Shooting at Texas high school
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
People can say all kinds of things when they know that their ideas will never come to fruition. That doesn't mean that they believe what they are saying is realistic. Of course, as I stated above, there are plenty of idiots in this country. Some of them just like to hear themselves talk. But, you and I both know that it is never going to happen. Even if the NRA goes the way of the dinosaur (another thing that will never happen).
You make it difficult to carry on a conversation when you accuse people like me of kind of liking the murders. Not wanting the government to be the only entity in society that has guns is a far cry from liking to see murders. The fact that I disagree with you over gun confiscation does not equate with me advocating murder.
Where has @syskatine stated that he is in favor of gun confiscation? You were the one who brought that idea into this thread.
I completely agree it is ridiculous. But short of total confiscation of every gun in the possession of private citizens what measures are there to guarantee there could never be another shooting? Usually we are told to enact half measures, and when it is agreed those measures would not solve the problem we are told “well, that would be a good first start.” The hell with that! Let's get it on! All the way to tyrannical oligarchyy that guarantees no one can murder us except government officials.
What would you call a proposal to ban certain types of guns from private ownership? If a particular gun is banned isn’t the only option for the government to confiscate those that are in private hands?
Again, it was a shotgun and a revolver. Unless you start banning all weapons, I'm not sure there is an instance where either of those 2 gun types would be banned.
That’s a reaction I see on my wife’s face every day!
So if the guns hadn’t been used and only the bombs what would the talking points be. If any of those bombs had gone off there could have been a lot more fatalities than what occurred. It’s not about the guns. This kid was having problems to the point where he was making bombs. Something in this society needs to change to address this and I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know what that is.
So we want to outlaw guns but not confiscate them? So do you not equate involuntary hand-overs of illegal objects by law abiding citizens somehow different than 'confiscation'?
Don't you know, if the law was people at least 21 years old could own guns, he never would have had them. Just like no one under 21 ever has beer.
His social media accounts are full of a myriad of warnings. The clues or outright roadmap was there Surely others saw his postings yet, as of now, nobody saw something and said something. Apparently he wore a trench coat (a little hot in Texas today for trench coats) with USSR plastered on the back. Signs signs everywhere a sign (Five Man Electrical Band).
Ugh. I didn't want to do it. But.....
-waiting period between purchase and possession
-ban sale of certain assault style weapons to anyone under age of X.
-ban sale of certain assault style weapons to anyone until they show proof being a responsible gun owner. Maybe that means they have to prove they own a gun safe big enough to hold said weapon and have a mental health evaluation. Maybe it means they need the local Sheriff to interview them and ask a list of questions.
There are ways to reduce the likelihood that students can get their hands on certain weapons without triggering (no pun intended) red flags. I just threw some out off the top of my head. Maybe they make sense, maybe they don't, but where's the harm in actually giving some new/old ideas some legitimate discussion?
Or, we can just go with the "thoughts and prayers" line of thinking every time something like this happens. Because, you know...2nd amendment.
Where did I (or Syskatine) say that I (we) are in favor of outlawing guns? No one said anything about that, except Ponca (and now you).
This is the problem. We can't discuss the topic without someone screaming "You want to take my guns away.....2nd Amendment!" Conversation over.
I don't know if any of you have mentioned it yet, but it was his dad's guns. It seems like a good first step to hold his dad equally responsible for the actions. I keep reading where most of these kids are getting them from their parents hold the parents accountable. Seems like an easy step everyone should be able to agree on.
We must have been posting at the same time. I think we should hold bad parenting accountable.
Are you serious? You know they can simply ban import, manufacture, and/or sale and leave current owners alone? How do you arrrive at the conclusion that's the "only option?"
And yes, I think on some level, people that construct false choices that end with, "So let's do nothing" or "Let's improve parenting" (how's that work?) are tryign to keep anything from happening. The reason, after all these shootings, that they're married to stasis and non-action is because they kind of like the status quo. Little kids getting their guts blown out means they could someday go shoot somebody that really needed it. I haven't heard a better rationale for the non-action that just enables this stuff.
