What about all the other gun violence, accidental shootings, and domestic violence against women at home? I disagree with you that we don't need much stricter laws, mandatory training, licensing, and insurance requirements to own guns. It's not JUST school shootings, which certainly are significant, whether you care or not. Too many careless and immature people buy guns and end up responsible for the deaths of their spouse or children. Too many mentally ill people and thugs pass background checks right now, but that doesn't mean they wont turn violent. Our gun laws are a joke! How many more guns will it take for you to see the dangers in that? One billion? Waiting for your response.
Here is one that I don't think even made national news. Ames, Iowa. A guy bought a gun and killed his ex-girlfriend, her friend and himself in a church parking lot one hour after buying a handgun. He had a restraining order and "was charged with harassment and posing as a public official" two days earlier. So we don't need more law and background checks? @Os Trigonum @StupidMoniker
Hold people accountable. Gun dealer and people who voted for (or against) the laws that allowed this should be sued. Hit them in the pocket. That's the number one way to affect change in modern America.
You don't end gun violence by adding more police and guns. We've been doing that for decades and here we are. You end gun violence by removing guns thereby decreasing the need for more police. Oh, while we are at it, all situations don't need a police response. How about in schools, we fully fund them with proper staff, nurses, social workers, and general training so as to spot and intervene the trouble kids long before an incident. You know, the "mental health" part that ya'll keep talking about.
Sweet, please let me know your plan for removing 400 million guns from American citizens. Also, here's a trivia question for you. What will the police and government do after they take away all of your guns? Answer: Spoiler ANYTHING THEY WANT
Ill play your silly game. Lets theoretically eliminate the 2nd amendment, which requires 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states. Then we somehow convince all the states to ban guns. Again, we are completely dismissing reality and going straight to fantasy land. Our government structure is setup using the Legislative branch, judicial branch and executive branch. Which of these three branches are least likely to own guns. Which of these three branches are most likely to own guns. Outside of the fringe, we are in agreeing there is a violence issue. You're not going to fix this issue living in fantasy land. The police and military, who are the ones who overwhelming support private gun ownership, are not going to go around collecting weapons from like minded individuals.
Statistically insignificant in that any law that changed the number of them that occurred would have no measurable effect on gun deaths year to year. Insignificant to overall gun deaths. A drop in the bucket would be another way to put it, sure. Why go all the way back to 1764? Because it shows how insignificant they are as compared to murders in major urban centers. If all the school shootings from before the country rebelled against England to now add up to less than a typical year in the 20th largest metro area in the US, then that is probably not the area that should be the focus of your efforts. That could be said of any deaths. What about the young people that have to fear being killed in car accidents? Shot in robberies? Molested by their parents? All of those are more common than school shootings. Kids fear school shootings in particular because we focus a lot of attention on them. Exactly. Now you are getting it. There are radically more guns in America than there were in the 60s-90s, but violence is down. Violence has started to swing upward as we have gone away from tougher prosecutions and more and more active policing and toward reducing prison population. Yes, the response to 9/11 was a huge overreaction to a tragic but blessedly rare event. Imagine how much more of an overreaction it would have been if less than 300 people had been killed. What about it? The United States doesn't have an outrageously high murder rate. Very specific areas of the country have a high murder rate. Most of the country is very safe. Over half of all murders in the United States occur in 2% of counties. In 2014 (the most recent breakdown I could find) more than half of the counties in the US had zero murders. 90% had 7 or fewer murders. Murder is a very concentrated problem in the United States, and it cannot be explained by guns or access to guns. They are emotionally significant, but they are very rare, and do not contribute to any great degree to the overall homicide stats. Too many criminals are allowed to run wild on the streets of large and medium sized cities. That is where the deaths happen. That is where the solutions should be focused. You know what drove down murders in New York City? It wasn't banning guns, it was flooding high crime areas with cops. It is already a crime to possess a firearm if you are the subject of a restraining order. It is already a crime to sell a gun to someone that is the subject of a restraining order. I would say the solution would have been to have the guy that is charged with harassment and posing as a public official in custody. See above re: New York City. You absolutely do reduce gun violence by adding more police and guns.
I didn't say remove "all" guns nor did I say eliminate the 2nd Amendment. But you are free to strawman how you please. The question @Trader_Jorge was poking fun at was Steve Kerr's t-shirt about ending gun violence. Adding more police and guns doesn't work. So you tell me, what does work?
That's a disingenuous argument since conservatives have been actively trying to increase gun ownership for decades. Now that we are at "400 million guns" outstanding, you now say, well the problem is so big so we definitely can't do anything about it now!
Wow! You really do keep forgetting it's not JUST school shootings!!!!! It's robberies, domestic violence shootings, accidental shootings, accidental shootings, accidental shootings, road rage shootings, drug and gang related shootings, and mass shootings in schools, churches, restaurants, outdoor events, shopping malls, bars, etc... You do know more kids are killed by guns than in cars right? Also, cars are a necessity and guns aren't. I think drunk drivers should have their license revoked the first time they are arrested personally. Most do it again. I think twice should be prison time and their car impounded. Let the profits of their car sales go towards alcoholism treatment or something useful. There is NO excuse for drinking and driving. As for child molesters, they should rot in prison. It amazes me you don't see a need for stricter gun laws. Anyway, we definitely have much different opinions and I'm done discussing it with you. It's like a merry-go-round going nowhere at this point. As usual.
