It's not something we want to face, but there is little you can do to prevent the actions of a madman. This act was pure evil, plainly and simply. Of course, you want to keep children safe, but you can't cocoon them forever. We can't lock them down and make them live under lock and key. There are 300MM+ people in this country, and some of them will be sociopaths. We all have to live with a certain amount of risk, be it crossing the street, driving a car, flying in a plane, etc. Not being able to legislate a problem away is frustrating. Perhaps the better angle is to attack it from a mental health perspective, rather than one of gun control.
Personally guns scare the shit out of me; but I think it's important that people in this country (the responsible ones) can have guns. And just the thought that you may go into a house with someone with a gun is a good for causing the criminal to think twice before they invade a home. I do believe there should be more of a psych evaluation before you can purchase a gun/
Can I have a volunteer from you gun rights defenders to go to a parent of one of those kids and say: "You realize the odds of your kid dying like this were 1 in 20 million?" Or: "Sorry this had to happen, but you know banning guns wouldn't help, right? Yes, I know he got them legally, but surely he would have found some other way - your kid was a goner whatever happened."
I'm not sure that keeping guns away from certain people, or keeping certain guns away from all people, is keeping children under lock and key.
I would console the parents and do whatever i could for them at the time. I definitely wouldnt be an asshole and use it as a platform for gun control.
First of all, phenomenon. Second, no shit. But guess what? It's much more common in the US than in any comparable developed nation. And guess also what? Mass shootings are actually steady at about 150 deaths a year in the US. That would be an astronomical tragedy were it not for the fact that deaths by gun homicide TOTAL (per year) in the US are nearly 12,000. Another fun fact: the % of homicides that involve firearms is, at 60%, far higher than in any other comparable developed nation. So your table is a pretty massive red herring.
Wow, those people who used the Shoe bomber as a platform for increased airport security truly were assholes. Those people who used the deaths of people in Pearl Harbor as a platform for attacking Japan? Assholes! Those people who used the deaths of people from tainted aspirin to get stricter laws on drug safety? Fucking rights-stealing assholes! Why won't they realize that tragedies are not to be calls to action to prevent further tragedies, they're just tragedies that must be allowed to recur!
I wasn't equating the two. Rather, I was address an argument now that getting into a public school should be like going through airport security. The same with a mall. It's preposterous to think we can protect everyone all the time. Life has risk. It sounds callous, but it's simple math.
Which brings us full circle. A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch. You would trample on the rights of 80,000,000 people because of 150 deaths. You absolutely fail the compelling state interest test. Those 80,000,000 people have a right to be free of government law, per the definition below. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/compelling-state-interest-test/ "Compelling-state-interest-test refers to a method of determining the constitutional validity of a law. Under this test, the government’s interest is balanced against the individual’s constitutional right to be free of law. However, a law will be upheld only if the government’s interest is strong enough."
Nice way of taking my words out.of context. Im not.the one proposing we use it as a platform for the grieving parents after this tragedy happening. But keep on fighting for the greater good brother.
Actually, if he really was mad, it wasn't evil. Make up your mind. Imagine if none of them had guns. Now imagine this guy going to the school without a gun. How many kids do you seriously think he could have killed? You don't say! So obviously, allowing everybody to own their own anthrax would do nothing to increase that risk, so it should be legal. What's that you say? It shouldn't? Because it increases the risk needlessly (despite the fact that they could get it illegally if they really tried)? Well maaaaaaaaybe that applies to guns, too! I have never owned a gun. I have never even touched a handgun. My life is surprisingly not empty and barren. The government hasn't exploited my vulnerability to come and take all my stuff. My house has never been broken into. And for twelve years I've lived in Flint, Michigan. If I can do it, I think you crazy gun nuts can too.
we can't protect everyone all the time, but if you knew there was a way to protect your own child from being harmed, wouldn't you want to use it?
trample? Im not sure thats trampling on rights. plus, where were all these people clamoring for rights when Habeas Corpus was suspended?
What are you wittering about? I would gladly "trample on the rights" of 80 BILLION people to own guns if it prevented even one death. I believe "rights" should be reserved for things that actually make people's lives better like, y'know, life, free speech, decent healthcare. The emancipation proclamation "trampled" on the "rights" of white people to own slaves. Bad thing? You're a libertarian. I get that. We all go through that phase. Please keep saving up to set up your utopian moon colony. I happen to be glad there are things like public schools and roads.
