The simplest solution that will accomplish the task at hand:
Establish legal responsibility for the supply chain
Eliminate large magazines and military style weapons
Reduce weapons ownership to demonstrated need
Crane
If only it were illegal to kill people with drugs, if only we could remove them from society.
Nancy Reagan would be proud of you.
Drugs are off topic
Establish legal responsibility for the supply chain of drugs. Eliminate the sale of needles. Reduce drug ownership to demonstrated need.
When you get done with your gun fantasy you can start on drugs which kill far more children. Remember the good old days 0f 2015 when only 772 teenagers died from drug overdoses. of course there were 52,404 total drug overdose deaths that year so I guess the kids were doing well in that respect.
We couldn’t stop teens from getting the drugs but we could put the solution in the hands of the school and give them Narcan.
We can’t stop someone from attacking a school. We can give the schools the same tools we give the police who will eventually get there. If we’re lucky they’ll actually enter the building.
Is this the old “We can’t do everything so there’s no point in doing anything” dodge? Or just a variation on cars and swimming pools?
When you have a reality-based plan of your own to offer, and show us nearly as much determination to fix the problem as we have to fix the drug problem, no doubt you’ll be eager to show us all. Meanwhile, we can start with your own “Establish legal responsibility for the supply chain of drugs. Eliminate the sale of needles. Reduce drug ownership to demonstrated need.” and change the words as appropriate. Would that be fair, or just a “fantasy” unlike your drug plan?
You were dealing in fantasy solutions so I just applied it to drugs to show you how pointless it was.
I just showed you. We provide Narcan as a solution to drug overdoses because we can’t stop drug usage. We’re doing the same thing to schools all over the country and that’s to arm teachers. That’s the solution because we can’t eliminate guns and more importantly we can’t stop someone intent on murder.
Your drug posts are a superficial dodge.
Something like what I proposed will form the ultimate solution. No fantasy at all.
Registration and responsibility is key. Elimination of military style weapons is a must.
The current situation is absurd.
Crane
The solution to drugs is not more drugs, we agree. But you think the solution to guns is more guns?
Correction: You just don’t feel like it.
Ah yes, the “they’ll just use knives or chainsaws or cars or swimming pools instead” dodge. Sorry for leaving that out.
Just tell us what Cruz’ body count would have been with a machete but without a semiautomatic, please. A rough estimate will do.
And those with aids will bite.
This is actually a very good idea. We should have a chain of responsibility for legally purchased drugs that go to the black market. Unfortunately, unlike guns, most drugs are never sold legally in the first place, so that has very limited effect.
Although, eliminating the sale of needles means that there are several million diabetics you just sentenced to death.
Drugs certainly are a problem, and many solutions towards the drug problem should also lower gun violence. But, just like with guns, what we are doing isn’t working, so we should do something else.
Why do you take that as a given that we cannot stop someone from attacking a school? We haven’t really tried.
Difference between narcan and guns. Narcan’s primary design and effect is to save lives, a gun’s primary design and effect is to end them.
The only items that could be used that would have a similar or higher body count, however, are illegal and difficult to obtain by a private citizen. Namely, things with high radioactivity or high explosive potential.
Even though “something else will replace them” sounds like a reasonable argument, it isn’t; even if all we do is LOWER the body count by limiting the legal guns to those that fire fewer rounds at slower speed, that still means fewer people died.
We could make it legal for private citizens to own nuclear bombs too. But we don’t, because we recognize a substantial difference in the potential in harm between someone shooting everyone in sight, and someone detonating a nuke.
No, we’re not “always told” that.
In fact, we’re told that most of those attacking a school came from that school, had a grievance against that school and didn’t care whether they survived their attack.
In fact, some evidence even seems to indicate that they were attracted to the fact that they wouldn’t survive the attack. About half seem to be essentially suicide by cop while making a statement of a sort. Other significant fraction were simply indifferent to survival.
All in all, a major shootout with armed opposition may well be an objective, not a deterrent.
Catch up with the thread. We are, in fact, told that by those who wish to arm teachers right in this very thread.
That doesn’t contradict what I said in the slightest, in fact, it is pretty much a paraphrase of what I said. I would think you are agreeing with me, if it were not for your disagreeing tone.
Then take that up with Magiver, who I was responding to, who seems to think that creating an armed opposition inside the school will deter potential shooters.
Agreed - armed opposition will be an attractant.
A chain of responsibility for firearms could well make them less available to those who shouldn’t have them.
Australia is one example, in that improper storage of guns is a serious deal under their law.
Such law would have made it far more clear to the foster parents of the FL shooter as to their responsibility - not that one instance proves a point.
This should be studied a LOT more.
Here’s an article on guns that are exported from a state and then used in crime - interesting, at least. What are these states doing that makes them suppliers of guns used in crimes in other states?
Of course the discussion is moot. The administration and Congress will do nothing.
Crane
*This *administration and *this *Congress.
Excellent point!
The chain of responsibility is a good start. It doesn’t get into the fringe arguments and doesn’t conflict with the 2nd amendment.
Crane