Latest School Shooting

[declansdad]

I wasn't implying you were saying changing the consitution just stating a fact.

Your earlier statement of "found a way of putting reasonable restrictions on guns without taking them away from everyone." was what I was responding to. Tighter restrictions would have done what in this specific case? Both guns are legal in both countries, the suspect obtained the gun from his father (with or without his permission or knowledge was unknown the last time I looked at the details)

If you talk all day long about tighter restrictions but don't look at the whys it's just like the road issue in my neighborhood. People are very quick to jump up and say "well if you just had tighter restrictions like we do" rather than caring about why.

You seen to be missing my point. I am saying the discussion about guns has to be part of the overall discussion about the problem. Never said it needed to looked at in isolation or it is what is causing the problem. Too many people try to make this sound it is only about guns - for or against. It isn't and it certainly can't be looked at that way.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You seen to be missing mu point. I am saying the discussion about guns has to be part of the overall discussion about the problem. Never said it needed to looked at in isolation or it is what is causing the problem. Too many people try to make this sound it is only about guns - for or against. It isn't and it certainly can't be looked at that way.

Ok now I see what you mean. I do agree. The threads on the DIS however it's just very few people want to even converse about anything else other than simply guns guns guns. Not too many care about much else other than saying "well why do you need this gun, why do you think you have a right to own a gun, why do you even need a gun, you should just be like us (meaning another country) then you wouldn't have much of a problem," and so on and so on.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Ok now I see what you mean. I do agree. The threads on the DIS however it's just very few people want to even converse about anything else other than simply guns guns guns. Not too many care about much else other than saying "well why do you need this gun, why do you think you have a right to own a gun, why do you even need a gun, you should just be like us (meaning another country) then you wouldn't have much of a problem," and so on and so on.

I don't see that at all. I think you have many people trying to have discussions about guns, restrictions, regulations, what the heck we can do and then you have people who just assume they are saying they want to take away guns. While you might get a few random posts saying that, most of the time it's just posters jumping to conclusions and assuming everyone just wants to take their guns.
There's been many (too many) threads here about these types of tragedies and they all turn into gun people assuming any mention of regulation or restrictions means talking away all guns.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Interesting story, thanks.

Your welcome

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I don't see that at all. I think you have many people trying to have discussions about guns, restrictions, regulations, what the heck we can do and then you have people who just assume they are saying they want to take away guns. While you might get a few random posts saying that, most of the time it's just posters jumping to conclusions and assuming everyone just wants to take their guns.
There's been many (too many) threads here about these types of tragedies and they all turn into gun people assuming any mention of regulation or restrictions means talking away all guns.

But whenever people/posters/whomever are calling for banning certain types of weapons, look at the bills being introduced, some are calling for banning AR style rifles. What happens after the next shooting? And the next? Because someone will just use a shotgun or a revolver like this idiot did. These same people that are now saying “No one is calling for gun confiscation” will be calling for just that and some of us know it.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I don't see that at all. I think you have many people trying to have discussions about guns, restrictions, regulations, what the heck we can do and then you have people who just assume they are saying they want to take away guns. While you might get a few random posts saying that, most of the time it's just posters jumping to conclusions and assuming everyone just wants to take their guns.
There's been many (too many) threads here about these types of tragedies and they all turn into gun people assuming any mention of regulation or restrictions means talking away all guns.

I'm sure there are some people all over on the spectrum if you will.

There are people however in this thread as well as the various other threads that have said to ban/take away all guns as if poof that solves the problem because hey country x doesn't have them and they don't have that issue or something similar.

I'm sure the talk of more and more restrictions on guns without talking about actually trying to look into why people do these sorts of things becomes tiresome to people.

There's been a lot more conversation centered around heavily restricting guns (such as taking them away entirely, forcing everyone to register them and have a license and permit for all, getting rid of guns that are abc, raising the age limit, etc). It's a lot of talk about guns guns guns and little talk of other things.

