“The NRA has sought to let the teenagers participate as “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” because NRA workers had received threats after the attack.”
Oh, NRA! How snowflakeish of you. Instead, why don’t you surround your John and Jane Doe with around the clock “good guy with a gun” so nothing can come of these threats. Or, just offer their families your thoughts and prayers.
Again, give those snowflakes some protection by a “good guy with a gun” around the clock. Or, after they are killed, just offer their families and friends thoughts and prayers. Thanks for teeing that up for me!
At 18 you can join the military, get married, get a hunting license, vote in state and federal elections and considered an adult. Therefor if the Florida legislature considers 21 age of adulthood than all other afore noted activities should be denied till age 21. You cannot split hairs for each activity at determining the age of responsibility.
Florida legislatures have determined parental consent marriage and driving at 16, tobacco at 18, drinking at 21. Seems like they split hairs on a number of activities by age of responsibility.
The precedent was set when the people decided with the passage of the 26 Amendment to the Constitution that 18 year olds are “adult” enough to vote therefore they should be “adult” enough to own any legal firearm. Recall that when the German people voted for Hitler, they enabled him to kill more people than individuals ever could with privately owned firearms.
Jack,
I would say that is about gun control, not really taking away guns. Do we not have a limit to free speech in our society as well(libel, defamation of character, hate speech are not protected)? I personally do not believe someone should have to own that, but I do believe you should own a handgun, hunting rifle, or a shotgun for hunting. From my experience the only reason to have a semiautomatic gun was for fun. I do believe if you want to shoot one, gun ranges should be allowed to carry this so a person can use the weapon in a safe area. Also, semi automatic guns should require a higher degree of training. I also believe if you want to own a gun you should have to go through training so you know how to properly store and use it. I know the NRA does provide some of these classes as well (not really relevant, just acknowledging that I agree with some things the NRA does)
Re: ” If we are going to get rid of gun control entirely, I want a tank!”
Bring your wallet and Google drivetanks dot com
May 18, 2018 at 12:30 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
No, I mean, I want to own one. Your website proves our point about shooting ranges and semi-autos.
May 18, 2018 at 1:20 pm
jim smith says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
@Captain Planet
Re: “No, I mean, I want to own one”
And under the provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) you can if you can afford it. Also Drive Tanks occasionally has some tanks that are for sale
Re: “Your website proves our point about shooting ranges and semi-autos”
No – your “point” is that the only place a person should be able to use those weapons is at sanctioned range (probably government licensed and controlled) where it is “allowed”. The reality is a person can currently do it anyplace where it is not prohibited by state of local ordinances.
May 18, 2018 at 11:25 am
jim smith says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Re: “Do we not have a limit to free speech in our society as well(libel, defamation of character, hate speech are not protected)?”
Those “limits” are the ramifications of illegally using “free speech”. Unlike with firearms, no one is talking about cutting out your tongue or gagging you to prevent you from ever saying something that violates a “limit”
Re: ” I do believe you should own a handgun, hunting rifle, or a shotgun for hunting”
The Second Amendment is not about “hunting”, target shooting or home defense. Its purpose is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights – specifically “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons and the militia was equally matched with the Continental Army. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or prevent a “misconstruction or abuse, of the government’s powers” – so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who – for whatever reason – don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. The problem is history has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.
If you want to make that argument, how many quill pens and pieces of parchment paper do you want?
May 18, 2018 at 1:17 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
Man jim smith,
I’ve read “the pen is mightier than the sword” but you are stretching pretty thin here comparing murdering instruments to writing instruments. Better luck next time.
May 18, 2018 at 1:26 pm
jim smith says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
@Captain Planet
Re: “but you are stretching pretty thin here comparing murdering instruments to writing instruments”
They are both Constitutional rights and the Constitution says nothing about limiting the capabilities of either.
May 18, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
OK, perfect, so I want a tank! Maybe a nuke, too. Full circle, bud.
May 18, 2018 at 4:06 pm
jim smith says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
@Captain Planet
Re: “Maybe a nuke, too. Full circle, bud”
As near as I can tell there is no law specifically prohibiting owning a nuclear weapon if you can afford one. However there are federal restrictions on the possession and storage of fissile material, regulations about the possession, manufacture, transportation and storage of explosives as well as local ordinances so you would have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it to be legal. The only codified restriction on weapons I am aware of is civilians cannot own fully automatic machine guns manufactured after 1986. However, according to the BATF there are currently 175977 fully automatic, pre-1986 legal machine guns in civilian hands and I can find only one that was used in a crime since 1934 and that was by a police officer that killed an informant – and since he was a police officer it’s not clear if the firearm belonged to him or his department.
