Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if the mass shooters were targeting pharma / health insurance CEO's and Wall Street bankers rather than our kids? I wonder if it would be a different dialogue then?
They attacked courthouses and instead of demanding gun control, they demanded better security. Guess which one worked better?
Yet you advocate for a police state to curb firearm ownership...
There's a guy who is so brainwashed he's immune to cognitive dissonance, I'd wager.
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC1984
Kinda hard to do when society has done everything it could to prevent parents from raising and disciplining their own kids.
Liberal ideas are always at the root of bad things in society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
We make them illegal to own, provide a grace period for people to turn them in, and then enforce harsh penalties for having one after that grace period has passed. In short, we make a start.
Or we could just continue to do nothing while people continue to be mowed down on the streets, which is what the gun lovers advocate.
Unlike you, I don't buy the argument that more guns will equal less carnage.
So you want to start a civil war because you're afraid of people who have the ability to defend themselves?
That's just going to get a lot of cops and other public servants killed. Although that might not be a bad thing. Might be like hitting the "reset button".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
You shouldn't have to pass a test, and get a license to exercise a Natural Right.
Liberals don't believe in natural rights. You're talking to a wall. They think natural rights are stealing the fruits of someone else's labor and enslaving them to serve their fellow man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Sniper
What if the mass shooters were targeting pharma / health insurance CEO's and Wall Street bankers rather than our kids? I wonder if it would be a different dialogue then?
That's the point. Mass shooters don't often have specific targets and if they do the selection of the target is not done through a rational process. There are some instances where the target is a specific person and the rest are collateral damage because of their association or proximity to the target(s), and there are instances where the target is a specific place (ostensibly where the shooter suffered some perceived wrong or insult, for which the shooting is revenge).
It doesn't seem likely that specific industries would become targets. You're really referring to a more ideologically oriented kind of perpetrator, a terrorist - who acts in order to bring about changes in policy. Like PETA or Earth First or the Abortion extremists or jihadists (who are just following religious instructions).
Be realistic. Parents can't supervisor their kids 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The same way that we can't supervise 320 million Americans. Teenagers can keep secrets from their parents and it's not hard doing so. We've all been there. It's different when you have motives like what Cruz had. What would be your practical age limit to where parents would be liable? Paddocks parents are likely dead or in their 80's. Lanza killed his mother and his dad lived in NJ. Plus, what's the penalty? Jail time? What if they have other children? Then those children will be separated from their parents which will damage their development into adulthood.
Decades ago my secrets were that I listened to the music they disapproved of and snuck into R rated movies. I didn't occur to people of my generation to shoot up a school. It is different that multiple people have motives like this now. What has changed. Guns are the same, schools are the same. The family unit is different and has disintegrated.
The Internet, and hours and hours of video on it detailing every mass shooting since Columbine.
No. Here's why, and remember I'm coming from a perspective of 30+ years as a teacher, NRA Life Member, Hunting and Firearms Safety Instructor.
Teachers who would be authorized to carry would have to be carefully vetted, there are just too many crazies on school staffs. When this came up a few years ago, before I retired, I ran my colleagues through my head and the response from me ranged from "No", to "Hell no" to "not in a kajillion years".
Added to that, if the carrying staff was to be known to only a select group of people you'd always, always have someone in that group who would broadcast it to the students. Sometimes on purpose, "Don't **** off Mr._____, he's one of our armed teachers and he'll shoot your ass", to just plain diarrhea of the mouth.
When that hits the hallways there will always, always be those one or two kids in every school who will make it their life's goal to get that gun.
"Two things can be right at once. A gun can be used for good and a gun can be used for bad. We need to grow up and understand that guns aren't going anywhere and neither are evil people who do horrible things. So stop wasting our energy talking about ineffective gun control and start focusing on ways to actively save lives instead of moving air around the room to talk about gun control. And while we're at it, let's focus on why we're raising cold-blooded killers. Because we've always had guns, but kids in the past weren't shooting schools up like this."
Don’t tell me what to do. America’s gun problem is unique in the world and only intelligent gun restrictions are going to help fix it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.