Jump to content

19 Children and 2 Adults Killed In Texas Elementary School Mass Shooting.


Recommended Posts

I see all these people talking about beefed up school security, etc. I get it….but damn doesn’t it seem a little wrong that we’d need armed security like this at schools? It’s kinda like treating the symptoms and not the cause because treating the cause is a whole lot more complicated. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





I agree - both are needed.  The cause, IMO, is the combination or mental health resources / education, the alarming rate of psychotropic drugs prescribed to kids, social media gone crazy.and the erosion of societal morales & values.    

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GoAU said:

I’ll give you my thoughts.   The guy is a jackass.  Yes, he served and is a veteran. He is also correct with regards to military weapons qualifications and storage.    I don’t get the whole 2 week things, but in the Army we qualified every 6 months.  However, you didn’t have to qualify to use a rifle.  Soldiers had to demonstrate marksmanship proficiency- safe handling of weapons is understood.  You relinquish all sorts of rights in the military - I don’t think anyone would be up for adopting the full lifestyle and to pick in choose bits and pieces is intellectually dishonest.  
 

Do you have to “qualify” a reasonable level of intelligence to exercise First Amendment rights?  How about basic literacy and education on exercising the right to vote?   
 

Regarding the misinformation about the “well regulated militia” please see below:

The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment

By Kari Sullivan on July 14, 2021Categories: Corpus Linguistics, Scholarship, Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is not sloppy or ungrammatical, as some modern analysts claim. Rather, the Amendment is written in a variety of English that no longer exists. Since none of us are native speakers of late 18th century American English, we cannot expect to have good intuitions about its grammaticality or interpretation. When we read Shakespeare, for example, we accept that we have to rely on footnotes about vocabulary and syntax. The language of the Bill of Rights is chronologically closer to Shakespeare’s English than to present-day English, so the words and syntax are not always going to be immediately comprehensible.

The Second Amendment seems especially confusing because its structure has been subject to syntactic change, not just changes to words or word meanings. Words change faster and more frequently than syntax, so they are easier to notice. As we get older, we notice young people using words in new and different ways, whereas we probably are not aware of many differences in their syntax. But when we look at Shakespeare’s English, for example, we can see that syntax does change. If something seems ungrammatical to us, that is a signal that we need to look at how the grammar was used by native speakers.

The Second Amendment consists of a subordinate clause, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, followed by a main clause, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The main clause sounds perfectly grammatical in present-day English (if we ignore the extra comma, which does not seem to have been significant). The subordinate clause with being,however, seems to have something wrong with it. This is because the being-clause precedes the main clause, and the two clauses have different subjects. The last example of this type in the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA; a 475-million-word balanced corpus of American English 1820—2019) is from 1923. Since this type of being-clause fell into disuse around a hundred years ago, it is reasonable that modern readers would not have good intuitions about its grammaticality or its meaning.

In order to understand a syntactic construction that we no longer use, we have to look at historical examples of the construction. A good resource for this is a balanced historical corpus, that is, a collection of texts from a particular timespan and region that consists of a balanced mix of personal letters, newspapers, scientific treatises, religious texts and so forth. These corpora are intended to provide an idea of general usage at particular times and places. Relevant balanced corpora for studying the Second Amendment include COHA, mentioned previously, or A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER; 3.3 million words, 1600—1999). These corpora can tell us how being-clauses changed over time. They can also show how being-clauses were used, so that modern readers have a better idea of how this grammatical construction shapes the meaning of the Second Amendment.

For the moment, let us consider only being-clauses with the basic structure of the Second Amendment, in which the being-clause precedes the main clause and has a different subject. (A wider range of being-clauses is examined in my paper “Being-clauses in historical corpora and the U.S. Second Amendment”.) Being-clauses of this type have had four possible meanings, several of which could overlap. First, they could signal that the event in the being-clause happened before the main clause event, as in this example from 1723: The morning being come and breakfast over, Stertorius’s coach was brought. That is, after morning came and breakfast was over, the coach was brought. This is called a temporal usage. It is the earliest kind of being-clause, and gave rise to the second and third types.

