What can we do about the shootings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course knife and gun crime are different. Knives are used in one, guns in the other. Killing with bombs in different still, as with McVeigh and the Unabomber. Killing with planes is even more different. The numbers can be greater than all the others put together.

Killing by supporting Planned Parenthood is different still and the numbers are even greater than with planes.
 
Yet other countries don’t have these old values yet still dont have the mass shootings stats the US does. It is too simplistic an argument. Australia is arguably much more secular than the US yet has had one mass shooting in 2018 and zero since 1998.

My mind is always baffled by these threads.
Gun control is the only option. If the government wanted to overthrow their population (not sure why they would - after all the populus are their tax payers) they have weapons that are much more sophisticated than guns, so that argument doesn’t hold.

Just stop suppling guns to the populus fhs.
 
And your proof that taking my guns away so I have to potentially fight wild animals with my hands, will stop mass killings is what?

I live in the country, and there are lots of dangerous animals in the country. What’s your proof that depriving me of the means of self-protection will prevent someone like the Dayton killer from killing people out of his devotion to Elizabeth Warren? If he can buy a kilo of heroin on the street, what’s your proof that he could not also buy an illicit gun?
 
Last edited:
Trump, May 9, 2019 at rally, talking about immigrants from Mexico (video all over internet):

“How do you stop these people?”

member of audience: “Shoot them!!!”

Trump: Smiles and laughs. Audience: laughs.

El Paso, less than 3 months later: shooter drives to El Paso and kills 20 and wounds 56.
Why El Paso? A lot of Mexicans.
 
angel12 said:
No other constitutional right contains the words " well-regulated."
Click to expand...
Well regulated means along the lines of “well trained” or in “good working order”. A well regulated militia could actually perform the duties expected of a militia, ie, they would not need to waste time training or equipping them. This use of “regulate” is similar to saying some one has a “regular” digestive system… which means it works well. It does not mean the government says when i can or cannot use the toilet.
 
Domestic terrorism needs to be addressed by our elected officials.
We have poured much in manpower and resources into trying to protect us from foreign terrorists. It is time to put more money into protecting us from potential terrorists who reside within our country.
Background checks for gun and ammo purchases needs to be passed by Congress, along with restrictions on the sale of semi-automatic weapons.
James wrote about faith and deeds.
We all need to pray for an end to gun violence, but we also need to write our elected officials to demand that they pass some legislation to try to help prevent gun violence. 🙏🖌️
God bless us, every one.
 
Guns in the hands of those who hate latinos, blacks, jews, catholics, or whatever target for that hate is going to result in more El Pasos and Daytons in this country.
There are more than enough guns in this country to get the job done for those who are hateful enough to do these horrendous deeds.
First I pray and then I write my representatives to please do something. Our children and grandchildren should not have to fear losing their lives if they go to school, a movie, a restaurant, or to church.
 
Odilon said:
We already have background checks and waiting periods.
Click to expand...
We have loose background checks with many loopholes that need to be closed. Private sales are a major issue… and we need a trigger mechanism to identify and stop a lunatic from buying a gun.

Let’s look at TX where a massive amount of shooter death have occurred:
Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm](https://lawcenter.giffords.org/background-checks-policy-summary/). Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)

Texas is not a point of contact state for the NICS. Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm. As a result, in Texas, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly.1

Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions. As a result, handgun license holders in Texas are exempt from the federal background check requirement when purchasing a handgun.2 (Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state firearms licenses if the state fails to remove these licenses in a timely fashion.)

Texas does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm. See our Private Sales policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.
No other constitutional right is subjected to such things
Click to expand...
So what?