May 18, 2018 at 11:28 am
jim smith says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Re: “Also, semi automatic guns should require a higher degree of training”
Re: ” I would say that is about gun control, not really taking away guns”
In 1976 a gentleman by the name of Nelson Shields said the following “The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.” Nelson Shields was one of the founders of Handgun Control Inc which is better known under their current “re-branded” name as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In 1987 another gentleman by the name of Josh Sugarmann said regarding so called assault weapons “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” In a Jan/Feb 1994 interview in Mother Jones Magazine he said, “To end the crisis [gun violence], we have to regulate- or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban- the product…. We are far past the where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence.”
In 1988 in response to an NRA comment about criminals always being able to get handguns Sugarmann also said “The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns”. On 11/4/99 he said in a NYT interview “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls — such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines — and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns. Real gun control will take courage. In the long run, half-measures and compromises only sacrifice lives.” Josh Sugarmann is currently the head and founder of the Violence policy Center and was one of the founders of The Coalition to Ban Handguns which is better known under their current “re-branded” name as The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. While the names and tactics of these organizations may have changed, the goals and a lot of the personnel remain the same.
Psst; mental health screening and security officers in schools, churches, malls, and other soft targets. No need for unnecessary, unconstitutional legislation or EOs. Guns are mainly used to defend oneself.
I don’t think there is a remedy. I know how this will be received but the women’s liberation movement, welfare, humanism and post-modernism are problems that can’t be solved overnight. There is no truth any more. Each person gets to determine their own truth and whatever makes you feel good is your truth. When one determines their own truth their morals are the same. They get to determine what is right from wrong, or worse yet, there is no wrong any more. Anything goes, no matter how it affects others. Families broke down because women could be paid by the government for NOT being married and birthing multiple kids with no dad brought in more welfare money . When women left the home to work to make more money and then decided that they don’t need men and started raising, even adopting, kids without the influence of a father figure, things went down hill. When it became “normal” to kill your kid because you want to live a care free life and not be burdened by the baby conceived from sleeping around, and men didn’t want to be saddled with a child because why buy the cow when you can get the milk free, respect for life has gone down the tubes. Now you have liberal women gushing about how many abortions they have had and want the government to pay for them as health care. It’s disgusting and no wonder that there is no respect for life. Why is it more shocking to some people that someone commits murder of high school kids when all these kids have known their entire lives is that human life doesn’t matter. Millions of abortions are committed annually in the US. You sleep around and the girl gets an abortion so no one has to be responsible.
I understand that there are still moral people but the Dems want more of the people described above so that they can remain in power. So many people are happy to live on the government tit which isn’t much of a life but they can collect enough to get by and not work, smoke their dope, drink, etc.. These people used to be in the minority but more and more you see kids being raised by one parent, or a grandparent because their parents are strung out on drugs, their intact parents are so consumed with their own lives that their kids are raising themselves. Ask any teacher these days what kids are having to deal with in their homes. They have a hard time learning at school because of the problems at home. In our mid sized town seven kids in one high school have committed suicide this year. Some of the ones I have personal knowledge of were being raised in privileged homes. Most were not. Drugs is a real problem too for these messed up kids and drugs don’t know any social boundaries. Some parents are hooked on prescription drugs or using marijuana, cocaine, etc. They think they’re hiding this from their kids? Kids are smart.
Drugs are a major cause of suicide.
If as much time and effort was spent on eliminating drugs as is being spent on banning guns it might make a little difference for some of these young people. Instead people want to make some drug use legal.
Perplexed wrote, “Each person gets to determine their own truth and whatever makes you feel good is your truth…You sleep around and the girl gets an abortion so no one has to be responsible.”
And I’m willing to bet you voted for who you are describing above – Tramp (allegedly).
Actually, I don’t vote. I don’t think much of Donald Trump. Never even wondered about his “love life” because I don’t hold much respect for people that declare bankruptcy and leave others holding the bag. He thinks of it as a business deal and I see it as a moral issue.