The second use of being-clauses, the conditional, has always been rare. Conditional being-clauses were used to make predictions, as in the following example from 1786: These things being granted what is of a like kind will readily be so disposed too. If the ‘things’ (atmospheric conditions) occur, then ‘what is of a like kind’ (condensation) is predicted to behave in a particular way. Temporal and conditional meanings can overlap, as in the last two clauses in this 1833 example: Increase the amount of Bank notes, and, other things being the same, prices will rise. Whenever other things are the same, this statement claims, prices will rise (a temporal meaning); and if things are the same, prices will rise (a conditional meaning). These clauses are related temporally and conditionally, and the temporal and conditional meanings are completely compatible.

The third use of being-clauses also evolved from temporals, and could likewise overlap with them. These being-clauses signalled real-world causation, as in this sentence from 1780: The usual passages for the waters below being obstructed, they flooded the low grounds. That is, flooding occurred because the passages were obstructed. This is an external causal because it refers to a cause and a consequence in the real world. It’s important to note that an external causal relation frequently assumes a temporal one. In the above example, the flooding happens because of the obstruction (a causal relation) but also happens at the time of the obstruction (a temporal relation), so both causal and temporal relations are present, and are compatible with each other.

The fourth type of meaning is an internal causal, where the being-clause provides the logical basis, not the real-world cause, for the main clause, as in this example from 1702: The words in the will being to Richard and the heirs of his body, the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. Here, the being-clause gives the reason for concluding the status of the heirs stated in the main clause. The main clause could be paraphrased by it was concluded that the heirs were in that will only words of limitation, and not of purchase. An external causal can never be paraphrased this way, and it was concluded that the waters flooded the low grounds would make no sense in the external causal above.

If we assume that the Second Amendment was grammatical, then its being-clause belonged to one of these four types or a documented area of overlap between them. The temporal reading would indicate that whenever “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A conditional interpretation would entail that if “A well regulated Militia” is ever “necessary to the security of a free State”, then “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The external causal interpretation would mean that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” for the purpose of “A well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State”. The internal causal would indicate that because it is known that “A well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, it is concluded that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

The temporal, external causal, and internal causal readings are not equally likely. The ARCHER corpus, for example, contains 37 being-clauses of the relevant type from the second half of the 18th century. Of these, 18 have purely temporal meanings without conditional or causal inferences; 1 is a conditional; 19 have external causal meanings; and there are no internal causals. Statistically, then, the temporal and external causal interpretations of the Second Amendment are the most probable.

In the context of the Second Amendment, these two interpretations are not incompatible. We have seen that external causal meanings often assume temporal ones, since effects usually happen along with their causes. Both a temporal and a causal reading would assert that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” whenever a militia was “necessary to the security of a free State”. The causal reading would additionally assert that the “right” was for the purpose of the necessary militia, and therefore applied whenever the militia was necessary.

A temporal or causal relation between the clauses would mean that the main-clause content was temporally or causally contingent on the being-clause content, and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” would only be asserted when, or for the purpose of, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Interpreting the main clause while ignoring the being-clause would be nonsensical, and certainly contrary to the original intent or understanding of the two clauses.

Of course, understanding the relation between the clauses does nothing to answer the question of how often a “A well regulated Militia” was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free State” and consequently how often “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Perhaps such a militia was thought to be a permanent necessity, in which case the right to bear arms for that purpose would be perpetual. This is an issue for historians, not linguists. It is also a matter of debate as to whether the founders’ opinions on this issue outweigh those of present-day theorists, who might disagree on the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”. This is an issue for legal scholars. However, the history of being-clauses does suggest that the applicability of the Second Amendment’s main clause was temporally and potentially causally contingent on the necessity of the “well regulated Militia” to the “security of the free State”, which may delimit the reasonable range of debate for theorists in other areas. Recognition of this clausal relation may also be helpful for interpreting words and collocations that have been the subject of debate, such as militia and bear arms, since the context of these items would have played a role in disambiguating their meaning.

