Thanks for finding that. It’s obvious fiction, but the writing is so terrible it makes me feel better about my own.
Over 200 posts, and only a couple acknowledge the real problem here. The nation needs to face the problem of people who are so mentally or emotionally disturbed that they believe murdering many people in a gun-free zone is a solution to their problems.
Five pages of magical thinking that getting rid of all guns will somehow erase the diseases or the trauma of life that leads people to ideation of murder.
The OP may not have started with that premise, but that’s where the conversation will go when the discussion is “protecting children from guns” instead of “protecting children from fame-seeking homicidal madmen”.
Florida is the best example of this. The shooter had a long history of criminal activity, but in the interests of ending the “school to prison pipeline” his behavior was never reported to the authorities, and he was able to buy guns legally. Same with the TX church shooting; the man should never have been able to buy guns.
Taking away my right to self-defense will never solve the problem of ignoring red flags.
That’s rather dismissive of what people on both sides of the argument have said.
This could be a good point, except that he was reported to the authorities, and the authorities declined to do anything about it.
Right, he was not supposed to buy guns, but authorities didn’t take that prohibition seriously enough to actually report it. They valued his freedom to continue to have guns over the consequences of him having them.
No one wants to do that. OTOH, with the gun culture the way it is, red flags were ignored because acknowledging them would have meant taking away someone’s guns.
The magical thinking here is thinking that you can detect even a few of the people who fall into this category. You think parents will turn kids in? Do you want the government to monitor all social media postings for the slightest hint of a problem. Do you want to haul anyone who makes a comment which could be interpreted as disturbed in for an examination.
Do you want to turn the country into a police state in order to protect the right to have any kind of gun? Is that your idea of freedom?
What is your idea of freedom? Do you tend to think more in terms of “freedom to do” or “freedom from?”
No one. Literally, no one, wants to take away your right to self defense. Stop saying that because it isn’t true.
Rea flags are not always visible, so they are not a reliable way to fix anything. (See Vegas, etc.)
That’s not true. The NRA wants to take away everyone’s right to self-defense, and they’ve been pretty successful at it so far. If I’m going to defend myself, I want to do it using the most effective tools available, and the rest of the world has very clearly demonstrated that anti-gun laws are a much more effective tool for defense than guns are.
That’d be a compelling argument if only it were true.
I’m not sure whether it’s true or not, but I know it is true the NRA is a shitbag organization that is a front for an industry that sells fear to the public and that is complicit in killing innocent people including children.
Which part do you claim isn’t true? The fact that anti-gun laws work in every country that has them, or the fact that the NRA works to prevent anti-gun laws?
Did you read this entire thread? Because a number of times here posters have said they wish to get rid of all guns. The most effective way of defending myself against a criminal with evil intentions is a gun. Take away all guns, and I have what? Pepper spray?
Oh, you are highly confused. The most effective way of defending yourself against a criminal with evil intentions is to pre-emptivly kill all people on the planet other than you. That is the most effective way. I guarantee that. You will then move to a city and live off canned goods until you die.
Based on the evidence from other countries, the most effective way of defending yourself is to take the guns away from criminals.
(This leads to less school shootings, for example.)
DrDeth made the same claim upthread. When challenged to prove it, he stated that advocating for the repeal of 2A is the same thing as wanting to get rid of all guns. When challenged on that assertion, he admitted that perhaps there is a difference between those two positions. See Post #139.
He could not prove that anybody in this thread has stated that they wished to get rid of all guns. Can you?
I did nothing of the sort.
As I said, there is no reason to get rid of the 2nd except to start mass gun banning and confiscation. And the only way to stop all school shootings is to get rid of all guns- which isnt going to happen.
Any reasonable gun laws can be passed without repealing the 2nd.
Hardened schools aren’t ideal, but since it only takes one gun to carry out a school shooting, and there are 300,000,000 guns in America, it’s the only way a school can be truly safe from a shooting. It’s like airport security; it makes more sense to have security at the airport to prevent weapons from being carried aboard, than it does to ban all weapons nationwide and think that no weapons will be taken to airports/airplanes as a result.
Or, it makes more sense to strengthen your body’s immune system than it does to try to eradicate every single virus and germ in the world.
Those are your opinions. There are actually other reasons to get rid of 2A that have nothing to do with gun confiscation, and I do believe that we can drastically reduce the number of mass shootings and other gun violence substantially without getting rid of all guns.
Would your suggestion if we have a epidemic breakout of MRSA that people should just take more vitamin C?
In other words, while we do boost the immune system in order to fight things, we also try to reduce the number of the pathogen with various methods, such as sterilization and quarantine. In your analogy, Velocity, that means we should be able to use both gun regulations and hardening schools.
But one group is trying to stop that, by turning “gun regulations” into “trying to take away your guns.” Or now, apparently, “taking away the right to self defense.” They are hobbling the ability to use the most effective tools for the job. Your argument is akin to saying “you can’t remove all bacteria and viruses that cause infection, so we shouldn’t even sterilize the operating room.”
Sterilization was the one of the greatest tools in preventing deaths in human history. In fact, we’re currently facing problems with having done too good a job.
So, what are they? The only thing I have heard is that Gun nuts oppose all gun laws by saying they violate the 2nd. But that means nothing, it’s what the *Courts *say, not a minority of the voters.