And ANOTHER school shooting

[Fenixgoon]

It is meaningless because it has absolutely nothing to do with gun deaths. We're all going to die, I'd just rather not be shot to death because some idiot couldn't get laid or he was angry because his GF dumped him. That's not an accidental death like dying in a car accident. Besides, cars are pretty damned safe these days.

Every time one of these shootings comes up someone chimes in about how dangerous cars are and we should ban them. It's a ridiculous comparison and I wish people would stop making it. Cars aren't designed to kill people. The fact that they do has nothing to do with the gun deaths or gun violence nor is it relatable.

Statistically, you're probably more likely to drown or die of a heart attack but you know what? We actually try to prevent those deaths too. Yet we do nothing about gun deaths.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is. The more it happens the more I tend to agree with those calling for more gun restrictions though. Arming more people is definitely not the answer. More guns=more accidents and more shootings.

To make a real difference, the two biggest things are getting people adequate mental health care (suicide prevebtion) and ending the war on drugs. Do those two and you will prevent far more deaths. Mass shootings are noise compared to suicide and drug/gang violence.

There's literally orders of magnitudes difference. Mass shooting fatalities are around 100/year. Suicides are 18000, and firearm homicides are 15000, with the majority (9000ish) being by handguns. You can pull these from the FBI's uniform crime statistics.

But people like sensational news stories, not facts. A few white kids gets more attention than the daily devastation in the inner city communities that are mostly black.

 

[DrPizza]

It was an argument at a frat.

Losing it Dr. Pizza! I'm telling ya!

No. Look at 50 or so years ago. Many boys, maybe even a majority of boys in many areas of the country would normally be carrying a pocket knife. Back then, disagreements would have been settled with their fists. Even if they had knives in their pockets, pulling out the knife wasn't even a consideration during a fight, winner or loser. Somehow over the past several decades, an idea which rarely occurred during a fight - use a weapon - became more and more common. The more frequently someone hears about someone settling the score with a gun, I believe, the more likely they are to make a snap, irrational decision, where evening the score trumps even their own self-preservation.

 

[JulesMaximus]

To make a real difference, the two biggest things are getting people adequate mental health care (suicide prevebtion) and ending the war on drugs. Do those two and you will prevent far more deaths. Mass shootings are noise compared to suicide and drug/gang violence.

There's literally orders of magnitudes difference. Mass shooting fatalities are around 100/year. Suicides are 18000, and firearm homicides are 15000, with the majority (9000ish) being by handguns. You can pull these from the FBI's uniform crime statistics.

But people like sensational news stories, not facts. A few white kids gets more attention than the daily devastation in the inner city communities that are mostly black.

Society doesn't want to help the mentally ill. That would be too much like socialism... and lord knows we don't want socialism.

 

[slightlyhuman]

really sad. it won't make me change my lifestyle, ever but damn what do you do law wise? i'm a responsible gun owner/supporter but fucking A something needs to be done or looked at. i don't know the solution but what we have currently isn't working.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Technically, guns aren't protected under the constitution either. The right to form militias are, and last I checked nobody has signed up for militia duty. People tend to skip past the first part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and go right to the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" part.

Ummmm NO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[ImpulsE69]

really sad. it won't make me change my lifestyle, ever but damn what do you do law wise? i'm a responsible gun owner/supporter but fucking A something needs to be done or looked at. i don't know the solution but what we have currently isn't working.

There is no law that would stop these things. That is what is wrong with the way people approach it.

War is wrong, genocide is wrong. Corporations poisoning their customers in the name of profits is wrong. Yet...it happens, constantly throughout history. Humans by their very nature are self important, self centered and bad.

Some won't go on a killing spree simply because of their morals, virtues, beliefs, whatever you want to call it...but even that can be twisted by others agendas.

Some won't go on a killing spree simply because once you've made that step, you either kill yourself or face the punishment. That alone is enough to stop most 'sane' people.

The truth is, you have to know what is going to happen to be able to stop it. Even trusted people will hide their true intentions. You would a need Minority Report scenario. You won't ever be able to police everyone 24/7. As bad as it might sound, the world is overpopulated, these actions are the minority and over sensationalized to be worse than they are. There are far worse things happening in the world by comparison.

 

[CZroe]

http://youtu.be/CquUBWHU2_s
Meh. Just stumbled on it.

 

[zinfamous]

Seems the courts generally disagree with you there, otherwise I would think they'd be banned by now.

This activist court does, sure. Heller is what, 7, 9 years old? 200+ years of Supreme court interpretation, prior to Heller, very much paid attention to, and interpreted the "militia clause" of the 2nd amendment. History!

Ban activist judges!

 

[sdifox]

2nd amendment is just red herring. Say a government is so bad to the point that people want to revolt, do you think said government is going to follow the constitution and allow the militia to assemble and gather arms? Or that people will not pick up arms because the 2nd amendment doesn't exist?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This activist court does, sure. Heller is what, 7, 9 years old? 200+ years of Supreme court interpretation, prior to Heller, very much paid attention to, and interpreted the "militia clause" of the 2nd amendment. History!