This linguistic history also makes it clear that the Second Amendment was grammatical and probably unambiguous at the time of its writing. The Bill of Rights, like Shakespeare’s plays, was not badly written. We can blame our incomprehension on the ongoing process of language change – and perhaps on present-day speakers who fail to acknowledge it.
 

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Thanks for posting that.  I did find it interesting.  However, I do believe that it injects more ambiguity than it clears.  None of the rights we have are absolute.  We simply require that restrictions on those rights be subjected to strict scrutiny.  In other words, the government must show a compelling reason for the restriction of those rights.  Public safety and the preservation of the Republic is a compelling interest.  The health and welfare of the public often justifies restrictions on rights, even those listed in the Bill of Rights.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2022 at 2:10 PM, icanthearyou said:

And, another lie.  I have no respect for you.

I’m sure he’s losing sleep……🙄

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2022 at 5:35 PM, GoAU said:

Thompson’s aren’t banned, they can still be bought.  Semi automatic models exist, and if you fill out the tax stamp info you can still get them in full auto (for a very hefty price).  
 

I’m glad you don’t feel disarmed - that and $6.00 will buy you a gallon of gas.  When you are anointed King, that will mean something.  Thankfully the rest of us will follow the Constitution.  
 

You would be horribly outgunned in many shooting competitions,  and some (but not all) self defense situations.   if you have the tools you want, that’s good for you, but gives you no basis to judge others.  

 

 

I KNEW totally what your first sentence would say if you replied. :rolleyes:  (I've been trying to preempt pedantic arguments. I certainly failed in this case.)

Of course, I already knew that Thompsons are "legal" (with restrictions) , but my point still holds.  I don't see Thompsons being mass marketed (thank goodness). Perhaps we should restrict assault rifles in the exact same way (which was my point).

If by "shooting competitions" you mean defending my home, if I can't accomplish that with a shotgun, I suppose I'll just die trying. But if I am besieged by a gang of MAGA outlaws- or the county sheriff department working on their behalf - I'll take a few out first.  But realistically, I am not going survive an attack by the sheriff's department, much less the 82nd Airborne. 

 That sort of makes my point about our gun culture.  When so many people sincerely feel they simply must have a military assault rifle to protect their family, we have a serious problem with fear, paranoia and the "Red Dawn" fantasy of firepower.

Apparently, the dues for such a culture is a regular sacrifice of children or other innocent's in mass shootings. 

If you feel that's me "judging you", so  be it.  But I'd rather believe I am criticizing our culture as a whole.

 

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I KNEW totally what your first sentence would say if you replied. :rolleyes:  (I've been trying to preempt pedantic arguments. I certainly failed in this case.)

Of course, I already knew that Thompsons are "legal" (with restrictions) , but my point still holds.  I don't see Thompsons being mass marketed (thank goodness). Perhaps we should restrict assault rifles in the exact same way (which was my point).

If by "shooting competitions" you mean defending my home, if I can't accomplish that with a shotgun, I suppose I'll just die trying. But if I am besieged by a gang of MAGA outlaws- or the county sheriff department working on their behalf - I'll take a few out first.  But realistically, I am not going survive an attack by the sheriff's department, much less the 82nd Airborne. 

 That sort of makes my point about our gun culture.  When so many people sincerely feel they simply must have a military assault rifle to protect their family, we have a serious problem with fear, paranoia and the "Red Dawn" fantasy of firepower.

Apparently, the dues for such a culture is a regular sacrifice of children or other innocent's in mass shootings. 

If you feel that's me "judging you", so  be it.  But I'd rather believe I am criticizing our culture as a whole.

