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

[GoAU 1,600]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I know it isn't, but perfect cannot be the enemy of good if we are ever going to make progress.  We had an assault weapons ban in this country until a few years ago. I believe it expired in 2004.  It barred magazines that held more than 10 rounds by civilians.  It prohibited the manufacture or sale for civilian use of certain semi-automatic weapons.  Nobody was walking around in 2003 feeling as though they couldn't defend themselves.  That ban was constitutional then and would clearly be today.

We have got to stop making everything about the letter next to someone's name on a ballot.  THAT is killing this country.  We are all Americans and we all need to do all we can to make this country a place worthy of leaving for future generations.  Instead, too many seem content with getting all they can and leaving the place debt ridden and some modern version of the wild West.

The 2004 AWB was bovine manure then, and had no impact whatsoever.   
 

I do agree that party lines cause way too many issues and is polarizing society.  The constituents and the Constitution need to come first. 

[autigeremt 6,599]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Please, stop it.  You are making yourself more foolish by the moment.  You know, neither party, no politician, makes laws in a vacuum.

You know the economic and political forces at work.

 

So now I’m a fool. Nice work 

I stand by what I said!!! If they cared they would do it for the right reasons even if it costs them a few friends. No moral compass. 

[AU9377 4,926]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

The 2004 AWB was bovine manure then, and had no impact whatsoever.   
 

I do agree that party lines cause way too many issues and is polarizing society.  The constituents and the Constitution need to come first. 

Had that law been in effect, the young man that killed 19 children yesterday would not have been able to legally buy the weapons he chose to do what he did.  Could he have lugged several rifles and shotguns into a classroom and killed kids, yes, but I want to cut off the stream and make it as difficult as possible for someone to do this.  Instead, we just say "oh well."

[GoAU 1,600]

5 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

first off i am a gun owner. and you are wrong about cops and guns. i have heard them state how much more dangerous their job is now so enough with that unless you have a link. those school kids are just as important as babies. as for the border less folks are coming across than ever before in our history. as far as demonizing cops we are for doing the right thing like not murdering someone that does not have a gun. i have family that were in law enforcement civilian and military.if you go to the control room in anniston popo department you will see an american flag with a blue stripe on it that i gifted them when they were under a lot of heat.  you can come up with all the lame  excuses you want but you just cannot compare mass murder to other things. the fact is your choice does not trump the rights everyday citizens to keep from getting their ass shot off everytime you leave the house. all i can see is a selfish person who does not care what happens to others as long as they get to keep a certain type of gun. and before you continue to sling mistruths about my family you should ask first. i will tell you. again i am a gun owner but we need real laws that are steps forward in protecting folks. is it hard for you to try to seek a solution other than basically calling someone a liar and watching kids get murdered in cold blood. it is going to happen over and over again until something is done. so you are basically saying you are ok with that? can you really have it both ways? come on man. tell me your number of children deaths before you realize you could have been trying to find a solution?

First, I certainly did not intend to cast any mistruth or opinions on your family - I don’t know you or your family, but was talking about the left / democrats in general with regards to their view of police.  
 

Secondly - my stance on cops and their views on guns comes from shooting in multiple competitive matches across the southeast.  It is far from a single data point.  I can certainly provide links to numerous examples of police in support of firearm ownership if you would like, but I don’t think it would change a thing.  
 

You may see me as selfish for retaining my rights, and the right to protect my family and others.  I see you as naïve if you think these laws and bans will do anything but disarm law abiding people and embolden criminals (the the democrats refuse to address).  
 

The “I am a gun owner” argument means nothing - there is no moral high ground for you there.  Concede your rights if you wish, that’s your call.  
 

My solution is addressing what is CAUSING these issues, and an AR-15 never jumped in somebody’s hand and started shooting itself.  
 

Look at mental health, social media, school bullying (in person & virtual), drug use (prescription and not) etc and find out what is triggering these kids.  The Buffalo shooter laid his motives out very well - quarantines had a big impact.   
 

 

[aubiefifty 16,761]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

First, I certainly did not intend to cast any mistruth or opinions on your family - I don’t know you or your family, but was talking about the left / democrats in general with regards to their view of police.  
 

Secondly - my stance on cops and their views on guns comes from shooting in multiple competitive matches across the southeast.  It is far from a single data point.  I can certainly provide links to numerous examples of police in support of firearm ownership if you would like, but I don’t think it would change a thing.  
 

You may see me as selfish for retaining my rights, and the right to protect my family and others.  I see you as naïve if you think these laws and bans will do anything but disarm law abiding people and embolden criminals (the the democrats refuse to address).  
 

