Of course, the real total number of gun deaths for Sunday is far higher. But hey, what's a few thousand deaths every month as long as Goober McFuckface can buy a gun as easily as he can buy a ham sandwich? That's what's important, right?
GOP: blood on its hands.
So, what do we do to solve these tragedies..or curb their incidence ? Confiscate and burn all guns..is that the ultimate be all end all solution? Add stricter penalties / enhance purchase restrictions? Enact a new War and Peace sized list of background check laws? Universal background check mandate? What about the illegal gun trade...ban flea markets and basements? Punish gun manufacturers and/or distributors every time some nut job or group of nut jobs goes off the rails? Use AI technology to covertly screen the entire population for psychiatric wellness and/or tendency for shooting - related mayhem? How accurate / useful would that be? Enhance enforcement of the laws already on the books ( that would be a good start, imo)? Deport all citizens who support the second amendment ( or ..deport all the conservatives and issue three - strikes-and - you're - out citations to any Democrats who own / approve of gun use?) . Pass an amendment that negates the " right to keep and bear arms" that is constitutionally protected? Reargue the militia vs individual citizen debate that's been ongoing since the Bill of Rights was enacted ? Boycott and ultimately abolish the NRA? Bring your checkbook and a lot of stamina for that last one.
Congress passed semi-sweeping firearm access and mental health community programs legislation last year, and there are pending Executive Orders to further restrict gun acquisition. Those laws / intended actions include interdiction of illegal gun trade components, which are a huge source of the guns in this country / worldwide. It hasn't prevented a recent slew of shootings. Meanwhile , an increasing proportion of the population has seemingly gone further off the rails. What do we blame that on..lingering Covid effects on our psyches?
How are you going to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys/ gals? Historically, regarding gun legislation ( and other unnamed issues), Congress and administrations are largely reactive vs preventative in their bill introductions and law passage efforts. Every time we have one of these horrid events involving mass murder / shootings, Congress reps collectively jump through their asses with the opposing sides racing to the microphone to state their case / position / solution. The reactive response is almost as annoying as the tragic incidents themselves...at least imo, because of the snail-paced beneficial improvements. Maybe it's my inherent impatience level with these reps..probably all my fault.
You have the floor..how do we begin to solve it? Or do we just to continue to scream at it and belittle the opposing side? That hasn't done any good to date..look at Congress? I'd suggest you might address the mental health screening components for background check / red flag issues (there are nut jobs out there who will use other means besides firearms to hurt / murder people..they already have and will with increasing frequency if guns are banned/ immensely restricted) . Then address enhanced enforcement of current laws. Enhanced enforcement is hard to accomplish when law enforcement numbers and their associated morale in certain communities are decreased. State laws regarding gun access / requirements /ownership vary a ton..that's an entirely different fight beyond passage of federal laws, obviously. Your mythical Goober McFuckFace guy is not going to change his mind because you're screaming at him. I'd suggest you tar and feather the nut jobs with another approach, which likely won't work either.
Add on edit question: Do you think the lone officer who was just coincidentally at the strip mall site acted heroically by putting this shooter down before more lives were lost? Or did he make a mistake / break some moral tenet?
Charles, why reinvent the wheel? Australia offers a working model of how to do it. Just adopt the same plan. They also had a Frontier culture like we did.
I'll answer your last question first. The officer acted responsibly. Not heroically. I don't think there's any ideological conflict about how to deal with active shooters.
Now, as for your larger question: the first thing we need to do is chuck overboard the silly notion that there are so many guns out there, we can't do anything anyway. The reality is that gun restriction, not gun eradication, is a realistic and effective goal.
Case study: Australia. Gun culture, lotsa murders, you know the drill. Then one fine day, they passed a near-total gun ban. There was bitching. There was griping. There was moaning. Then the murder rate dropped by 93%.
The Second Amendment confers a collective, not an individual right. It is explicitly worded to that effect. The Supreme Court was dead wrong on the matter, which is part of the present problem.
But entirely aside from whatever restrictions, mild or draconian, we may wish to impose, there's another, more fundamental change that must take place. We have to de-romanticize and de-fetishize guns. Why is the hero of every movie the manly man who guns down 137 bad guys (never missing even once)? Why is every cinematic (and TV) crisis solved by Gun Man Ex Machina bounding onto the scene? And why does every Walter Mitty keep a gun in his nightstand, lying awake and fantasizing about getting the drop on some foul miscreant and filling him with holes, with the happy result that his wife will have sex with him (Ooh, my hero!!"), when the most likely actual event is, he'll shoot the neighbor's cat?
My reaction to firing or even touching a gun is simple revulsion. However, I'm in the minority. For far too many people, such thoughts give them an erection. What do we do to cure that? I don't know. Maybe publish full-color photos of the bodies of schoolchildren slaughtered by some asshole? You know, blood, burst skulls, gaping holes in chests, arms blown off? Would THAT do it??
The iconic image of guns isn't John Wayne; it's the director of the funeral parlor. It's fucking well time we realized that.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Looks pretty clear to me that people can have guns; but kevin has a 3rd grade reading level
Originally posted by: tom
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Looks pretty clear to me that people can have guns; but kevin has a 3rd grade reading level
"The people" is not the same as "a person."
Idiot goobers like you have made this elementary reading comprehension error many times.
Tom, It is dishonest to omit the part before the comma.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you aren't a member of a well-regulated militia, you don't have a right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment was a response to the British action of making members of the various colonial militias turn in their military-issued firearms when they weren't fighting on behalf of the crown.
You know, it's funny how few people understand that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was meticulously crafted by extremely intelligent people and each and every word was argued over for weeks. So when a passage says something, it means precisely what it says.
There are many other rights of the people that are enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments, and many of them may NOT be exercised by a lone individual.
Also, the stupid Tommie-poo types willfully ignore the leading clause of the Amendment.
Originally posted by: Mark
Tom, It is dishonest to omit the part before the comma.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you aren't a member of a well-regulated militia, you don't have a right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment was a response to the British action of making members of the various colonial militias turn in their military-issued firearms when they weren't fighting on behalf of the crown.
And thus..the centuries - long debate. What about case law, Mark? You ought to have some access to those? Didn't the Heller Supreme Court ruling bolster individual citizen's rights to 'keep and bear arms'? I think so.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
And thus..the centuries - long debate. What about case law, Mark? You ought to have some access to those? Didn't the Heller Supreme Court ruling bolster individual citizen's rights to 'keep and bear arms'? I think so.
It did so in blatant violation of the Constitution. It got bumped to third on the all-time SCOTUS bad decision list by the recent abortion abortion (first, of course, is Dred Scott).
Surely you're aware of the history of that decision and the politics and pressures behind it? It didn't even resemble an honest consideration of the topic. Read the affirming judges' opinions if you want a real eye-opener.
Funny, I thought that giving up the "right" to mete out deadly force to anyone who looks at you the wrong way was one of the first signs a place was becoming civilized. I guess we've regressed.