It’s going to take honest liberals who say out loud that they want to go door-to-door and round up all guns. Any other talk about “common sense gun control” is just nibbling around the edges and anyone who wants to find a gun will find one. There are 300 million of them in America.
So, Sal, you want to volunteer to go door to door to round up 300 million weapons?
These mass shootings almost never happened 30 years ago when there were more homes with guns in them than today.
There is something else going on than just guns. Ignoring that truth is what simpletons do when the only focus on the tool, and not the reasons there are so many people willing to kill en masse now.
Never said that I wanted to ban guns, Craig, just that we need to do something. I don’t know the solution for this and have never claimed to. Or, we could just take your suggestion and do absolutely nothing
Answer me this, since you seem to have all the answers: WHY does the US lead the world in school shootings? What is it about us? Must be the left, right? Yeah, that’s it. Let’s just sit around blaming everyone and then be shocked when it happens again.
Grow up, dude. This is real life. Go back to your little Hannity and Alex Jones and spew your tripe there. This is a business site…act like a professional. We’re all sick of your crap.
.
Now come back and give a ton of examples of people on the left doing worse, because that’s really what it’s about to you.
I repeatedly offered an olive branch to you, trying many times to have a decent and civil discussion where we could stay on point and discuss the ISSUES, without blaming one side or the other. You repeatedly slapped the olive branch away. I never should’ve bothered…You’ve proven time and time again you have no interest in civility, only blaming “liberals” for your misery.
My response was perfectly civil, and I made very valid points.
If you are not willing to go door to door to collect guns, you will never stop gun violence in a country with 300 million guns. The ultimate test is whether you are willing to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, including black citizens who need guns for their own protection.
If you are not willing to do that, then please tell me what your plan is. Tell me one thing that would have stopped any of these shootings. “Assault rifles” is so silly, a term that is truly without a definition, and one that is pointless when handguns have 12 round magazines.
Your overly-sensitive response tells me you aren’t serious. Truly, these mass shootings did not happen so frequently 30 years ago. And blaming guns is silly.
May 22, 2018 at 8:20 am
sal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I humbly apologize for my over sensitivity, however, as a parent of two beautiful little girls, my absolute worst nightmare is getting a call that my child’s school was the site of yet another school shooting. NOBODY should ever get that call. I’ve mentioned it before, but I actually attended kindergarten at Sandy Hook Elementary back in the early 1980’s, so that one hit close to home. It makes me absolutely sick that the Alex Jones crowd accused the parents of faking their kids’ deaths to try and take guns away, to the point where the parents were getting death threats. I know that both sides of the aisle tend to capitalize on tragedy, and that’s honestly one of the reasons I’ve been turning away from politics more than ever. There’s too much anger and too little compromise, and nothing ever changes.
I don’t know what the solution is, and I’ve never claimed to. Realistically, you can’t take guns away from everyone, nor should you…there are plenty of good people who own guns (my father being one of them), and in some cases they’re absolutely necessary for protection. All I know is we have to do SOMETHING besides offering “thoughts and prayers”, because it’s going to happen again.
Best of luck to you all out there. Hug your kids a little tighter today.
May 21, 2018 at 9:33 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
It will take school security officers, armed with guns and other security devices enables on doors and other entrances. Same goes for places of worship, malls, stadiums, etc.
Addendum; have you seen ARMED security personnel at airports and stadiums, and perhaps at malls? If so, why wouldn’t they be appropriate at schools? Here’s another clue; politicians ALWAYS have armed guards around them at ALL public places.
I’m not saying that I disagree with you, about needing more security. My church is actually having to start having “active shooter drills,” which is SICK that we’ve reached that stage.
But why don’t other countries need all the armed security in schools? We’re a first world country.
we glorify violence in our movies and music, perhaps more than elsewhere.
family breakdown is more pronounced here than many other countries. (In Europe, unmarried fathers are expected to be involved in the lives of their kids. Here, not so much.)
social media may be more mean spirited here.
Social isolation may be worse here.
May 21, 2018 at 9:27 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
Defend yourself while in control of your mental faculties? Sure. Potentially harm yourself or others by acting stupidly while intoxicated? Nope.
Can I supersize that?
“The NRA has sought to let the teenagers participate as “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” because NRA workers had received threats after the attack.”
Oh, NRA! How snowflakeish of you. Instead, why don’t you surround your John and Jane Doe with around the clock “good guy with a gun” so nothing can come of these threats. Or, just offer their families your thoughts and prayers.