I didn't forget other shootings, I specifically addressed that the problem is the other shootings in another part of the post. There I was responding to someone talking specifically about kids fearing school shootings, why would I not respond talking about school shootings? In one particular year, for the first time ever. Also, most of the kids being murdered with guns are in the same areas I was talking about being killed for the same reasons. Neither is a necessity. Guns are a right, cars are a privilege (that's why you can carry a gun without a license, but not drive a car). They generally have their license suspended. Many drive on a suspended license. Yes. Like most crimes, DUI should have harsher punishments. I don't disagree with any of that. We also have technology that would be very useful in cutting down on drunk driving. Ignition interlock devices are available that will prevent a car from starting if they detect alcohol on your breath. Every new car could have one as standard equipment, but they don't. As I said, the majority of counties in America in 2014 had zero murders. Many of them with the loosest gun laws. Almost all of the murders are taking place in a few areas. We don't need to take away freedoms from people everywhere, we need to more strongly police problem areas (which is generally speaking major urban centers). It worked in New York City. Have those areas swarming with cops, and crime goes down, murder goes down, etc.
They should make guns illegal and then they will all disappear. Just like how there's no drugs on the streets anymore since drugs are illegal. PROBLEM SOLVED
Think of it as someone who is 50 lbs over weight due to decades of poor eating habits who believes on day they can wake up and shed all those years of poor choices in 6 months with some fad diet. We are not going to correct decades of poor gun policy over night by banning scary looking long guns. Banging the dumb drum, a tactic liberals have use constantly, of banning scary looking weapons ( assault rifles) have been proven ineffective and counter productive. They know nothing is going to happen and they actually thinking they are shoring up their base, but the opposite is happening. They are driving away voters (as polls have shown the economy is a much higher priority than gun violence) and they inevitably drive demand up because people freak out and starting buying up more guns, thus putting more guns on the street. Driving into the head winds of the 2nd amendment is just a stupid tactic. This should be viewed as supple and demand issue with the supply side a wide open spigot. If you track gun prices over the last decade, gun prices have largely stayed the same. Kill the supply side by implementing large tariffs on imports. Also implement a high tax if gun and ammo purchasers do not have some type of state approved annual gun training. Require all guns and ammo to be purchased from a state approved store that only sells guns and ammo, much like an ABC store for liquor. Require minimum property size for guns to be discharged, in such that it makes it difficult for people to target practice, including permitted backstops. Bottom line is to make it difficult for irresponsible gun ownership. We have a system that refuses to hold gun owners responsible for incompetent behavior (right wing ideology) and the antidote is to gun bans and gun confiscation (left wing ideology).
Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention? Mass shooters overwhelmingly fit a certain profile, say Jillian Peterson and James Densley, which means it’s possible to ID and treat them before they commit violence. https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...hooters-q-a-00035762?utm_source=pocket-newtab excerpt: POLITICO: Since you both spend much of your time studying mass shootings, I wonder if you had the same stunned and horrified reaction as the rest of us to the Uvalde elementary school shooting. Or were you somehow expecting this? Jillian Peterson: On some level, we were waiting because mass shootings are socially contagious and when one really big one happens and gets a lot of media attention, we tend to see others follow.... POLITICO: Are you saying there’s a link between the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings? Peterson: We don’t know for sure at this point, but our research would say that it’s likely. You had an 18-year-old commit a horrific mass shooting [in Buffalo]. His name is everywhere and we all spend days talking about “replacement theory.” That shooter was able to get our attention. So, if you have another 18-year-old who is on the edge and watching everything, that could be enough to embolden him to follow. We have seen this happen before. Densley: Mass shooters study other mass shooters. They often find a way of relating to them, like, “There are other people out there who feel like me.” POLITICO: Can you take us through the profile of mass shooters that emerged from your research? Peterson: There’s this really consistent pathway. Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts. What’s different from traditional suicide is that the self-hate turns against a group. They start asking themselves, “Whose fault is this?” Is it a racial group or women or a religious group, or is it my classmates? The hate turns outward. There’s also this quest for fame and notoriety. POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings? Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed. more at the link
Unfortunately, I agree with you... No way they can do it... This is basically like cancer that has spread thru out 90% of the body...... This is why I say Tax and Charge the Crap out of the ammo..... I also think people did to specify what they are saying... Do you want all guns removed or Assault weapons... You may have a slim chance at the 2nd... But not even a close of a chance at the 1st... T_Man
Try another strawman. I didn't say make guns illegal, which is next to impossible given the 2nd amendment. Let's try to stay on topic. Do you think mass shootings are a good outcome? (I'll await your non-answer with baited breath)