(Using some Dan logic) So you're' saying we should kick in parents' doors in the early morning and drag them at gunpoint to re-education camps to ensure their parenting is compliant with government mandate?
Not one of those suggestions would have prevented todays events.
Both guns were legally owned by his father. A shotgun and a revolver. Not even a semi auto pistol or rifle. No "assault style rifle" was used.
I'm all for it, as long as we have the same criteria for acquiring a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, and being eligible to vote (along with picture ID at the time of the vote).
I’m not following you. The government could ban the import, manufacture and/or sale of a certain type of gun, but people who already own that type of gun will be allowed to keep them? And how would that bring an end to the shootings?
Been, those ideas have been discussed countless times. They are precisely the ones to which I referred earlier: half measures that everyone admits would have no impact on the recurrence of shootings, but are advanced as a “good first start.” What would be the second start? The third? Eventually only the government would have access to guns, would it not?
So, the suggestions are bad ideas? Would they have made the Parkland shooting less likely/less costly? Maybe, maybe not. Are there other ideas that could be implemented that would have reduced the chances of today's shooting, the Las Vegas shooting, etc? I bet there are. But, we can't change anything from the status quo, because the NRA lobby won't let it happen.
There is a wide, wide range between where we are right now and confiscation of everyone's weapons. If we move 5% from where we are now, toward the extreme, and it saves lives, is it worth it?
No. That is never going to happen. We all know it. Yet, the pro-gun faction wants everyone to worry about it so that the status quo will be maintained with not a single change being considered. Thoughts and prayers.
Yes. Well, over time the number of guns goes down, Dan. If you have 370,000,000 today with x number of guns, and in 20 years you have 430,000,000 people with x-y guns (guns get wore out, rust, tear up, lost, etc.) you have fewer guns distributed among more people, with higher prices. Crazy people frequently have a tough time getting their hands on things that are hard to obtain.
It wouldn't "bring an end" to the shootings, it would decrease the number of shootings.
Let’s say your ideas are implemented. You get everything you asked for. But six months later there is another school shooting. Which would be your reaction: 1) Oh, dear, it didn’t stop the shootings. Dan was right. It was a bad idea and now it should be repealed. Or: 2) Oh, dear, it didn’t stop the shootings. Obviously we need to impose even stricter bans on the public at large.
3). It didn't stop this shooting, but maybe it stopped 2 that would have happened in the last 6 months. The libs were lucky to move the ball at all, no way will they be successful in moving it further down the field.
Why the eff would Dan want the changes repealed? They didn't affect him or limit his ability to own/purchase guns? He must be a crazy alt-right "armageddon is coming" dude.
Does that mean you will be OK with the killings for the next twenty years? Ban the guns you recommend and that’s the end of it? No matter how many additional school killings there are in the next 20 years you will object if anyone recommends further bans? And twenty-one years from now there will still be school killings, but not as many as today so those killings will be acceptable?
You seem to require instant, immediate solutions to a huge problems. What's wrong with long term solutions that are effective in one, two or three decades from now?
Todays shooting, Parkland shooting, and the Vegas shooting are all completely different situations.
Vegas the guy took an arsenal into one of the busiest, most popular hotels on the strip without a second glance by anyone. Could it have been prevented? Probably not with your additional gun laws. It would have just taken more patience. Even limiting clip sizes, he had enough different weapons to still have done a ton of damage.
Bump stocks being outlawed could have maybe lessened the casualties.
Parkland lets admit it, the FBI screwed the pooch on that one big time. The shooter had been reported several times and was even on one of their watchlists. FBI owns that all the way. Should have never happened. Again guns were legally purchased and lawful, correct?
Santa Fe shooter was in possession of legally owned and non semi auto guns. The bombs he had created are outlawed, but again, no law is going to stop a criminal from doing bad things when they want to commit crimes. Shooter admitted to wanting to die in a firefight but didn't have the nuts to do it.
So, yes, some gun control restrictions could have possibly helped reduce the casualties in the Vegas shooting. Parkland is totally on the FBI as far as I'm concerned and today just sucks. A kid with a shotgun decides to shoot up his high school. Solutions would be security measure changes to the high school, not gun laws.