Have the brave protestors received any death threats? Thanks for that slow pitch over the heart of the plate!
Again, give those snowflakes some protection by a “good guy with a gun” around the clock. Or, after they are killed, just offer their families and friends thoughts and prayers. Thanks for teeing that up for me!
At 18 you can join the military, get married, get a hunting license, vote in state and federal elections and considered an adult. Therefor if the Florida legislature considers 21 age of adulthood than all other afore noted activities should be denied till age 21. You cannot split hairs for each activity at determining the age of responsibility.
Florida legislatures have determined parental consent marriage and driving at 16, tobacco at 18, drinking at 21. Seems like they split hairs on a number of activities by age of responsibility.
Yes, you can split hairs. See “stay on parent’s health insurance plan til age 26”.
The precedent was set when the people decided with the passage of the 26 Amendment to the Constitution that 18 year olds are “adult” enough to vote therefore they should be “adult” enough to own any legal firearm. Recall that when the German people voted for Hitler, they enabled him to kill more people than individuals ever could with privately owned firearms.
“I don’t think anyone should be able to buy a semiautomatic gun”
Thanks… when someone says “No one wants to ban guns” I will point to this post to prove them wrong.
Jack,
I would say that is about gun control, not really taking away guns. Do we not have a limit to free speech in our society as well(libel, defamation of character, hate speech are not protected)? I personally do not believe someone should have to own that, but I do believe you should own a handgun, hunting rifle, or a shotgun for hunting. From my experience the only reason to have a semiautomatic gun was for fun. I do believe if you want to shoot one, gun ranges should be allowed to carry this so a person can use the weapon in a safe area. Also, semi automatic guns should require a higher degree of training. I also believe if you want to own a gun you should have to go through training so you know how to properly store and use it. I know the NRA does provide some of these classes as well (not really relevant, just acknowledging that I agree with some things the NRA does)
I will echo you, helpingout – my sentiments pretty much exactly.
Oh, and one more thing. If we are going to get rid of gun control entirely, I want a tank!
Re: ” If we are going to get rid of gun control entirely, I want a tank!”
Bring your wallet and Google drivetanks dot com
No, I mean, I want to own one. Your website proves our point about shooting ranges and semi-autos.
@Captain Planet
Re: “No, I mean, I want to own one”
And under the provisions of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) you can if you can afford it. Also Drive Tanks occasionally has some tanks that are for sale
Re: “Your website proves our point about shooting ranges and semi-autos”
No – your “point” is that the only place a person should be able to use those weapons is at sanctioned range (probably government licensed and controlled) where it is “allowed”. The reality is a person can currently do it anyplace where it is not prohibited by state of local ordinances.
Re: “Do we not have a limit to free speech in our society as well(libel, defamation of character, hate speech are not protected)?”
Those “limits” are the ramifications of illegally using “free speech”. Unlike with firearms, no one is talking about cutting out your tongue or gagging you to prevent you from ever saying something that violates a “limit”
Re: ” I do believe you should own a handgun, hunting rifle, or a shotgun for hunting”
The Second Amendment is not about “hunting”, target shooting or home defense. Its purpose is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights – specifically “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons and the militia was equally matched with the Continental Army. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or prevent a “misconstruction or abuse, of the government’s powers” – so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who – for whatever reason – don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. The problem is history has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.
Cool, what militia are you a member of and how many muskets do you want?
Re: “what militia are you a member of”
The unorganized one as codified in 10 USC 246
Re: “how many muskets do you want?”
If you want to make that argument, how many quill pens and pieces of parchment paper do you want?
Man jim smith,
I’ve read “the pen is mightier than the sword” but you are stretching pretty thin here comparing murdering instruments to writing instruments. Better luck next time.
@Captain Planet
Re: “but you are stretching pretty thin here comparing murdering instruments to writing instruments”
They are both Constitutional rights and the Constitution says nothing about limiting the capabilities of either.
OK, perfect, so I want a tank! Maybe a nuke, too. Full circle, bud.