The “I am a gun owner” argument means nothing - there is no moral high ground for you there.  Concede your rights if you wish, that’s your call.  
 

My solution is addressing what is CAUSING these issues, and an AR-15 never jumped in somebody’s hand and started shooting itself.  
 

Look at mental health, social media, school bullying (in person & virtual), drug use (prescription and not) etc and find out what is triggering these kids.  The Buffalo shooter laid his motives out very well - quarantines had a big impact.   
 

 

did you see this in the earlier video? here is the most important thing kerr said..........Kerr accused a group of senators of defying the will of the American people by not acting on H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act that the House approved more than a year ago. the percentage of american people wanting this is 79%. i am pretty sure this is a majority in this country but it falls on deaf ears. to be completely blunt which i am anyway is the right just does not frigging care. period. it is shameful.

[GoAU 1,600]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

did you see this in the earlier video? here is the most important thing kerr said..........Kerr accused a group of senators of defying the will of the American people by not acting on H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act that the House approved more than a year ago. the percentage of american people wanting this is 79%. i am pretty sure this is a majority in this country but it falls on deaf ears. to be completely blunt which i am anyway is the right just does not frigging care. period. it is shameful.

Are you aware of the lack of information presented when the majority of Americans are polled on this subject?  It’s just like the words “common sense”.  
 

please briefly explain what you are referring to by “Universal” background checks and how they would be enforced?  The media has misrepresented the issue so thoroughly most Americans aren’t aware of the current requirements of FFLs and NICS checks.  
 

I am not opposed to current checks and have only ever bought firearms from FFLs, but I don’t see any way to extend this to private parties without a national firearms registry, and I am opposed to that.  

[icanthearyou 4,462]

11 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

So now I’m a fool. Nice work 

I stand by what I said!!! If they cared they would do it for the right reasons even if it costs them a few friends. No moral compass. 

Oh, now you fault reasoning, not the legislation. 

I cannot think of anything more moral than limiting suffering and saving lives.

A society with the most liberal gun laws in the word, a country with the least developed social safety net in the developed world, has by far and away the highest incidences of mass murder.  You offer no solutions, only blame to the very people who are trying to change it.

Your standing with the gun lobby is immoral.  It is your moral compass that is off.

[aubiefifty 16,761]

1 hour ago, AUDynasty said:

My God. This just breaks my heart.

it should break everyone hearts but some are more angry they might lose a right to carry certain weapons

[icanthearyou 4,462]

13 minutes ago, GoAU said:

My solution is addressing what is CAUSING these issues, and an AR-15 never jumped in somebody’s hand and started shooting itself.

Can you be anymore disingenuous?  This is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one.  It's sole purpose is to be the most efficient killing machine readily available. 

To inject such a weapon into society is irresponsible, cruel, unnecessary. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

Heartbreaking.   Mental health needs to be addressed.  Banning guns is an expedient "solution" to say we are "doing something" but stripping Constitutional rights from an entire nation is not the solution.

There are some regulations, requirements, restrictions, etc that could probably lessen the chances of these things occurring that could be done without "banning" guns altogether.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

There are some regulations, requirements, restrictions, etc that could probably lessen the chances of these things occurring that could be done without "banning" guns altogether.

No one has even suggested banning guns altogether?  Why do we allow the extremes to define the argument?

[tgrogan21 6,198]

9 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No one has even suggested banning guns altogether?  Why do we allow the extremes to define the argument?

I personally would be 100% okay to have all guns banned but I've never advocated for it. I only want to have common sense gun control laws. Universal backgrounds, closing loopholes, raising the minimum age to legally buy one. Maybe NOT have a state loosen the gun laws so much that in Texas you don't even need a permit to open carry.

Edited May 25, 2022 by tgrogan21

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The bottom line is, none of our Western civilization peers have anywhere near the same problems with mass shootings.  It might behoove us to take a look at some of the things they are doing to make their societies exponentially (note: not "perfectly") safer from these kinds of events.  I don't think Americans by nature are more evil than the average person from Western Europe, Canada or Australia.  Much of what works for them can work for us too if we have the sense to learn.

And no, it doesn't mean a near total ban on firearms like you see in the UK, Belgium and places like that.  Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Sweden and others all have laws that allow people to own handguns and rifles and such.  They do often have some restrictions on certain classes of weapons that are higher powered or have the potential to fire more rounds rapidly.  But often those aren't impossible to get either.  They usually require registration, safety training, sometimes mental health evaluations, have red flag laws with actual teeth to them and so on. 