If we take this case alone--none of that above talk would have done anything to prevent what happened. I'm not sure about the explosives part but if that was actually part of his plan then the 'remove all guns' wouldn't have prevented explosives being used.

Certaintly doesn't mean we twiddle our thumbs and whatnot but like I mentioned before I'm not for doing just anything just to say someone gave an inch.

 

[UncleMike101]

When was the last time private citizens legally had to rise up defend the USA in times of strife?

That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
The fact that virtually every nation on Earth has been invaded, conquered, and destroyed by outside forces must never be forgotten.
We don't live in some magical "modern" age where such things can't happen.
"Those who don't remember History are doomed to repeat it."

Makes sense. At that time there WOULD be a need for a well disciplined militia to guard and protect the USA from threats such as invading forces.

Nothing in the least has changed.
We are just as subject to suffering an invasion as everyone in History was during their "Enlightened, Modern times".

I think the possibilitites are rather minuscule.
I never said you would need to change your constitution but to say discussions about gun control cannot be part of the overall discussion because of the constitution is simply a cop-out.

Again, you really need to read up on World History.
No one, an any time in History, has been immune or exempt from invasion or hostile takeover by others who covet whatever they have.
And.
The Constitution is the very reason that our nation exists as it does today.
And I dare say the only reason our allies are relatively secure to carry on with their daily operations.
I believe that the U.S. went to the aid of Great Briton, and her associated nations, twice during the last Century thus allowing them to continue as free nations.
Otherwise Europe would be speaking German exclusively.
The backbone of the U.S. is, and will always be, the fact that we live under a Constitution which allows us the freedom to live pretty much as we choose so long as we don't step on the toes of other members of our Society or violate the Laws which our Representative Legislatures have put in place.
Our Constitutional Republic, (NOT a Democracy) is surely flawed but it's the best form of governing that humans have come up with yet.

 

[Domo]

Nothing in the least has changed.
We are just as subject to suffering an invasion as everyone in History was during their "Enlightened, Modern times".

Enlighten me. Who is trying to invade the USA?

True, people want to bomb her. But owning guns won't stop that. As the UK discovered during the Bad Days of the IRA.

 

[lifesavacation]

I really wish they’d create a bi-partisan committee to come up with solutions.

 

[monsterkitty]

I hope that with the Parkland and the Santa Fe shooters they learn why the two boys did this. What really led them to their schools to kill classmates. Learn from them instead of argue.

 

[declansdad]

That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
The fact that virtually every nation on Earth has been invaded, conquered, and destroyed by outside forces must never be forgotten.
We don't live in some magical "modern" age where such things can't happen.
"Those who don't remember History are doomed to repeat it."


Nothing in the least has changed.
We are just as subject to suffering an invasion as everyone in History was during their "Enlightened, Modern times".


Again, you really need to read up on World History.
No one, an any time in History, has been immune or exempt from invasion or hostile takeover by others who covet whatever they have.
And.
The Constitution is the very reason that our nation exists as it does today.
And I dare say the only reason our allies are relatively secure to carry on with their daily operations.
I believe that the U.S. went to the aid of Great Briton, and her associated nations, twice during the last Century thus allowing them to continue as free nations.
Otherwise Europe would be speaking German exclusively.
The backbone of the U.S. is, and will always be, the fact that we live under a Constitution which allows us the freedom to live pretty much as we choose so long as we don't step on the toes of other members of our Society or violate the Laws which our Representative Legislatures have put in place.
Our Constitutional Republic, (NOT a Democracy) is surely flawed but it's the best form of governing that humans have come up with yet.

I never said things couldn't happen, I said the possibility is minuscule. If you are worried about someone invading the USA I just don't know what to say about that.

As for your last statement, I think many people would disagree with you about that.

 

[UncleMike101]

Enlighten me. Who is trying to invade the USA?

True, people want to bomb her. But owning guns won't stop that. As the UK discovered during the Bad Days of the IRA.

