So…start paying the victims of mass shootings so that a very small percentage of the shooters might feel bad about it after the fact?
I agree with the sentiment that people that are shot solo shouldn’t be forgotten. More people are killed individually than in mass shootings.
So, why not pay out everyone? If you are killed by a gun, you were killed because our society holds the right of owning a gun above that of the safety of others. You died to protect that right.
Yeah, everyone who is injured by a gun should get a purple heart and honors that go along with being injured in the line of protecting the freedoms of other americans, and the family of anyone killed should receive the same benefits and honors as those of families who have lost loved ones in the military.
The idea that somehow the fact that the military volunteered for duty, and therefore should be honored more doesn’t make any sense. As our president said, “They knew what they were signing up for.” Now, while that is callus, and certainly not something that should be said to a grieving family, there is truth to the idea that when they signed up to get shiny helmets and guns with which to shoot other people, they acknowledged that the job could entail danger. That’s why they get combat pay and stuff like that.
To claim that a civilian high school student’s death should not be honored simply due to the fact that he didn’t sign up to be shot at, didn’t sign up for a free college education, didn’t sign up for free room and board, strike me as a bit backwards.
If this is the price we pay for the second amendment, then the burden of that cost should be shared by society, not isolated to the victims.
Why only gun injuries? Military members don’t have to be injured by a gun to get a Purple Heart.
Why not purple hearts and cash for the survivors for victims of drunk drivers or convicted felons out on parole? Those people died “because our society holds the right of” drinking alcohol / giving convicted criminals second chances about that of the safety of others.
Isn’t there a price to be paid for the other amendments? Should that cost be shared as well?
Like I said, Joe Criminal robs a liquor store. He gets caught and goes to prison for five years. He doesn’t go for LWOP, because that is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Now he gets out and robs my liquor store and stabs me to death. Why doesn’t society share that cost?
Regards,
Shodan
Should the victims of auto accidents that happen at speeds greater than 55 MPH be honored / paid because that’s the price we pay to be able to drive at 70 MPH?
Because there isn’t a national organization touting the patriotism and/or societal benefit of either driving drunk or being on patrol?
edited to add: Same logic for not honoring speeders that cause accidents.
Murders and violence aren’t anywhere close to uniquely American, but regular mass shootings are uniquely American, so I think this uniquely American phenomenon perhaps deserves particular attention, and those victims/survivors/families of this uniquely American phenomenon deserve particular recognition due to their involuntary sacrifice for the uniquely American freedom to very easily legally obtain extremely deadly firearms.
What does that have to do with anything? I am not aware of any organization touting the societal benefit of dying in a mass shooting either.
Regards,
Shodan
The attention it deserves is giving more than lip service to prevention.
Does the second amendment protect those other ways that they got hurt?
Does any amendment allow people to drink and drive, and only make it illegal to actually hit someone while drinking and driving?
Does any amendment protect the right for Joe Criminal to rob liquor stores, as long as he doesn’t hurt anyone?
Is there an amendment that makes hitting people at 55 legal, but not at 70?
Nice tries with these false equivalencies, but you aren’t fooling anyone that you have a serious argument.
No, the other amendments protect those other ways that other citizens got hurt.
No, there isn’t any Constitutional right to rob liquor stores.
No, not that either.
I don’t see any false equivalencies.
It is an unfortunate side-effect that people die because we have the right to keep and bear arms. The idea seems to be that we should give those people money and honors. It is also an unfortunate side-effect that people die because we don’t put first-time felons in prison for life, and because we have a speed limit of 70 instead of 55 (or 45, or 25). Why do you think that one group should get money and not the others?
Regards,
Shodan
Unfortunate side effect?
“This heart medicine may cause acne” is an unfortunate side effect.
“Our shampoo tends to thin hair” is an unfortunate side effect.
“With enough skill and luck our product can be used to kill scores of people” is not an unfortunate side effect.
As euphemisms go, that one is tone-deaf as all hell. :rolleyes:
I’m not being facetious, not at all.
If someone hates black people (or Muslims, or gays, or Christians, or Jews, or whatever), then the knowledge that shooting up a bunch of them is going to lead to big $$$$$ for their surviving families certainly isn’t going to be to the gunman’s liking. Certainly not something to encourage the gunman.
Again, it might not be enough to prevent the shooting from happening regardless - in fact, probably wouldn’t be enough - but it would still be a discouragement.
Huh, a soldier can get a purple heart for getting hit by an IED. What amendment protects the use of IEDs?
Thank you for agreeing.
Try reading.
Either that or find ways of limiting those that are harmed by those rights.
That’s off the table, so we are left with honoring them for their sacrifice.
Because we can have a discussion about what the best methods of dealing with the criminal justice system in order to decrease crime, we can have discussions about traffic safety, and require people to have licenses to drive, and require car manufacturers to make cars safer.
We can’t have a discussion about how to lower gun violence. Are you really incapable of seeing the difference?
This is really poor analysis on your part. There’s no amendment that allows people to drive drunk and likewise, there’s no amendment that allows people to shoot their former classmates. What we DO have are laws that allow the purchase of alcohol and firearms, and occasionally the people who purchase alcohol or firearms misuse them and harm others.
If it would do little to nothing to prevent a shooting, then it is of no use whatsoever.
“Please accept this medal and small check in the knowledge that there is a minuscule chance that you doing so might make the person who murdered your child feel somewhat bad about it.”
No, that’s off the table too.
Right, which is why it is illegal to do, even if you don’t harm anyone.
No, but there is an amendment that allows someone to do everything required to kill their classmates, and will protect them until they actually pull the trigger.
Right, and when people misuse alcohol in ways that get people killed, we look at how to prevent that in the future. When people misuse guns in ways that people get killed, we shrug our shoulders and say, “Oh, what a tragedy, if only there was something we could do about it.”
Just like it’s illegal to shoot at your classmates even if you don’t actually harm anyone.
How do we “look to prevent that in the future”? Is someone proposing a ban on alcohol, or cars? If not, aren’t they essentially shrugging their shoulders and saying "“Oh, what a tragedy, if only there was something we could do about it.”?