Also, let's be realistic - if anyone thinks the Second Amendment in this era of human history actually prevents a tyrannical government with the US Military at its disposal from taking over, they're dreaming.  You can stockpile all the AKs, ARs, ammo and whatnot you want.  You have guns, they have tanks and armored vehicles, armed drones, fighter jets and bombers, attack helicopters, guided bombs, grenades, you name it.  You aren't going to start a revolution or defend against tyranny and win because of the 2A. 

Today, the 2nd Amendment's primary value is personal protection.  It's to allow you to have a firearm at home in case of a break-in/home invasion while you and your family are there, or to have a handgun on you (concealed carry) for protection against muggers and other deranged people who'd try to harm you or those around you in a public space.  It's against criminals.  Perhaps looking at whatever regulations we put in place with that in mind would help us craft them well and stop thwarting any effort at effective legislation with strawmen about defending ourselves against the government.

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

And to everyone saying mental healthcare is the issue. 

 

Would you be in favor of new government funded programs to guarantee easily accessible mental healthcare access even to those who cant's afford it and don't have insurance? Mental healthcare that's funded by taxes and government programs? Might increase taxes. 

Private free market solutions wont work. There isn't money to be made in providing expensive mental health services to the dirt poor and people who aren't capable of working. Giving an incentive to make profit over an incentive to provide a service isn't how mental healthcare is supposed to work and it isn't how it effectively works. 

 

Republicans say it's not guns, it's mental health. But is there realistically a mental healthcare solution the Republicans would ever accept or vote for? I'm not sure. 

M4A including Mental Healthcare. 

[autigeremt 6,599]

41 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Oh, now you fault reasoning, not the legislation. 

I cannot think of anything more moral than limiting suffering and saving lives.

A society with the most liberal gun laws in the word, a country with the least developed social safety net in the developed world, has by far and away the highest incidences of mass murder.  You offer no solutions, only blame to the very people who are trying to change it.

Your standing with the gun lobby is immoral.  It is your moral compass that is off.

I’m standing by my rights as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution I swore to protect. You can shove the gun lobby up ……… 

don’t lecture me on saving lives. I’ve done more directly to do that in one week than you have in a lifetime

[GoAU 1,600]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The bottom line is, none of our Western civilization peers have anywhere near the same problems with mass shootings.  It might behoove us to take a look at some of the things they are doing to make their societies exponentially (note: not "perfectly") safer from these kinds of events.  I don't think Americans by nature are more evil than the average person from Western Europe, Canada or Australia.  Much of what works for them can work for us too if we have the sense to learn.

And no, it doesn't mean a near total ban on firearms like you see in the UK, Belgium and places like that.  Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Sweden and others all have laws that allow people to own handguns and rifles and such.  They do often have some restrictions on certain classes of weapons that are higher powered or have the potential to fire more rounds rapidly.  But often those aren't impossible to get either.  They usually require registration, safety training, sometimes mental health evaluations, have red flag laws with actual teeth to them and so on. 

Also, let's be realistic - if anyone thinks the Second Amendment in this era of human history actually prevents a tyrannical government with the US Military at its disposal from taking over, they're dreaming.  You can stockpile all the AKs, ARs, ammo and whatnot you want.  You have guns, they have tanks and armored vehicles, armed drones, fighter jets and bombers, attack helicopters, guided bombs, grenades, you name it.  You aren't going to start a revolution or defend against tyranny and win because of the 2A. 

Today, the 2nd Amendment's primary value is personal protection.  It's to allow you to have a firearm at home in case of a break-in/home invasion while you and your family are there, or to have a handgun on you (concealed carry) for protection against muggers and other deranged people who'd try to harm you or those around you in a public space.  It's against criminals.  Perhaps looking at whatever regulations we put in place with that in mind would help us craft them well and stop thwarting any effort at effective legislation with strawmen about defending ourselves against the government.

The Ukraine disagrees with you.  One of the first things they did was to distribute  weapons to the population.   
 

I thoroughly disagree with your statement about an armed populace not being a deterrent.   The first thing any tyrannical government does is to disarm the populace.  This was most recently demonstrated by the Taliban after they gained control of Afghanistan (thanks Brandon….).  
 

the Afghans proved to be very hard to fight with nothing more than small arms, as did the Viet Cong.  As someone who spent a great deal of time, training and experience in small unit tactics you can not underestimate the impact that can be made.  

[AU9377 4,926]

Listening to Texas politicians, including Ted Cruz and Gov Abbot talk about needing prayer right now is sickening.  They use God in a time like this, but they don't use God or Christ's example when they encourage these types of weapons be owned and easily obtainable.  What would Christ say about weapons meant for war and the killing of humans?

