Another school shooting

Your internet whining won't stop them either.

I haven't seen you or anyone else put anything forward.

We're waiting...

 

Again, all you have advocated is to stop mass shootings. You're coming off as someone who is uninformed on gun violence. Its estimated 40,000 deaths a year are attributed to gun violence. And all you are concerned about is the couple hundred deaths that result from mass shootings.

We can reduce America's addictions to guns w/out an impractical solution of removing the 2nd amendment. When Americans can buy guns on almost any street corner pawn shop in America, that is a serious problem. If we simply start to remove the (overly) ease of getting weapons, the gun culture will start to diminish.

Banning scary looking rifles will not put a dent in the 40k a year death. Requiring education to own and use a weapon will drastically reduce those deaths.

 

Again, this thread is entitled, “another school shooting”

Yea, I’m talking about stopping school shootings.

 

There is a simple solution to this.

In a round about way, create a federal safety course, which includes classroom and field exercises that will demonstrate competency of gun ownership. Included is training and responsibility, such a keeping your weapons locked up and responsibility of anyone using their weapon. Every few years, a person will be required to renew their course. As a caveat, if anyone transfers the weapon to anyone, whether by sale, gift or borrow and that person commits a crime with said weapon, the original owner will be held responsible if it was transfered to a person who has not gone through said course and received certification. Additionally, if the person wishes to sell or gift the weapon, they will be required to relinquish the weapon through the federal safety course committee or be held responsible for the actions of the person.

With this proposal, nobodys 2nd amendment right will be impeded upon. The irresponsible people can still own and trade their guns in an irresponsible way, however if something bad happens to a weapon they own or they transferred the weapon in a negligent manner, they will be responsible for the actions of the criminal.

 

I'd be totally on board with this however we all know the impediment to this type of legislation. Also, the CHL program through the state of Texas which is similar to what your proposing is kind of a joke. Only a blind person could fail their tests.

 

Oh, they are talking about the shooting from a couple of days ago. I thought there was some late breaking news.

No relief as we can't join the modern world and must adhere to the interpretation of the 200 plus year Constitution by some folks elected by the gun lobby.

 

I turned on the news Wednesday morning and they did a quick blurb about this latest shooting.....and then moved on to talking about the royal baby for the next 30 minutes.

Pretty much tells you where we are as a country.

 

This should not be a surprise to anyone. This country has sensationalized mass shootings for the last couple decades and completely ignored the daily hundreds of deaths attributed to fire arm violence. Each side have entrenched their standings on extreme opposite poles to the point where nothing is being done. No compromise is given by either side.

 

Sounds like Congress the past decade.

 

I support beheading of this monster live on social media. Call the Mountain quick.

 

This is a good idea. It'll never pass because the right will never allow it...but it is a good idea.

 

There is so much wrong with this post.

1) Are you seriously trying to say this country has overreacted to mass shootings? For the rest of the industrialized world mass shootings are horrifying and rare, not just another Tuesday. If anything, we've under-responded to them. The reason nobody gives a crap about mass shootings anymore ain't because we pay too much attention to them, it's because we have normalized them as a culture.

2) The rates of gun violence and mass shootings are likely very closely correlated, so there's hardly any reason to call out the disparity in coverage. A 50 car pile-up is going to get your attention more than a two-car-accident. The odds of having a 50 car pile-up increase the more two-car-accidents you have.

3) Democrats, for all their faults, are not "uncompromising" on the issue of gun control. This is a Republican owned issue. There are not Democrats sitting around saying "we want all guns banned or else we won't vote for that bill". Incremental change is always on the table for this issue, but Republicans absolutely won't budge for fear of nuclear primary annihilation by the NRA.

 

I did not say overreact. I said sensationalized. Case in point: Schools in particular have massively overhauled security. Its sensationalized because we do not give a **** when we new security measures or counter measures have stopped mass shootings. There have been a few incidents where mass shooters have either been 100% stopped or their destruction has vastly been minimized due to these countermeasures. Again, nobody gives a **** when it happens. We only care when it happens and and we only care when the numbers get bigger and bigger. Mass shooters typically do not simply snap over night and decide to randomly kill a bunch of people. They put thought into it. They do it for recognization. Its typically a score board for them and they all want to be at the top.

Absolutely incorrect. There are many forms of gun violence, with a significant portion due to suicide. There are accident deaths and there are intentional deaths. They all tend to have one thing in common. Deadly weapons in the hands of individuals who shouldn't have them. To the point, no we do not need to cover every single gun death. However if one believes a mass shooting that leaves 5 dead is somehow more significant than the hundreds who have died that day should reconsider their logic. Trying to stop mass shootings is not going to reduce the annual deaths by gun violence. However measures to stop overall gun violence will help keep guns out of madmen.