@Captain Planet
Re: “Maybe a nuke, too. Full circle, bud”
As near as I can tell there is no law specifically prohibiting owning a nuclear weapon if you can afford one. However there are federal restrictions on the possession and storage of fissile material, regulations about the possession, manufacture, transportation and storage of explosives as well as local ordinances so you would have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it to be legal. The only codified restriction on weapons I am aware of is civilians cannot own fully automatic machine guns manufactured after 1986. However, according to the BATF there are currently 175977 fully automatic, pre-1986 legal machine guns in civilian hands and I can find only one that was used in a crime since 1934 and that was by a police officer that killed an informant – and since he was a police officer it’s not clear if the firearm belonged to him or his department.
Re: “Also, semi automatic guns should require a higher degree of training”
Like what?
Re: ” I would say that is about gun control, not really taking away guns”
In 1976 a gentleman by the name of Nelson Shields said the following “The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.” Nelson Shields was one of the founders of Handgun Control Inc which is better known under their current “re-branded” name as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In 1987 another gentleman by the name of Josh Sugarmann said regarding so called assault weapons “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” In a Jan/Feb 1994 interview in Mother Jones Magazine he said, “To end the crisis [gun violence], we have to regulate- or, in the case of handguns and assault weapons, completely ban- the product…. We are far past the where registration, licensing, safety training, background checks, or waiting periods will have much effect on firearms violence.”
In 1988 in response to an NRA comment about criminals always being able to get handguns Sugarmann also said “The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns”. On 11/4/99 he said in a NYT interview “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls — such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines — and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns. Real gun control will take courage. In the long run, half-measures and compromises only sacrifice lives.” Josh Sugarmann is currently the head and founder of the Violence policy Center and was one of the founders of The Coalition to Ban Handguns which is better known under their current “re-branded” name as The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. While the names and tactics of these organizations may have changed, the goals and a lot of the personnel remain the same.
Psst; mental health screening and security officers in schools, churches, malls, and other soft targets. No need for unnecessary, unconstitutional legislation or EOs. Guns are mainly used to defend oneself.
another day, another school shooting…8 dead this time, in TEXAS, of all places.
How many more, folks? What’s it going to take?
I don’t think there is a remedy. I know how this will be received but the women’s liberation movement, welfare, humanism and post-modernism are problems that can’t be solved overnight. There is no truth any more. Each person gets to determine their own truth and whatever makes you feel good is your truth. When one determines their own truth their morals are the same. They get to determine what is right from wrong, or worse yet, there is no wrong any more. Anything goes, no matter how it affects others. Families broke down because women could be paid by the government for NOT being married and birthing multiple kids with no dad brought in more welfare money . When women left the home to work to make more money and then decided that they don’t need men and started raising, even adopting, kids without the influence of a father figure, things went down hill. When it became “normal” to kill your kid because you want to live a care free life and not be burdened by the baby conceived from sleeping around, and men didn’t want to be saddled with a child because why buy the cow when you can get the milk free, respect for life has gone down the tubes. Now you have liberal women gushing about how many abortions they have had and want the government to pay for them as health care. It’s disgusting and no wonder that there is no respect for life. Why is it more shocking to some people that someone commits murder of high school kids when all these kids have known their entire lives is that human life doesn’t matter. Millions of abortions are committed annually in the US. You sleep around and the girl gets an abortion so no one has to be responsible.
I understand that there are still moral people but the Dems want more of the people described above so that they can remain in power. So many people are happy to live on the government tit which isn’t much of a life but they can collect enough to get by and not work, smoke their dope, drink, etc.. These people used to be in the minority but more and more you see kids being raised by one parent, or a grandparent because their parents are strung out on drugs, their intact parents are so consumed with their own lives that their kids are raising themselves. Ask any teacher these days what kids are having to deal with in their homes. They have a hard time learning at school because of the problems at home. In our mid sized town seven kids in one high school have committed suicide this year. Some of the ones I have personal knowledge of were being raised in privileged homes. Most were not. Drugs is a real problem too for these messed up kids and drugs don’t know any social boundaries. Some parents are hooked on prescription drugs or using marijuana, cocaine, etc. They think they’re hiding this from their kids? Kids are smart.
Drugs are a major cause of suicide.
If as much time and effort was spent on eliminating drugs as is being spent on banning guns it might make a little difference for some of these young people. Instead people want to make some drug use legal.
Perplexed wrote, “Each person gets to determine their own truth and whatever makes you feel good is your truth…You sleep around and the girl gets an abortion so no one has to be responsible.”
And I’m willing to bet you voted for who you are describing above – Tramp (allegedly).
