I don’t understand what you want from these people. In response to the Charleston incident and mass shootings in general, Obama et. al. have only three options:
Which do you want them to do? Or am I excluding some fourth possibility?
They could simplify the process a lot if they just ask, “Will you shoot somebody just because you don’t like them?” and just dodge the whole racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever issue. :dubious:
Spend like a mofo on education, outreach and counseling for every teenager in the country to help ensure they grow up to be reasonable, well-adjusted people who won’t do things like this. Extend to college students and adults as the opportunity presents itself. Rather than saying “We don’t want you to have guns,” say “We don’t want you to kill innocent people.” I think even the gun-rights activists could get behind that. This solution is not without its own pile of baggage, however.
If you can come up with some kind of law that prohibits gun ownership to those who are going to shoot someone unlawfully, that would be great. Be sure it doesn’t violate the First Amendment or the presumption of innocence.
A hint - 'This guy is a racist so he can’t have a gun" violates both.
Regards,
Shodan
I doubt this would be a cost-effective means of reducing deaths from mass shootings. Presumably this would cost on the order of $6.5 billion (33 million teenagers, a couple counseling sessions a year at $100). Even if that eliminated all deaths from mass shootings (huge assumption) the cost per life saved would be around $50 million.
It would also be politically unworkable. Who determines the methods of such counseling? What about teenagers who refuse to be counseled? Do you compel them to do it?
David Frum has a pretty reasonable take on this issue. Basically, there is no one measure that will prevent mass shootings; mass shootings can probably never be driven down to zero; but a number of measures working together can mitigate the problem. Among those, he proposes:
I think those are a good start. Although I generally agree with the conservative view that mass shootings shouldn’t be used as a basis for large-scale legislative action that ends up infringing the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners, too often this resistance against radical measures morphs into resistance against any and all measures, which seems to be the stance of the OP if I’m not misconstruing him.
As I said, baggage.
Well, maybe you don’t let them buy guns? Again, baggage.
:dubious: Talk about being just completely tone-deaf…
“Eliminate all gun restrictions and arm the churchgoers and this’ll never happen again!” is an option I’m seeing from various right-wing sources.
Oh no, I used an idiom that has nothing to do with race but mentions something that is black coloured! If only there was some way to use that to distract from the fact that it is African-Americans - who primarily vote Democrat - and not Republicans who are responsible for a disproportionate number of shootings.
Nobody was talking about tone-deafness. Did you have anything relevant to the point?
If by “baggage” you mean spending a lot of money on something that achieves nothing I agree. Pretty much every suggested piece of legislation in the wake of a shooting has that baggage.
Regards,
Shodan
Really? Let’s see those sources so we can decide if they are equivalent to the President and the Minority Leader of the Senate.
Keep in mind that you claimed “all” and that “this will never happen again”.
So, cite?
Regards,
Shodan
No, it isn’t and no, you don’t. You violate a law, which in this case is, I think, the Civil Rights Act or some other statute. Generally speaking, citizens don’t violate the constitution since it is almost exclusively directed at government action.
What the hell are you on about?? I never claimed that I was quoting from any equivalent source-I was responding to a post about whether there were any other ideas out there other than the what that post mentioned, and I brought up one of the stupider ones I’d seen recently in editorials, blogs and Facebook.
I agree, if that were the only effect. I get that you may still find it too expensive, but there’s much more to Ethilrist’s idea than just reducing mass shootings. I reckon “help[ing] ensure [teenagers] grow up to be reasonable, well-adjusted people” is a good way to spend resources. The overarching benefits of a more civil, educated, and empathic society are worth a lot.
You were responding to this -
[QUOTE=Donald Rump]
I don’t understand what you want from these people. In response to the Charleston incident and mass shootings in general, Obama et. al. have only three options:
[/QUOTE]
Bolding added.
To which you replied with something you allegedly read on Facebook. As if it were something you thought should be taken seriously as a recommendation to Obama.
OK, you also claimed you saw it on “editorials”. Fair enough - cite at least two editorials where they recommended removing all gun restrictions, and alleged that this would ensure that mass shootings “would never happen again”.
Or you could simply admit that your post was a gross mischaracterization and added no more to the debate than any other ridiculous straw man.
Regards,
Shodan
Being pro-gun rights in Nevada gains votes. Reid doesn’t have to pander to his constituents anymore. He’s retiring after this term.
Take your hoops elsewhere.
Sure, whatever you say. Tar has no racist connotations whatsoever…I’ll just cry ‘Uncle’, then, shall I?
Cite what you claimed.
Regards,
Shodan
What point are you debating?
It’s time to repeal the 2nd.