It's a hell of a lot more difficult to sneak a Mazda past the school metal detectors than a firearm. Yes, there are other ways of killing then with guns, but they are much less convenient then guns. That's why our troops carry M4's rather than a Chrysler Town & Country's into war zones. I'm not for getting rid of firearms, but this bullshit idea that getting rid of all guns (it can't happen) wouldn't make these school massacres less frequent and less successful is foolish.
How many school massacres have there been? The FBI defines a "mass shooting" of 4 or more people shot. Reynolds was not a mass shooting. How many true massacres have there been?
OK, so take shootings instead. And I'm not saying there won't be violence in other ways, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that IF there were no guns, that murders in high school (or outside of highschool) wouldn't go down. It's a convenient thing to argue since there is no proof and no way to know the outcome, and we do have tons of examples of non-firearm violence to point to and say "see, I told you so". But do you really believe that if guns went poof one day, that the number of school killings wouldn't decrease? Now there are legit arguments about 1) is it possible to get rid of guns, 2) will other crimes go up if criminals know the public isn't carrying, 3) is the reduction in killings worth the reductions in our rights and our ability to hold the government accountable. And a bunch of other arguments that basically point to gun bans being unfeasible or detrimental to America in other ways. But the argument that students will just drive over other kids instead is hogwash. At least it's hogwash to suggest it would happen at the same rate.
Well, if you read that article I posted a few pages back, he suggests these shootings are basically a form of domestic terrorism. The writer explains that the shooters are seeking a platform to voice their displeasure with the world, so he says that it's really no different than someone strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up a theater or a market. They know that school shootings present the best way to get attention. Best way to stop this from happening? Stop giving them attention, but of course that will never happen because the media and the anti-gun crowd immediately jump on any kind of shooting to further their agenda. They don't care why or how, they just care that it was another shooting. And if it was an AR-15 variant they can't wait to start going on about high-cap magazines and military grade weapons. They will never follow the lead of Canada and withhold the name of the shooter. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140606-144104.html
Cars are tracked more carefully than guns. Auto dealers have to tell the state who they sell a car to. Private parties have to register their cars with the state when they buy and sell them. The same needs to be done with guns.
Nate, those arguments are more valid and don't bother me to hear. I don't totally agree with them in totality, but they do make some sense. I read the article you posted off facebook and here is the issue I saw. There are many different school shootings with different causes, and to lay some blanket statement about motivations without understanding those motivations may only play a role in certain events seems like a misguided tactic to win an argument instead of discuss what is a very valid point. Some kids may certainly be doing these killings to intimidate as a terrorist would, but others do snap after being bullied. Some may be schizophrenic or have another mental disorder where they disassociate and are killing cause they think it's the right thing to do. Some may be doing it not to cause fear, but because they think it's something special that others will respect and admire. There are many possibilities, and I don't think it's possible to know what the thoughts were in most unless there were manifestos. I certainly think some are doing it as a means to fame, not to cause terror. I do however like the idea that some papers do where they don't say the name or show a picture of the killers, but I have to admit I would go on line and just search out an article that shows what the perp looked like.
I think it all boils down to people not trusting the government. Can you blame them? The whole NSA thing really pissed people off. The constant officer-involved shootings that we hear about every day. It seems like faith in the government is at an all-time low. People are clinging to the second amendment tighter than ever before because I think people are genuinely concerned about the motives of our government. They don't seem to give a rats ass about the people. They only care about the fat checks the huge corporations are writing for them. The second amendment was written to protect the people from the government. That's why people are so unwilling to budge. Registering your weapons gives the government a roadmap for confiscations.
I agree that it's not a blanket statement that can be applied to all shootings. It seems like it applies to that kid down in California, but I'm not even entirely sure if it applies to the guy at Reynolds. I still don't really know his motive.
Swap meet and private sales with no background checks are bullshit. Guns are already regulated. Regulation does not violate the constitution. Seizing guns from private citizens would.
This I agree with. I also think ammo shouldn't be sold without ID. There should be a national database that has every felon, under age person and other people restricted, and you buy ammo or a gun, they type in the name, and if you pass, they sell it. I don't even care if the items are registered and a name kept for posterity, I just want to work at making sure only people who can legally own, should be able to buy guns and ammo.
Actually it does. A person may be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property if given due process. So a convicted criminal can be denied the right to own guns, if given due process. Gun ownership is not the only right denies felons. Non convicted criminals? They're not obeying the law anyway, so they're going to have guns if they want them. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0617.htm
That's a fair position Denny. I don't know where I would stand if an amendment to the 2nd were purposed, but I would respect the effort far more than new laws being purposed that ignore the 2nd.
God, all day yesterday you misspelled proposed and everyone was polite. If you're going to start again today, this is war! You sure had time for a dictionary when you faked it about subduction.