 

 

Of course it was going to be my first sentence - you incorrectly insinuated that Thompsons were banned, and they are not.  They are less common because they are heavy, expensive, and essentially obsolete,so they are owned by mostly collectors.

By shooting competitions I was referring to exactly that - competitive shooting.  There are several venuses for shooting that use pistols, semi auto ("assault") rifles, and shotguns - was referring to the recreational / sporting applications for these firearms, and then home defense.  

I am not concerned about your judgement myself - was talking about that fact that because you feel there is not a need, doesn't make it so - its just your opinion

image.png

 

https://shopkahrfirearmsgroup.com/auto-ordnance/long-guns/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a shooting in Tulsa yesterday that killed five, including the perpetrator. 

"According to investigators, the 45-year-old purchased an AR-15-style rifle about an hour prior to the shooting from a local retailer, Franklin said. Louis bought the .40-caliber Smith & Wesson pistol used in the shootings on May 29 from an area pawn shop. Officers at the shooting scene found 30 shell casings from the rifle and seven from the pistol rounds, Franklin said."

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gunman-bought-rifle-on-the-same-day-he-killed-4-people-tulsa-police-chief-says/article_950a12be-e27d-11ec-ba92-0ff2bc2e1fe0.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

There has been 20 mass shootings since Uvalde happened. 

 https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

Again, it's possible to believe that we can do something about the 2nd amendment without taking away guns. As much as you may want to discuss about stats or discussing about supporting mental health services (which I agree wholeheartedly) these things still happen as if there's no tomorrow. Ban assault-style weapons. It's maddening that we continue to act as if nothing had happened. This is a live simulation of Russian roulette going on in this country -- 20 mass shootings have occurred since 19 kids and two adults lost their lives in Uvalde. 20 in 8 days. Grisly and unconscionable. 

Edited by AUDynasty
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2022 at 12:06 PM, GoAU said:

The media has misrepresented the issue so thoroughly most Americans aren’t aware of the current requirements of FFLs and NICS checks.  

True

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

War Zone led by a warlord 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

Ban assault-style weapons. It's maddening that we continue to act as if nothing had happened. This is a live simulation of Russian roulette going on in this country -- 20 mass shootings have occurred since 19 kids and two adults lost their lives in Uvalde. 20 in 8 days. Grisly and unconscionable. 

And you will address the weapon that is responsible for about 3% of all firearm homicides.  If you are just looking to “do something” so we can say we did “something or want to feel good about “banning something” this would be a good start.   We could also ban shooting people while we’re at it.  
 

what are the details of the other mass shootings that you referenced?   You do realize this ten is a moving figure that has had its criteria reduced over the years and this is one of the reasons it continues to go up?   Also, I’m going to go out on a limb and venture to guess a good number, if not a vast majority, of these events are gang related.  The same gangs we no longer desire to put / keep in jail and somehow manage to smuggle tons of drugs across the border.  I’m sure they will continue to get guns, even after they are “banned”.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

One city that is run by liberals completely, with a horrible prosecution rate and some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country.   Seems to be working well for them - let’s emulate that nation wide?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

May be an image of text that says 'The people that stay silent about two dozen shootings every weekend in Chicago are now yelling about how "something has to change. Just not in places like Chicago.'

We lost 22 souls in Uvalde. We lose that plus almost every weekend in Chicago.

Last weekend, 32 people in Chicago were shot. 2 Died but 30 more were shot. This is in a city with very strict gun laws. Please do not go Blue Maga here and do the every day jumping to the wrong conclusions here. WE NEED COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS. But, be prepared, the guns that kill approximately 22K/YR in America wont be impacted one iota by more gun laws. You can write 100 new gun laws and they wont be touched. But that is okay in America. It is more important to virtue signal than to really address anything about the 22K that are going to be killed next year. There wont be one death less in 2023, NOT ONE. We have to address BOTH SIDES of the gun supply chain, not just the one for law-abiding citizens that were always going to follow the law anyway. That is really a cop out. We SAY we want to end gun violence but we never actually address the criminal side. How about 1000 new officers and enhanced focus on criminal side? How about any crime committed with a gun gets an automatic 25 years tacked on the sentence? Dont place it in any law, just make it policy. Theft is 15 years, theft with a gun is 15+25.  

