“Well, banning all guns is totally out of the question-I guess there’s nothing we can do!” Can you think of absolutely nothing that might slow down this slaughter?
What do we do? We pull over drivers who appear to be drunk. We train bartenders to understand the signs of intoxication, and require them to cut off people that are too drunk, and hold them accountable if they serve someone too much alcohol and let them drive. We have lowered the legal limit of what is considered to be drunk driving. We have created ad campaigns that have made it socially unacceptable to drive drunk.
We are doing something about it, and the stats back that up. We do not shrug our shoulders.
We are not doing any of those things to reduce gun violence.
If you have some proposals you think will help, particularly if it’s something besides banning guns, feel free to offer it up and we can discuss it.
No more so than saying “sorry your son died in a car crash, but that is the price we pay for letting people drive 70mph/not sentencing drunk drivers to LWOP/not sending first-time felons to prison for eighty years apiece.”
There isn’t any. Just like there isn’t any amendment that protects the right of people to shoot up schools.
I did that, and the only false equivalencies I spotted was some suggestions that the Constitution protected illegal activity.
I thought discussion on what to do about gun violence was what was happening in this thread. Were you talking about something else?
It was suggested in the OP that we should pay money to the victims of mass shootings, because the victims were paying the price for the Second Amendment. What I and others are asking is why those who pay a similar price for other amendments, and the negative consequences of the decision to do things one way and not another should not also be paid.
So no, I don’t see any difference. That might also be a result of my reading. YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
Gun vioence has by-and-large declined over the last several decades. I guess what we’re doing about that is working too?
This isn’t really a gun debate per se, but we do things to attempt to reduce gun violence as well…and the stats back that up too. Gun violence has reduced substantially since the 80’s and 90’s, just like deaths due to drunk drivers has reduced. And, in the end, just by allowing alcohol to remain legal we accept, as a society, that over 30,000 citizens are going to die directly due to drunk drivers (many more due to secondary or tertiary effects…including alcohol-related to gun deaths).
Doesn’t mean we can’t do more on both fronts, but saying we do nothing just makes any good points you might make dismissed since this is one that’s pretty easy to look up. You sound like Trump claiming…well, whatever bullshit and easily looked up ‘fact’ he’s claiming this week.
Victims of mass shootings have undergone a tragedy, however, veterans actually put themselves in danger (or were sacrificed for the ‘greater good’ by drafting them and then sending them into combat). It’s not the same thing. To even be a veteran you had to pass months of training and you didn’t just run away the moment you had a chance. (even draftees always had a choice - they could choose the safety of prison instead of risking death in combat)
I know it seems callous to say this, but there is a difference.
I just asked you if you could think of anything to help alleviate this problem short of the “GUN GRABBING!!” you don’t want. This game of “What about this plan?” “No-that won’t work” repeated ad nauseum has been done to death. This time you make a proposal you actually think might work, and I promise to actually consider it on its merits.
This time, it’s your turn.
Allow trained and qualified teachers to carry. This incident might have gone differently if the football coach had a gun of his own on his person.
Can you tell me what we are doing to address gun violence?
But this thread isn’t about “Gun violence by-and-large”, is it? Let’s leave those goalposts right where they are for now, o.k.?
NICS Improvement Act, concealed-carry legislation, additional people trained and armed for self defense, etc (just off the top of my head)
“This thread” may not be, but the post I was responding to sure was.
That might work if the coach actually wanted to carry on school grounds. Did he?
Let’s tone this down, XT. This could be interpreted as an accusation of lying. Try not to personalize things, please.
This is not exactly what I’ve suggested. I don’t think mass shootings are “the price for the Second Amendment”, but rather the price for various policy decisions which are not required by the Second Amendment (in my understanding of arguments from folks like the late Justice Scalia) that make mass shootings particularly easy to accomplish, and deadlier than they might otherwise be, as well as (possibly) uniquely American cultural factors like a unique adoration for guns and gun violence.
So, we passed a law that said that, yes, if people are prohibited from buying guns do to their mental state, that does in fact need to be reported. It’s a law that shouldn’t have needed to be passed.
Your other examples are just putting more guns in public. Did this school shooter suffer from not being able to carry concealed? Was his problem that he was not well enough trained?
I don’t know. I’d like those teachers that want to, and are trained and qualified, to have the opportunity to. It won’t prevent every school shooting, but just like having bartenders cut off drunks, it will probably help in some cases. Agreed?
At what point during this massacre did the coach encounter the alleged shooter?
No, the football coach / security guard is the one that suffered by not being able to carry at school. His problem was that he was unarmed.