Ban activist judges!

Examples? Were there many gun-control laws 100 years ago to even necessitate an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Ruptga]

Examples? Were there many gun-control laws 100 years ago to even necessitate an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

Gun control laws go back to the Holy Roman Emperors around 1517, at least, so why don't you tell us.

 

[MongGrel]

2nd amendment is just red herring. Say a government is so bad to the point that people want to revolt, do you think said government is going to follow the constitution and allow the militia to assemble and gather arms? Or that people will not pick up arms because the 2nd amendment doesn't exist?

It pretty much seems to be these days in reality.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Gun control laws go back to the Holy Roman Emperors around 1517, at least, so why don't you tell us.

Yes, I forgot that the United States used to be a colony of the Holy Roman Empire, point conceded.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So you're saying it's just the Hatfields in Harlem? And that if they were reduced to stabbing each other, they'd blow off steam quicker and be like, "Ayy no biggie man"?

Yea, that sums it up. When you're stabbing each other it's way harder to assault someone's mother, child, sister, etc. The collateral damage goes down dramatically and thus the inculcation of further clans into the violence goes down dramatically.

 

[Ruptga]

Yes, I forgot that the United States used to be a colony of the Holy Roman Empire, point conceded.

Game, set, and match.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

2nd amendment is just red herring. Say a government is so bad to the point that people want to revolt, do you think said government is going to follow the constitution and allow the militia to assemble and gather arms? Or that people will not pick up arms because the 2nd amendment doesn't exist?

I'm against gun ownership, but Louder with Crowder is right: the left is being lied to. It is clear from the historic documents that the intent of the law was to allow individuals to have what are now classified as high-powered assault rifles, but at the time were just called 'hunting rifles'.

In fact, the power of the hunting rifle over the pathetic, but easy to mass-produce, musket was a big reason we fended off the British in the first place.

That said, it is clear George Washington thought that those who owned guns should be trained to use the gun and given a uniform so that they may join the military as needed:


"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."[1]

[1] First State of The Union Address

 

[Fritzo]

Seems the courts generally disagree with you there, otherwise I would think they'd be banned by now.

The courts do agree. However there is no specific federal law forbidding firearms. The 2nd amendment is just frequently quoted for something other than its intent.

 

[Fritzo]

Ummmm NO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=1GNu7ldL1LM

I'm glad you get your Constitutional history from a guy that does card tricks for a living.

 

[Fritzo]

To make a real difference, the two biggest things are getting people adequate mental health care (suicide prevebtion) and ending the war on drugs. Do those two and you will prevent far more deaths. Mass shootings are noise compared to suicide and drug/gang violence.

There's literally orders of magnitudes difference. Mass shooting fatalities are around 100/year. Suicides are 18000, and firearm homicides are 15000, with the majority (9000ish) being by handguns. You can pull these from the FBI's uniform crime statistics.

But people like sensational news stories, not facts. A few white kids gets more attention than the daily devastation in the inner city communities that are mostly black.

I'm not sure how mental health care would help... Most people that need mental health care don't seek it.

 

[Fritzo]

This was not a lone gunman armed to the teeth looking to be headline news, this was a confrontation that escalated, it wasn't about anyone being "noticed" whatsoever.

In this case. I was speaking in general.

 

[sdifox]

I'm against gun ownership, but Louder with Crowder is right: the left is being lied to. It is clear from the historic documents that the intent of the law was to allow individuals to have what are now classified as high-powered assault rifles, but at the time were just called 'hunting rifles'.

In fact, the power of the hunting rifle over the pathetic, but easy to mass-produce, musket was a big reason we fended off the British in the first place.

That said, it is clear George Washington thought that those who owned guns should be trained to use the gun and given a uniform so that they may join the military as needed:


"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."[1]

[1] First State of The Union Address

And that would fit the 2nd amendment perfectly, the key being well trained uniformed militia, which is not what is happening. The amount of training required to own a gun is lower than that of a driver's licence

The army reserve is what was envisioned.

 

[LegendKiller]

The courts do agree. However there is no specific federal law forbidding firearms. The 2nd amendment is just frequently quoted for something other than its intent.

Yeah, there's so much dissent on this... Please show where any serious legal scholar has been able to find an interpretation and push it through the USSC. Because this is settled law.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And that would fit the 2nd amendment perfectly, the key being well trained uniformed militia, which is not what is happening. The amount of training required to own a gun is lower than that of a driver's licence

The army reserve is what was envisioned.

I think it's really clear then: We should require military training for anyone that wants to own a gun, and they should be subject to being called up for the common defense.

Problem solved.

 

[BUTCH1]

In this case. I was speaking in general.

Then why would you post this,
"It's almost a part of our culture now, you know? It seems with the Internet always showing us extreme things, people feel they have to do something extreme to be noticed."
when it simply does not apply "in general" or at all with this incident.

 

[pontifex]

Technically, guns aren't protected under the constitution either. The right to form militias are, and last I checked nobody has signed up for militia duty. People tend to skip past the first part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and go right to the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" part.

are you a native english speaking person? if yes, then go back to school