Again, absolutely incorrect. Yes, Democrat politicians are much more willing to put 'measures' on the table, but they are just as terrified as the Republicans to do anything about the issue. This is why they propose ignorant resolutions like banning scary looking assault weapons. Anyone who does their research knows assault weapons are barely a blip on the screen when it comes to gun violence. They also know the pro gun crowd will not budge on this issue. Its a stupid tactic simply to claim they 'tried' something knowing full and well it will never get traction. Its not a compromise. Its ensuring they will not face the wrath of the voters on a dead man walking initiative. Its chickenshit and its just as negligible as the pro gun crowd who refuse to do anything about the issue.

The pro gun and anti gun crowd is not divided among party lines as you suggest. Yes, the hard line fanatics on each side are divided by party lines, but the reasonable and educated on the subject tend to fall elsewhere. Men are much more likely to be resistant to gun control measures and women are much more receptive.

 

You're splitting hairs here. To sensationalize is to provoke interest in something. You may not mean it, but essentially what you have said is that the reason we don't care about mass shootings anymore is because we have been overexposed to them by the media (as if they shouldn't be major news). This is incredibly backwards thinking that goes to further normalize mass shootings.

Your point is completely misplaced and irrelevant. It stands perfectly to reason that the more mass shootings you have, the more per capital gun violence you probably have as well. The mass shootings draw attention to the underlying "regular" gun violence problem much the same way that a spectacularly deadly airplane crash draws attention to "regular" airline safety problems. The measures drawn up (or at least proposed and debated here and elsewhere) in response to mass shootings are almost always aimed at reducing gun violence as a whole.

You basically just admitted I'm right. Whether Democrats have good policy ideas or political strategy is up for debate of course, but there's no debating who is willing to make changes in this arena, and it ain't the Republicans. FYI There are areas of policy Democrats aren't willing to compromise too, so don't think that "compromise" means "I trade you a change on policy X for a change on policy Y" where the policies have nothing to do with each other. That's dealmaking, not compromise. Compromise here means desire to meet in the middle on a singular policy or subject.

Yeah, it pretty much is. There will likely never be enough non-hardline 2A folks in Congress (all Republicans, mind you) in our lifetimes for us to see legitimate gun reforms passed. If there is ever change on this issue, it will be entirely up to Republicans to decide when and what happens.

 

Yet another domestic terror act it's like they want Don Lemon to be right.

 

You mean we not they.

 

Again, you keep turning this into a partisan issue. Hard left leaning politicians love to beat their war drum because its free change in their pocket. Suckers like you then fall for the trap to claim its the do good Democrats who are trying to make the change and the evil republicans who are against it. Its free change to the Democrats because they will never see the repercussions of their actions should they succeed in what some see as extreme measures. Hollow measures like banning scary assault weapons garners great support (Like a certain politican who wants to build a wall, knowning damn well it will never be built). They know it will accomplish very little in the grand scheme of things and they dont have to worry about it because it will never pass. Its that cheap chant they can pull out every time to keep the division.
Everyone agrees we need better control but a Republican can't touch the debate knowing they wont survive past their current term. They are just as chicken **** as the Democrats who use it as a cheap measure to put a feather in their cap.

If you should ever take the time and read my gun control discussions, you will know I am very progressive for someone who leans right. Outside of the "repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all guns" crowd, my ideas face stiff opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Your Democrats always push the same two proposals every time. Banning scary looking weapons and closing the gun show loophole. Skipping past the details on why both of these are poor ideas, we can at least agree the deaths prevented would be minuscule in the grand scheme of things. And before you jump in and say "If it even just saved one life", I will remind you there are many other ways to save a whole lot of lives w/out entrenching a particular side.
Americans are not addicted to guns because we are predispositioned to die with a weapon in our hand. Like any epidemic, its due to an easy access to a supply. Punishing the addicted and not the supplier will never fix the problem. Its terrible that gun purchase access is more readily accessible than medical access. If you want to get more guns off the street, stop allowing the dealers to put them in our face. There is no reason why pawnshops, grocery stores and sporting stores should be selling deadly weapons. Most states do not even allow them to sell liquor! Limiting gun dealer license will go a long way in keeping more guns off the street.

 

No i mean what i said they not me.

 

I believe that a very large percentage of the 40K are suicides. Very different than mass shootings.

And who's to say that someone intent on ending his life (and it is mostly men that off themselves) wouldn't find another way, if guns were harder to come by?