Another Mass Shooting in the Good Ol' USA

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Why you keep tilting at windmills by feeding the troll is a puzzle, old friend. You can't possibly think that engaging with Mike Whell is going to change his shitty behavior here.

Thanks.

Your definition of "shitty behavior" is anyone disagreeing with you. My definition of shitty behavior doesn't include that. It does include leveraging six murders to make political hay, which is behavior that is apparently just fine with you as you joined "the liberal majority" in post 3 of this thread.

I'm far more at ease with my definition than yours.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your side doesn't get to pick the time to discuss gun control. Besides, a mass shooting has occurred at least daily so far this year. Do we have to wait until there are no more shootings before it's appropriate to discuss them?

https://abc7news.com/there-have-been...hows/13030909/

My "side"? What "side" am I on, Finn?

How is this about "gun control"? Why is it not about the shooter? Why is this not about the shooter's mental state, intent, etc? How in the hell would "gun control" have stopped this?

[donquixote99]

Other countries do not have these frequent mass shootings. Is it that Americans are more violent and crazy than people in other countries, or is it that America has lax protections against the violent and crazy obtaining deadly guns?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

My "side"? What "side" am I on, Finn?

How is this about "gun control"? Why is it not about the shooter? Why is this not about the shooter's mental state, intent, etc? How in the hell would "gun control" have stopped this?

Gun control is about keeping people such as this emotionally troubled person from becoming a "shooter." Per the Nashville police chief the school shooter bought 7 guns despite being "under treatment for an emotional disorder" — but police did not have the power to take them. That's because Tennessee has no red flag law.

As for your "side," you're on the side of ignorance and illiberalism on pretty much every issue.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

How in the hell would "gun control" have stopped this?

Um, that's pretty simple. Interpret the 2nd amendment correctly, as it was written. Ban all automatic weapons, which were designed for war. Only allow single-round guns for civilians. Problem solved. Easy peasy.

Unfortunately, there are WAY too many people like you unwilling to admit that this gross violence is a direct result of automatic weapons, and crying loudly about how (somehow) your "rights" would be "violated" by sensible laws.

[Pio1980]

Wishing it away by blaming the victims for victimhood won't work.
We are tied into an irrational poorly regulated system with corporate for-profit interests that arms unqualified dangerous persons with advanced lethal weaponry.

[finnbow]

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Other countries do not have these frequent mass shootings. Is it that Americans are more violent and crazy than people in other countries, or is it that America has lax protections against the violent and crazy obtaining deadly guns?

Two problems with that argument:

1) If it were about the ease with which "the violent and crazy obtain deadly guns", then we wouldn't be talking about only the rise in mass shootings. We'd be talking about the rise in violent crime involving firearms across the board. The "violent and crazy" wouldn't limit themselves only to mass shootings. And that's just not the case. Over the last 25 years, violent crimes have trended way down.

2) In fact, the TN shooter legally obtained the firearms that she used. The guns in the deadliest mass shooting cases were all legally purchased, including the shootings in CA and Washington DC, jurisdictions that have enacted some of the strongest gun violence prevention legislation in the nation.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Gun control is about keeping people such as this emotionally troubled person from becoming a "shooter." As for your "side," you're on the side of ignorance and illiberalism on pretty much every issue.

Those laws were already on the books in TN. It was also included in last year's Federal Safer Communities Act. Or did "your side" forget about that?

Originally Posted by Chicks

Um, that's pretty simple. Interpret the 2nd amendment correctly, as it was written. Ban all automatic weapons, which were designed for war. Only allow single-round guns for civilians. Problem solved. Easy peasy.

Unfortunately, there are WAY too many people like you unwilling to admit that this gross violence is a direct result of automatic weapons, and crying loudly about how (somehow) your "rights" would be "violated" by sensible laws.

The sale of fully-automatic firearms is already prohibited in the US unless the firearms was registered before 1986. So, they're out there, but very expensive. I doubt the average mass shooter who plans to off himself/herself afrer the shooting is going to fork over $10K or more for a fully auto gun.

Please show me where the 2nd Amendment "as written" allows the "banning" of any class of weapons. Also, as far as I know, most of these types of shootings did not involve automatic weapons. Have a look at the ABC News link above. Some of them where perpetrated using hand guns.

Blaming the gun makes no sense to me. The gun doesn't load itself or transport itself to the scene of the crime. It doesn't select its target. It doesn't pull its own trigger.

There's a human being doing it, usually a significantly flawed or damaged human being. There are already laws that prevent such people from purchasing guns. And, if we're being honest, an individual who is bent on committing the illegal act of murder isn't likely going to be bothered by whether or not the gun they plan to use was purchased legally.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

Please show me where the 2nd Amendment "as written" allows the "banning" of any class of weapons.

They should only be allowed in a "well regulated militia", which the 2nd Amendment types today totally ignore. The 2nd says nothing about firearms outside of a "well regulated militia", as Chief Justice Warren Burger pointed out. But that's WAY too obvious for a simple-minded person like you.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Please show me where the 2nd Amendment "as written" allows the "banning" of any class of weapons.

Automatic weapons, weapons with silencers, and shotguns with barrels less than 18" in length have been heavily regulated since 1934 by the National Firearms Act and assault weapons were highly (and effectively regulated) in 2013.

In other words, there are plenty of ways to regulate firearms IAW the 2nd Amendment if Republicans had the interests of innocent people at heart rather than those of gun manufacturers and wingnut anarchists.

That said, the 2nd Amendment should itself be amended to serve the interests of the citizens of modern-day America. Its primary objective, a well-regulated militia, was important to the Founders because of the expense of maintaining a standing army. Indeed, they allowed the Continental Army to dwindle down to 500 infantry and 100 artillerymen immediately after the Revolutionary War. We didn't even have a military academy for another 20 years thereafter.