Just because the right to Free Speech doesn’t require a background check, doesn’t take away from the appropriateness of common sense litigation for firearms. In case you didn’t know, it is illegal to scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire… a very common sense piece of litigation that governs that constitutional right to free speech
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
Yeah… Arm more good guys will quickly change the dynamic.
Click to expand...
So tell me…Texas is a concealed carry state, right? So NO ONE among the thousands there was armed? And if they WERE armed, how well trained, etc. would they be? Studies show trained police miss their target (stationary, mind you) about 80% of the time. And no one is going to be harmed in the cross fire when all these vigilantes open fire? Really? Yeah, arming everyone is a “great” idea. Tremendous. Terrific.
 
tgGodsway said:
Arm more good guys will quickly change the dynamic.
Click to expand...
In Texas, where were all the good guys with guns?

🦗 🎶

Sorry, pardner, more guns has not yet and will not ever solve this problem.
 
Last edited:
Xystus said:
Well regulated means along the lines of “well trained” or in “good working order”. A well regulated militia could actually perform the duties expected of a militia, ie, they would not need to waste time training or equipping them. This use of “regulate” is similar to saying some one has a “regular” digestive system… which means it works well. It does not mean the government says when i can or cannot use the toilet.
Click to expand...
What is your source for this interpretation?

Also, given that the present “militia” is using their guns to murder innocent citizens, I would suggest they are neither well-trained nor in good working order. So maybe the present system still isn’t giving us a “well-regulated militia” by any definition.
 
Last edited:
They did not have assault weapons back when the U.S. Constitution was written.
 
YourNameHere said:
They did not have assault weapons back when the U.S. Constitution was written.
Click to expand...
Right, but that’s not what the right to bear arms is based in. It is a fundamental, inherent, inviolable, inalienable, natural, absolute right, and the Second Amendment had in mind primarily the British troops, the right to bear arms is the right to not be outgunned by anybody, including the British troops, who were all armed with their muskets.

Today a musket is a selective fire long gun. (All British troops, and American troops, and all troops around the world, now carry selective fire long guns.)

The Second Amendment recognizes the right to bear arms, it does not create it.

This is classical liberalism.
 
Xystus said:
40.png
angel12:
No other constitutional right contains the words " well-regulated."
Click to expand...
Well regulated means along the lines of “well trained” or in “good working order”. A well regulated militia could actually perform the duties expected of a militia, ie, they would not need to waste time training or equipping them. This use of “regulate” is similar to saying some one has a “regular” digestive system… which means it works well. It does not mean the government says when i can or cannot use the toilet.
Click to expand...
Yes, “well regulated militia” means prima facie civilians who are good with their guns.

The type of guns, are at minimum the same guns that the British troops were carrying then, because the right to bear arms is at minimum the right to not be outgunned, by someone trying to kill you.

This is aside from the fact that the US S. Ct. called the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment “throat clearing,” since they do not interpret it as having any bearing on the operative clause, which is, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So discussing what “well regulated” means, is sort of, in a way, just academic. Especially if we come to think that the prefatory clause in some way limits the operative clause. It does not.
 
Last edited:
Despite the fact that our government Has an arsenal of capabilities, one can’t possess missiles and nuclear weapons because its not safe for society.

Can we agree that Automatic and semiautomatic weapons might need tighter controls?
 
Lifeisbeautiful3 said:
Despite the fact that our government Has an arsenal of capabilities, one can’t possess missiles and nuclear weapons because its not safe for society.
Click to expand...
Nuclear weapons can murder millions of people all at once.
Lifeisbeautiful3 said:
Can we agree that Automatic and semiautomatic weapons might need tighter controls?
Click to expand...
Nope. They need way less. We probably do need tighter controls though on people who are fairly judged to be threats to the lives and limbs of innocent people. We should probably involuntarily commit such people to prison, or confine them to hospitals, at public expense.

America is not a gun free zone, and if we can’t trust you with a gun, then we can’t trust you period.
 
Besides legislation, what else can we do?

Teens need to reach out more instead of alienating the ‘weird kid’. Parents need to parent more. Schools need to be more vigilant when it comes to those at risk of violence. Politics have become so polarising that we dehumanise each other.

So many factors create a shooter. It’s difficult to delve into this but I do wish the US is at least willing to go beyond the whole “gun control” “my right!” tirade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top