Someone with a solid, cool sense of detachment is required during these emotional times to calmly point out the realpolitik aspects of the current state of affairs, which is that 14 year olds simply never have and never will contribute to political campaigns, and so all these calls to “do something” are, practically speaking, only so much grandstanding.
Fox News can go to hell.
This. Ryan can get out. He can be a preacher or something, if his answer to mass murders is “more prayers”.
The bottom line is that our society has decided that we value the ability of a mentally ill teenager to stockpile as many weapons and as much ammunition as he/she desires higher than we value the lives of these children.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve read here. But I’m fairly new so don’t take it too hard. I’m sure I’ll trip across something dumber. Maybe. Jesus I kinda hope so. I own a handful of rifles, have for many years. I’ve murdered the dickens out of some paper and it hasn’t cost me a wink o’ sleep. I’m not sure that makes me an amoral psychopath (which, by the way, is redundant. Like if I were to call you a “stupid idiot”). You got me on the paranoid bit, though.
I’d love to hear actual constructive and fair solutions to the problem of the ever-more-common amoral psychopath who likes pitched battles against unarmed noncombatant folks, especially drool children. Haven’t heard any yet, but always listening. Meanwhile I notice nobody’s too interested about doing anything about the annual 37,000± (similar number to gun deaths–including suicides, pretty sure close to none of the car crashes were suicides). And let’s not even start on the deliberate disinformation campaigns leading to prescription drug deaths and obesity & cancer-related deaths.
I know that looks like deflection, or whatever, and pro-gun people redirect all the time rather than solve the subject at hand. But that said, if the point is to prevent needless deaths at the hands of others there are better, more achievable goals. Ban guns? They’ll get hidden. Ban cars? You hate America! Hold entire marketing departments of drug companies and McDonalds accountable? Let’s not get crazy!
Sorry, but threads like this that pop up when someone shoots up a group of somebodys are no less lame than Thoughts and Prayers, IMHO. America is not the rest of the world, there is no reason we should look in every way like the rest of the world.
I’ve always been pro-Second Amendment as well, although I personally do not like guns (a good sword, on the other hand). But I think this latest incident shows that any licensing requirements on guns simply don’t work. The gun used was legally acquired and owned. Our country has proven that we collectively are not responsible enough to own guns.
It’s time for gun control advocates to stop with the half-way measures and push for the real solution: Repeal the Second Amendment. It’s a hindrance to the safety and security of the people. I don’t care what the gun-lovers say anymore; we need change.
Repeal needs to become a part of the zeitgeist. I’m not a big Twitter fan, what’s a good viral Twitter hashtag? #Repeal2 ?
Sure. But at the same time addressing Root Causes requires looking into and dealing with really uncomfortable issues in our society and making decisions that will make many people squirm (and almost certainly will impinge on somebody’s unfettered freedom) so it doesn’t happen.
But it IS IN the world, so it may not hurt to try and see if something that works elsewhere can be adapted here.
One of Trump’s first actions as President was to end an Obama ruling that would have made it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns. Keep that in mind when you hear his pious blather at the high school today, on his way back to another golf weekend at Mar-a-Lago.
Mental health is the real problem? Okey dokey, then.
How much money should be spent on this problem?
Who should get screened, and when?
What problems should be screened for, for the purpose of denying them the right to own a firearm?
Who much do we spend to counteract the money the gun lobby will spend to throttle the idea that anyone should be denied their product? CongressCritters ain’t cheap, y’know.
Fucking A !!! Fucking right!
That would be all we need. Then the cops have to figure out who is the “volunteer” and who is the killer. Or the killer masquerades as a “volunteer” and gets away, while the cops are chasing the wrong guy.
Or the killer masquerades as a “volunteer”, and shoots first responders who don’t see him as a threat.
A serious question here - the ATF already taxes the sale of ammo at 11%. Why not double or treble that and put all funds towards training programs, school protection measures, payout funds for victims, etc?
Despite the propaganda, people in Canada, Britain, Australia, etc etc etc can and do own guns. Their laws are stricter and more clearly laid out.
I’d hate for this to devolve into a civil discussion, but I don’t know that we can look like the rest of the world on this issue simply because of the volume of firearms out there, and the tendency of the individual owner (myself included) to take the position of: “I don’t like mass murder so I won’t be doing any, so why should I be treated like a perp?” Which is ultimately unhelpful, I guess.
But since it’s not the guns that are the problem nearly as much as what comes out of them, I think it’d be a good step to treat them like cars. Need a license to operate one and to buy ammunition, and that license requires periodic inspections of the storage site (gun safe or equivalent, to ensure only authorized users have access). And just as a traffic cop can initiate a license suspension if you appear to require a retest (because you’ve become blind or senile since the your license was last issued), the gun police can likewise have you reevaluated for licensure if they think you, or something in your recent past, is suggestive of your being muy loco. Who pays for it? I dunno, who pays for the emergency calls, building repair, and medical/funeral costs associated with massacres? And besides, the DMV gets funding somehow, just repurpose the argument for its existence to this model. And (strawman coming up!) since when does improved quality of life have to be offset financially?
That, and we treat them like guns and not snakeskin jackets worn to symbolize our individuality and our belief in personal freedoms.
The political hurdles associated with repealing the 2nd amendment are so big that I question whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
But I do think fundamentally we need to change how we view guns and the people who collect them. It’s time we view them like we do people who take up smoking and ask “What’s the hell is wrong with you?” We need to stop normalizing gun ownership and make it become a thing that opens you up to raised eyebrows and judgement. Seriously.
I read that Cruz was living at the home of his buddy and his buddy’s parents, apparently since his mother died. The thing that jumped out at me was that his gun was permitted in the home. Now I’m trying to imagine me inviting any strange boy with a rough reputation and a history like his into my home, and I struggle mightily. But also allowing him to bring a dangerous weapon in my home? Like, WTF? I think this says something about the blasé attitude we have towards guns, that such a thing happened.
In a more sane world, his buddy’s parents would have told Cruz to get rid of the gun if he wanted to stay there. There isn’t a military barrack, it’s a freaking home. What are you thinking? Enlist if you love guns more than you love a free roof over your head. These are the conditions.
In an even more sane world, Cruz would have been getting messages like this his entire life: that guns and regular society don’t go together. You need to be prepared to make major sacrifices (like enlistment) if you want access to guns. Owning an assault rifle isn’t cool; it opens you up to being laughed at or judged as crazy and unsafe.
The problem is that we are no where like this in most of the country. Someone can calmly and proudly declare they have collected over a dozen automatic rifles of various sizes and calibers, each of which they love enough to kill for, and we don’t blink an eye. It’s about as radical as a stamp collection.
So very well put, you with the face.
Not at all. Federal politicians take heat for doing nothing, and an event like this too close to an election can seriously threaten electability of a pro-gun congresscritter. So, they all do something: Repeal the 2nd and direct the states to handle firearms as they see fit. Heat is off the federal critters, the issue is handled in accordance with more local customs, attitudes & realities (Cheyenne, Wyoming is not L.A., California), and maybe progress happens because solutions are closer to the homes of the electorate–certainly doesn’t make things worse.