Edited by DKW 86
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

And you will address the weapon that is responsible for about 3% of all firearm homicides.  If you are just looking to “do something” so we can say we did “something or want to feel good about “banning something” this would be a good start.   We could also ban shooting people while we’re at it.  
 

what are the details of the other mass shootings that you referenced?   You do realize this ten is a moving figure that has had its criteria reduced over the years and this is one of the reasons it continues to go up?   Also, I’m going to go out on a limb and venture to guess a good number, if not a vast majority, of these events are gang related.  The same gangs we no longer desire to put / keep in jail and somehow manage to smuggle tons of drugs across the border.  I’m sure they will continue to get guns, even after they are “banned”.  

Yes. Even if it's just 3%, saving lives is the priority here. Anything to make this country little safer for you, me, and everyone is worth it. As other posters have pointed out in this thread, no one needs an AR-15. When the police was afraid to face a gunman with AR-15, that tells all you need to know on how potent these things are.

I'd love to make it a nationwide (nay, worldwide) ban for people to shoot at other people, but that's not possible. So, what can we do at the moment just to mitigate and reduce the access of these kind of guns? Otherwise we'll be seeing more Uvaldes, Sandy Hooks, and more in future. And that breaks my heart.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GoAU said:

And you will address the weapon that is responsible for about 3% of all firearm homicides.  If you are just looking to “do something” so we can say we did “something or want to feel good about “banning something” this would be a good start.   We could also ban shooting people while we’re at it.

At the same time, four of the five deadliest mass shootings in the US were done with semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15.  The rate of fire, better accuracy (easier to keep stable), and larger magazine capacities combine to make them much more effective at shooting a lot of people quickly.  And that doesn't even get into things like muzzle velocity that affects how much damage a hit makes to the body of the target.

It's simply a much more effective killing apparatus than a typical handgun such as a 9mm. 

I'll also advocate for "doing something" over doing nothing because it falls short of "doing everything."  Sometimes you have to make the changes you can to make incremental improvements to the state of matters.  I think making it harder to get these kinds of weapons is a good step.  They are deadlier and more dangerous.  It should require a much higher level of scrutiny than purchasing a hunting rifle, shotgun, .38 revolver or 9mm.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

One city that is run by liberals completely, with a horrible prosecution rate and some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country.   Seems to be working well for them - let’s emulate that nation wide?

I mean, you do realize that it's pretty easy to just drive 2 hours out of state to get a gun, right? That's the problem with having one state having restrictive gun laws. They can take a couple hours to go get a gun and bring it back. The only way something like that will work is if the entire country has the same laws. Like every other developed country.

Restrictive gun laws have been proven to work many times but America is too obsessed with their murder weapons.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AUDynasty said:

Yes. Even if it's just 3%, saving lives is the priority here. Anything to make this country little safer for you, me, and everyone is worth it. As other posters have pointed out in this thread, no one needs an AR-15. When the police was afraid to face a gunman with AR-15, that tells all you need to know on how potent these things are.

I'd love to make it a nationwide (nay, worldwide) ban for people to shoot at other people, but that's not possible. So, what can we do at the moment just to mitigate and reduce the access of these kind of guns? Otherwise we'll be seeing more Uvaldes, Sandy Hooks, and more in future. And that breaks my heart.