Actually, I don’t vote. I don’t think much of Donald Trump. Never even wondered about his “love life” because I don’t hold much respect for people that declare bankruptcy and leave others holding the bag. He thinks of it as a business deal and I see it as a moral issue.
It’s going to take honest liberals who say out loud that they want to go door-to-door and round up all guns. Any other talk about “common sense gun control” is just nibbling around the edges and anyone who wants to find a gun will find one. There are 300 million of them in America.
So, Sal, you want to volunteer to go door to door to round up 300 million weapons?
These mass shootings almost never happened 30 years ago when there were more homes with guns in them than today.
There is something else going on than just guns. Ignoring that truth is what simpletons do when the only focus on the tool, and not the reasons there are so many people willing to kill en masse now.
Never said that I wanted to ban guns, Craig, just that we need to do something. I don’t know the solution for this and have never claimed to. Or, we could just take your suggestion and do absolutely nothing
Answer me this, since you seem to have all the answers: WHY does the US lead the world in school shootings? What is it about us? Must be the left, right? Yeah, that’s it. Let’s just sit around blaming everyone and then be shocked when it happens again.
Grow up, dude. This is real life. Go back to your little Hannity and Alex Jones and spew your tripe there. This is a business site…act like a professional. We’re all sick of your crap.
.
Now come back and give a ton of examples of people on the left doing worse, because that’s really what it’s about to you.
Craig–
I repeatedly offered an olive branch to you, trying many times to have a decent and civil discussion where we could stay on point and discuss the ISSUES, without blaming one side or the other. You repeatedly slapped the olive branch away. I never should’ve bothered…You’ve proven time and time again you have no interest in civility, only blaming “liberals” for your misery.
Good luck to you.
My response was perfectly civil, and I made very valid points.
If you are not willing to go door to door to collect guns, you will never stop gun violence in a country with 300 million guns. The ultimate test is whether you are willing to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, including black citizens who need guns for their own protection.
If you are not willing to do that, then please tell me what your plan is. Tell me one thing that would have stopped any of these shootings. “Assault rifles” is so silly, a term that is truly without a definition, and one that is pointless when handguns have 12 round magazines.
Your overly-sensitive response tells me you aren’t serious. Truly, these mass shootings did not happen so frequently 30 years ago. And blaming guns is silly.
I humbly apologize for my over sensitivity, however, as a parent of two beautiful little girls, my absolute worst nightmare is getting a call that my child’s school was the site of yet another school shooting. NOBODY should ever get that call. I’ve mentioned it before, but I actually attended kindergarten at Sandy Hook Elementary back in the early 1980’s, so that one hit close to home. It makes me absolutely sick that the Alex Jones crowd accused the parents of faking their kids’ deaths to try and take guns away, to the point where the parents were getting death threats. I know that both sides of the aisle tend to capitalize on tragedy, and that’s honestly one of the reasons I’ve been turning away from politics more than ever. There’s too much anger and too little compromise, and nothing ever changes.
I don’t know what the solution is, and I’ve never claimed to. Realistically, you can’t take guns away from everyone, nor should you…there are plenty of good people who own guns (my father being one of them), and in some cases they’re absolutely necessary for protection. All I know is we have to do SOMETHING besides offering “thoughts and prayers”, because it’s going to happen again.
Best of luck to you all out there. Hug your kids a little tighter today.
It will take school security officers, armed with guns and other security devices enables on doors and other entrances. Same goes for places of worship, malls, stadiums, etc.
Addendum; have you seen ARMED security personnel at airports and stadiums, and perhaps at malls? If so, why wouldn’t they be appropriate at schools? Here’s another clue; politicians ALWAYS have armed guards around them at ALL public places.
I’m not saying that I disagree with you, about needing more security. My church is actually having to start having “active shooter drills,” which is SICK that we’ve reached that stage.
But why don’t other countries need all the armed security in schools? We’re a first world country.
Here are some possibilities:
we glorify violence in our movies and music, perhaps more than elsewhere.
family breakdown is more pronounced here than many other countries. (In Europe, unmarried fathers are expected to be involved in the lives of their kids. Here, not so much.)
social media may be more mean spirited here.
Social isolation may be worse here.
Defend yourself while in control of your mental faculties? Sure. Potentially harm yourself or others by acting stupidly while intoxicated? Nope.