And you assume that if we are bombed by some other country that they would then just walk away????
Nope.
They would send an invading army to occupy the land, which is exactly what every conquering nation has done since humans have existed.
As it stands now even after doing major damage to Americas large cities an invading army would have to contend with million of scared, whizzed off, armed, Americans who aren't likely to welcome them with open arms but instead with firearms.
This fact is not lost on our enemies who have witnessed the defeat of Major nations by much smaller, not as well equipped, but thoroughly determined Citizen Armies.
Viet Nam, Cambodia, Iran, and other examples make it imperative that a nation be completely disarmed before an invasion can even be considered.
Our adversaries are well aware of our predilection for firearms ownership and have certainly considered the gross hazards of invading a nation so well armed as ours.
They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

 

[Domo]

And you assume that if we are bombed by some other country that they would then just walk away????
Nope.
They would send an invading army to occupy the land, which is exactly what every conquering nation has done since humans have existed.
As it stands now even after doing major damage to Americas large cities an invading army would have to contend with million of scared, whizzed off, armed, Americans who aren't likely to welcome them with open arms but instead with firearms.
This fact is not lost on our enemies who have witnessed the defeat of Major nations by much smaller, not as well equipped, but thoroughly determined Citizen Armies.
Viet Nam, Cambodia, Iran, and other examples make it imperative that a nation be completely disarmed before an invasion can even be considered.
Our adversaries are well aware of our predilection for firearms ownership and have certainly considered the gross hazards of invading a nation so well armed as ours.
They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

Oh I see! The fact that some nutters are armed to the teeth will CERTAINLY stop terrorists from letting off bombs! I am enlightened!

FYI, that was a masterful demonstration of sarcasm

 

[UncleMike101]

I never said things couldn't happen, I said the possibility is minuscule. If you are worried about someone invading the USA I just don't know what to say about that.

As for your last statement, I think many people would disagree with you about that.

Are you so uninformed as to how the Unites States operates that you believe that we are a Democracy and not a Representative Republic?????????
We were founded as a Republic because the Founders knew full well that Democracy's were far from a good governmental system.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49 percent.
(Thomas Jefferson)
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
(John Adams)
“Unlimited democracy is, just like oligarchy, a tyranny spread over a large number of people.”
(Aristotle)
“I have been long convinced that institutions purely democratic must sooner or later destroy liberty, or civilization, or both.”
(Thomas Macaulay, British liberal thinker)
and finally;
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
(Winston Churchill)

 

[UncleMike101]

Oh I see! The fact that some nutters are armed to the teeth will CERTAINLY stop terrorists from letting off bombs! I am enlightened!

FYI, that was a masterful demonstration of sarcasm

Not really..................

 

[Domo]

Not really..................

Aww go on! It was EPIC!

 

[UncleMike101]

Aww go on! It was EPIC!

It was notable in a British sort of way.
But not epic.
Winston Churchill could put forth EPIC sarcasm and I credit his American half with giving him that attribute.

 

[Domo]

It was notable in a British sort of way.
But not epic.
Winston Churchill could put forth EPIC sarcasm and I credit his American half with giving him that attribute.

Churchill was good at that...

 

[Colleen27]

My point..was if both are legal why call for more restrictions in this particular case. The suspect got the guns from his father, he wasn't legally allowed to purchase it at age 17 anyways.

But that is one of the more commonly called-for restrictions: penalties for legal owners who allow their weapons to be used by others who cannot legally own them, if those ineligible owners use the gun(s) in the commission of a crime.

If my kid gets drunk on the beer in my fridge and he gets behind the wheel and injures someone, I'm criminally liable for providing that alcohol. But if I keep a gun in my nightstand and my kid kills someone with it, I face no penalty for providing that firearm.

 

[Colleen27]

I hope that with the Parkland and the Santa Fe shooters they learn why the two boys did this. What really led them to their schools to kill classmates. Learn from them instead of argue.

I think that may open a whole different can of worms. Right now, it is starting to look like the Santa Fe shooter did this because a girl turned him down too often/too forcefully. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-shooter-20180519-story.html