The police may have been afraid - that's a problem with their police force - training & performance.  It wasn't too big of a threat for an off duty Border Patrol agent and a borrowed shotgun.  As to the "no one needs" comment - purely your opinion.  Go ahead and start surrendering your rights if you want, but surrendering constitutional rights in the name of "doing something" is a bad path to follow.  It amazes me how much people like you are aware to give up, either not knowing or not caring that the people you really need to watch out for aren't going to follow your ban. You realize more people are killed wih knives & "hands and feet" each year than AR-15's, right?

There is a nationwide ban on shooting people - it's called homicide laws.  How's that working for us?

It breaks my heart as well, but actions like this don't fix the issue, it just weakens your ability to defend yourself.

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

At the same time, four of the five deadliest mass shootings in the US were done with semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15.  The rate of fire, better accuracy (easier to keep stable), and larger magazine capacities combine to make them much more effective at shooting a lot of people quickly.  And that doesn't even get into things like muzzle velocity that affects how much damage a hit makes to the body of the target.

It's simply a much more effective killing apparatus than a typical handgun such as a 9mm. 

I'll also advocate for "doing something" over doing nothing because it falls short of "doing everything."  Sometimes you have to make the changes you can to make incremental improvements to the state of matters.  I think making it harder to get these kinds of weapons is a good step.  They are deadlier and more dangerous.  It should require a much higher level of scrutiny than purchasing a hunting rifle, shotgun, .38 revolver or 9mm.

I agree with you that it is a superior weapon from a ballistics standpoint.  So, that being said - if a situation did arise where you had to defend your family, why wouldn't you want the best weapon possible?  Maybe calling 911 works for you - but that's not everyone's primary plan.

According to Biden however, you are incorrect.  That .22 caliber projective that an AR fires will stop in your lung and can be removed, but that 9mm will blow your lungs right out of your chest.

As for "Doing something" - harden the schools, have armed guards, and even raise the national age of "adulthood" to 21 - those would likely have a much higher success factor than just relinquishing rights and hoping that bad guys will suddenly start following the law.

16 minutes ago, tgrogan21 said:

I mean, you do realize that it's pretty easy to just drive 2 hours out of state to get a gun, right? That's the problem with having one state having restrictive gun laws. They can take a couple hours to go get a gun and bring it back. The only way something like that will work is if the entire country has the same laws. Like every other developed country.

Restrictive gun laws have been proven to work many times but America is too obsessed with their murder weapons.

Forget 2 hours, even if we ban them outright, the criminals have been smuggling in hundreds of thousands of tons of drugs a year - the weapons will continue to flow in much the same way,  A black market will still exist, the only people that will follow a silly law like a ban will be the very people that should be armed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I agree with you that it is a superior weapon from a ballistics standpoint.  So, that being said - if a situation did arise where you had to defend your family, why wouldn't you want the best weapon possible?  Maybe calling 911 works for you - but that's not everyone's primary plan.

According to Biden however, you are incorrect.  That .22 caliber projective that an AR fires will stop in your lung and can be removed, but that 9mm will blow your lungs right out of your chest.

The overwhelming majorities of crimes at people's homes are crimes of opportunity - checking cars for unlocked doors and taking whatever is easily accessible or burglarizing the place during the day when no one is home or when people are gone for vacation.  Home invasions where the homeowner is present are high risk propositions - in addition to the basic risks of high risk of being caught on home security cameras or setting off a security system and getting nabbed by the cops, you add the component of getting your ass beat up or shot.

And the dumbasses willing to take that risk aren't generally well-funded crime syndicate types with high powered arsenals and extensive body armor.  They are dipshits trying to make a quick buck stealing laptops, jewelry and electronics to fence for money to buy drugs.  In all but the rarest of cases, your 40 cal or 9mm with JHP ammo or a pump action shotgun will be plenty sufficient to handle business.

 

14 minutes ago, GoAU said:

As for "Doing something" - harden the schools, have armed guards, and even raise the national age of "adulthood" to 21 - those would likely have a much higher success factor than just relinquishing rights and hoping that bad guys will suddenly start following the law.

