Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[Luke6_37]

ajg:

By your logic of make it illegal to solve the issue, then drugs should not be a problem. Meth is illegal; therefore, no one has access

@Luke6_37

I see you decided not to respond to this portion. Out of the mass shootings and other firearm related crimes, how many of those firearms are illegal? How many of the firearms are stolen? How many were actually purchased by the person committing the crime?

I would say not to muddy the waters by searching for a one-size-fits-all approach to all social problems. What people want NOW is an end to a very specific social problem - the mass shooting of innocent people. Lets focus on just that.

I believe most of the guns used in mass shootings were legally purchased by the shooter or his parent.

 

[ajg]

Believe? Not know? And if by parent then it circumvents current laws anyway. Making its use in anyway, shape, or form illegal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Nope, the AR-15 is the first to go - unless you are willing to paint it pink.

it’s not a “military type assault rifle”. It’s not an 'assault rifle" at all. Now if you want to ban all weapons that look similar to military weapons that’s something else. But an AR-15 is simply not an assault rifle.

I still don’t see any reputable source for the “toxic masculinity” thing, let alone the “toxic masculinity combined with the availability of guns that look military” theory. Nor have I seen anything to support the racist requirement of the “white” ingredient.

 

[Peebo]

It’s just a morally sick country that needs armed guards/teachers to protect innocent school children against its own citizens

 

[Ridgerunner]

Solving the problem of mass shootings in the United States is easy, because there are only two factors to consider and the easiest one to change is “access macho looking killing machines”.

Even if your racist “white macho men plus guns = mass killings” theory was correct, which it isn’t, then it’s actually a lot easier to simply provide adequate guards for schools or other mass gatherings. If ordinary bars (and gun shows by the way) can do it, then schools with massively greater budgets can too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s just a morally sick country that needs armed guards/teachers to protect innocent school children against its own citizens

I think before I would want to conclude that, I would like to see the media stop romanticizing these killers. They want their “moment of fame” like a shooting star that flares before it burns up, and kills some imagined enemies in the course of it. Even a year of “shooter blackout” plus armed guards might be the end of it.

 

[lmachine]

If ordinary bars (and gun shows by the way) can do it, then schools with massively greater budgets can too.

yikes ten characters

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

It’s odd that bars and clubs in not so nice neighborhoods and politicians have better protection than school children.

This “white” shooter business has no place in our discourse … how would you describe Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Nidal Hissan, Seung-Hui Cho, Micah Xavier Johnson, Maurice Clemmons, etc…?

 

[Lev]

Stop romanticizing guns and that’ll curb the machismo that makes them the powerful manly solution to guy problems that they have become.

 

[marybobo]

All this talk about particular types of guns and not one word about mental health. As I recall, a number of the school shooters had a history of mental/emotional problems.

We need better communication between agencies i.e. FBI, local law enforcement, etc. Again, as I recall, this came up in the discussions of 9/11

Before we start repealing any amendment, we should look at the actual causes of these shootings.

 

[MidwestGuy]

Stop romanticizing guns and that’ll curb the machismo that makes them the powerful manly solution to guy problems that they have become.

Sounds like your complaint is with Hollywood then.

 

[Theo520]

I think the national consensus is rapidly moving towards a ban on military type assault rifles, but not a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has already ruled that laws banning particular firearms is constitutional.

Don’t see your support. The courts have already said they are allowed. Even CA hasn’t been able to greatly restrict them, and they’ve tried.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

Nope, the AR-15 is the first to go - unless you are willing to paint it pink.

it’s not a “military type assault rifle”. It’s not an 'assault rifle" at all. Now if you want to ban all weapons that look similar to military weapons that’s something else. But an AR-15 is simply not an assault rifle.

I still don’t see any reputable source for the “toxic masculinity” thing, let alone the “toxic masculinity combined with the availability of guns that look military” theory. Nor have I seen anything to support the racist requirement of the “white” ingredient.

This is why the AR-15 has got to go.

https://usat.ly/2o0yvcl

Calling me a racist for pointing out the obvious is no different than calling someone an “Islamophobe” for pointing out that jihadi terrorists are Muslim.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Calling me a racist for pointing out the obvious is no different than calling someone an “Islamophobe” for pointing out that jihadi terrorists are Muslim.

So it’s all about the “angry white men”?

how would you describe Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Nidal Hissan, Seung-Hui Cho, Micah Xavier Johnson, Maurice Clemmons, etc…?

 

[Lev]

Not at all. In fact Hollywood predominantly portrays guns as weapons of war, weapons of law enforcement and the ugly side of criminal use. It is the illusion that your household gun is your hero and savior that makes them ‘idols’ of worship. Nevermind the fact that having a gun flooded country makes us 10 times less safe than gun restricted countries.

 

[MidwestGuy]

Not at all. In fact Hollywood predominantly portrays guns as weapons of war, weapons of law enforcement and the ugly side of criminal use. It is the illusion that your household gun is your hero and savior that makes them ‘idols’ of worship. Nevermind the fact that having a gun flooded country makes us 10 times less safe than gun restricted countries.

In your biased opinion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Stop romanticizing guns and that’ll curb the machismo that makes them the powerful manly solution to guy problems that they have become.

What are “guy” problems? And where, other than from Hollywood, do you ever see any kind of guns romanticized?

Maybe if the media stopped giving these shooters the moment of fame they crave, they would not be seeking it.

 

[Lev]

The statistics have been cited over and over. More guns. More chance of gun violence. It isn’t rocket science.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As the article points out, there are much more dangerous guns these shooters can use. If you take away AR-15s, they’ll turn to them.

And nothing you have shown so far demonstrates your thesis that there is such a thing as a “white male machismo leading to mass shootings when guns are available”

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

Calling me a racist for pointing out the obvious is no different than calling someone an “Islamophobe” for pointing out that jihadi terrorists are Muslim.

So it’s all about the “angry white men”?

how would you describe Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Nidal Hissan, Seung-Hui Cho, Micah Xavier Johnson, Maurice Clemmons, etc…?

To quote myself…

What your list leaves out are four other factors that are necessary to understanding the problem. These are in order of importance: male, angry, young and white - all of which point to a social problem known as “toxic masculinity”. Toxic masculinity is the notion that in order to be a man you must be potent in society (i.e., have power, influence, or effect). Given the profile of most mass shooters in the United States, you can see how that would be a motivating factor for going out and buying a gun with a huge killing capacity.

Now, there are certainly other factors in addition to 1) toxic masculinity and 2) easy access to macho killing machines that may predict whether a young man will go down to his former high school and start shooting teenagers. I just don’t think addressing them for the sole purpose of stopping this particular crime is worth the effort. From a public policy perspective, the direct approach that targets the largest predictive factors is what you want to do, because it is the most effective. It gives you the most “bang for your buck” to use a pun.