[AU9377 4,926]

5 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I’m standing by my rights as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution I swore to protect. You can shove the gun lobby up ……… 

don’t lecture me on saving lives. I’ve done more directly to do that in one week than you have in a lifetime

That constitution does not say that limits cannot be imposed on the ownership of these type weapons.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, autigeremt said:

I’m standing by my rights as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution I swore to protect. You can shove the gun lobby up ……… 

don’t lecture me on saving lives. I’ve done more directly to do that in one week than you have in a lifetime

No.  You complain yet, you oppose most reasonable solutions.  There is no threat to the constitution.  That is pure rhetoric.

You are lost my friend.  You have allowed emotions to replace your ability to genuinely consider.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

The Ukraine disagrees with you.  One of the first things they did was to distribute  weapons to the population.   

Don't kid yourself.  If all Ukraine had were rifles and handguns, Russia would have run them over a long time ago.  What's kept them in this battle this long was that they also had military weaponry of their own, but they are also getting massive amounts of modern military weaponry from the US and NATO along with high level intelligence from us and other powers to help.

 

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

I thoroughly disagree with your statement about an armed populace not being a deterrent.   The first thing any tyrannical government does is to disarm the populace.  This was most recently demonstrated by the Taliban after they gained control of Afghanistan (thanks Brandon….).

The Taliban military and the US military and their respective capabilities aren't in the same galaxy.

 

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

the Afghans proved to be very hard to fight with nothing more than small arms, as did the Viet Cong.  As someone who spent a great deal of time, training and experience in small unit tactics you can not underestimate the impact that can be made.  

They're hard to fight if one side is trying to do it in a humane way and not have the entire populace revolt against you being there.  If a tyrant wants to subjugate you, and is willing to be brutal to do it, your handguns and ARs aren't going to stop it.  Period.

Under any other circumstance, the kind of warfare Russia (even with all its bumbling) has engaged in with Ukraine, would have mowed down the opposition were they only armed with firearms.  But as I said before, Ukraine isn't just fighting a modern military power with firearms.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

5 minutes ago, GoAU said:

The Ukraine disagrees with you.  One of the first things they did was to distribute  weapons to the population.   
 

I thoroughly disagree with your statement about an armed populace not being a deterrent.   The first thing any tyrannical government does is to disarm the populace.  This was most recently demonstrated by the Taliban after they gained control of Afghanistan (thanks Brandon….).  
 

the Afghans proved to be very hard to fight with nothing more than small arms, as did the Viet Cong.  As someone who spent a great deal of time, training and experience in small unit tactics you can not underestimate the impact that can be made.  

Again, totally disingenuous.  What is happening in the Ukraine, Afghanistan, has absolutely nothing to do with school shooting in America, NOTHING.

You have been indoctrinated by the gun lobby and, the cowardly gun culture.

[GoAU 1,600]

33 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No one has even suggested banning guns altogether?  Why do we allow the extremes to define the argument?

Because that’s where it has to ultimately lead.  Starts with high-cap mags and semi auto, then level actions and revolvers.  The left wants to erode firearm ownership to nothing, don’t try and sugarcoat it.  As the tool changes, then we need to “ban” more.  We will continue to do that, but without addressing the root cause, the results will not change.  
 

But what will happen is the 500k-3M (per the CDC) defensive firearm uses a year will be eliminated and more people will become helpless victims. 

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Again, totally disingenuous.  What is happening in the Ukraine, Afghanistan, has absolutely nothing to do with school shooting in America, NOTHING.

You have been indoctrinated by the gun lobby and, the cowardly gun culture.

Not true, the ability (or restriction of said ability) to defend one’s self is a common denominator. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

Because that’s where it has to ultimately lead.  Starts with high-cap mags and semi auto, then level actions and revolvers.  The left wants to erode firearm ownership to nothing, don’t try and sugarcoat it.  As the tool changes, then we need to “ban” more.  We will continue to do that, but without addressing the root cause, the results will not change. 

Then how have all these Western European countries managed to live for decades with various regulations and restrictions allowing for gun ownership but not banning them?  There is nothing inherent in *some* kind of gun regulation that could make it a lot harder for people to pull something like this off that has to "ultimately lead" to a total ban. 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No.  You complain yet, you oppose most reasonable solutions.  There is no threat to the constitution.  That is pure rhetoric.

You are lost my friend.  You have allowed emotions to replace your ability to genuinely consider.

Just because you view something as reasonable does not make it so.  It’s a very subjective statement.  You try to force your views as reasonable, but clearly a lot of people disagree.