I don't have a problem with any of those things, but think that making it harder to legally obtain such weapons will also help greatly.  All the available data from our peer nations around the world point to it being a key component of reducing the likelihood of these mass killings as well.  Most of these guys are getting these weapons without breaking the law.  They are either using weapons that another member of their household had but didn't securely store away from their grasp, or walking into any old gun store and buying it with the same level of scrutiny we give to someone buying a tiny 5-shot .22 revolver.  I don't think it's too much to ask to have weapons capable of killing so many people so quickly to require a more extensive list of processes and qualifications to get one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure - most crimes are petty theft, I agree with that.  However, the rates of violent crime are climbing as we choose to enforce less and less laws, are defunding the police and legalizing drugs.  Do you think the trends of violent crimes (needs for defensive use) will go up or down?

Regardless of that, you are omitting the very intent of the 2A

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime will always increase with inequality.   Dumping more guns into fractured society is certainly going to increase the level of violence. 

Pot bad, guns good is foolish.  We can spend in order to be punitive and, never address the root problem or, we can begin to invest in society again.

The idea that guns and prisons are the answer is just evil.  This idea is nothing but a form of genocide.  It is a sick form of war on poverty.  There is NO Jesus in such an unholy endeavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Crime will always increase with inequality.   Dumping more guns into fractured society is certainly going to increase the level of violence. 

Pot bad, guns good is foolish.  We can spend in order to be punitive and, never address the root problem or, we can begin to invest in society again.

The idea that guns and prisons are the answer is just evil.  This idea is nothing but a form of genocide.  It is a sick form of war on poverty.  There is NO Jesus in such an unholy endeavor.

“Dumping” guns into the wrong hands surely would.  Allowing people the ability to defend themselves helps keep them safe and can deter crime. 
 

I agree that the right investments in community are needed, but it’s much more than just spending.  Values around the nuclear family, the roles of fathers / mothers in raising children, teaching values & work ethic to our children are even more important than just throwing money at the problem.  Doing both, is even better, but I don’t think this is just a “throw money at it” issue.  
 

I don’t see enforcing the law as genocide in any way, shape, or form.  The people that commit the crimes generally do it in close proximity to where they live, and they are harming their own communities in most cases.   

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GoAU said:

“Dumping” guns into the wrong hands surely would.  Allowing people the ability to defend themselves helps keep them safe and can deter crime. 
 

I agree that the right investments in community are needed, but it’s much more than just spending.  Values around the nuclear family, the roles of fathers / mothers in raising children, teaching values & work ethic to our children are even more important than just throwing money at the problem.  Doing both, is even better, but I don’t think this is just a “throw money at it” issue.  
 

I don’t see enforcing the law as genocide in any way, shape, or form.  The people that commit the crimes generally do it in close proximity to where they live, and they are harming their own communities in most cases.   

I would never expect someone so lacking in any real sense of humanity, or sincerity,  to comprehend.  The problem with today's values and ethics is best represented by people such as yourself.  You need to work on your heart.

  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 4:26 PM, GoAU said:

Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it?  

Remember all those guns ran by the FBI into Mexico that ended up on our streets back in the day? lol 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting tidbits in this poll:

https://www.insider.com/poll-4-in-10-gop-accept-mass-shootings-free-society-2022-6

More than 4 in 10 Republicans think mass shootings are inevitable in a "free society," according to a new poll by CBS News and YouGov.

The survey results came on the heels of a string of mass shootings across the country that have prompted Congress to once again consider legislation on gun control

One of the questions in the poll asked respondents if they feel that mass shootings are "unfortunately something we have to accept as part of a free society" or "something we can prevent and stop if we really tried." 

In response, 44% of Republicans said mass shootings are inevitable "as part of a free society." Meanwhile, 85% of Democrats and 73% of Independents said mass shootings are preventable "if we really tried." 

For the full poll, it can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mLulXV9rXGLevVOI_XnHJBYsWd_CVqLq/view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...