my car and killed anyone by driving too fast.  Why should speed limits apply to me?  I've never driven so drunk that I hurt anyone or crashed my car.  Why should drunk driving laws apply to me?  I've never rolled through a stop light and hurt someone.  Why should traffic laws apply to me?  In every case, I'm innocent.

Equally, in every case the guilty can simply choose to ignore the law.  Are you advocating for the end of traffic laws?  If not, why not?  What makes traffic laws that impact the innocent OK, but gun laws not?

[Undecided]

I'm an old guy and my views are unpopular with many, but I still say it goes back to how the kids are raised:
* Huge percentage of parents on various forms of government support teaching next generation of kids to live that way

Sheesh !   With what's going on above, it's a surprise there isn't one of these random killings weekly.

I wanted to hear what people taking tax deductions for their mortgage interest had to do with all this, but I can wait.

Right? You can’t make this stuff up…

Oh, wait. That’s exactly what he did.

Also, when I see that someone is concerned about the effects of taking government support, I wonder if they realize that with per capita US federal spending approaching $30,000, very few Americans are paying enough in federal payroll and income taxes to cover their, and their family’s, share. So if that’s the source of this type of problem, virtually everyone seems like they’re in trouble.

[chemistk]

No it’s not a straw man. Legal gun middle aged owners are not responsible for stopping gun violence amongst idiot teenagers any more than middle aged AAs are responsible for stopping urban youth violence.

We as a society are responsible for bettering society. 

I'm not responsible for my neighbors' kids, but I support legislation that ensures they have food, shelter, education, and safety. I'm not responsible for your lungs, but I support legislation that takes coal-rolling diesels off the road.

Maybe you and I are different.

With three responses from you in this thread since this unacknowledged post, I suppose you and I are indeed different.

Indeed we are, because I don’t believe removing rights from the innocent does anything to stop the guilty. Feel free to indulge in that fantasy yourself, however.


On the rest of your post, during the pandemic a record number of Americans saw A) the tacit acceptance of violence in their cities and B) the understanding that the government was not necessarily concerned for their personal well-being, and they went out and bought firearms in record numbers. I’m not sure the demographics are moving where you think they are.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/26/989699122/1st-time-gun-buyers-help-push-record-u-s-gun-sales-amid-string-of-mass-shootings

What is the solution then? Certainly not more law enforcement, and definitely not law enforcement with military surplus equipment.

You have kids - how can you not look at this tragedy, at a school in a community described so far as "a place you'd never imagine this happening", and immediately not think "something's got to change".

If the solution isn't related to any restrictions around guns, then what is it?

It's not someone else's problem. It's our collective societal problem.

If protecting our 2A rights as they are right now, and not changing a single thing about them, is the first step then there HAS to be a second step.

I, as a parent, cannot accept that this tragedy is "an unfortunate result of our current society" because WE, the ones who make society, society need to figure out how to prevent troubled young men (agnostic of race, that's the common demographic) from getting to the point where the only thing they can do is buy a weapon and kill a bunch of people.

Would you agree?