No gun problem in the US

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i agree access and quantity are a big issue. i agree 100%.

what do we do about it? i honestly don’t know. we can’t confiscate hundreds of millions of guns. literally hundreds of millions. which makes
me wonder what gun laws will
do.

i don’t know why you can’t concede that mental health is part of it. i guess because the dnc hasn’t ordered you to believe it.

we’re a free country of 330 million people. there’s a very small number of very sick
folks, and a ton of guns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any one who kills children has MH issues that’s obvious and not up to debate

Please don’t go down the confiscate nonsense the right loves to preach

But when an 18 year old buys 2 ARs and 350 rounds over 3 days and there’s no red flag or waiting period in Texas .. these are basic laws needed

But In the state of Texas, a mandatory 24-hour waiting period is required for all abortions. The waiting period begins at your in-office consultation and ultrasound visit. A mandatory ultrasound is also required by law under

Texas Priorities are clear
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Only gun dealers with a Federal Firearms License are required to do a background check before selling a gun in Texas, not private sellers. Texas has NO state requirement for more comprehensive background checks when purchasing a firearm. Therefore, persons prohibited from owning firearms can easily obtain a gun - on the internet, at a gun show, even from a private seller out of the trunk of a car.
In states like Texas with no state-required background check, research has shown that 57% of private gun sales were done with no background check.
Around 80% of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained through transfers from unlicensed sellers. Including the purchase of his firearm by the Odessa/Midland mass shooter.
Texans overwhelmingly (79%) support universal background checks.

But it’s a mental health problem
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

have you ever once said a democrat idea was wrong or a republican idea had any merit? ever?

democrats run the federal
government . what have they done last two years to stop these things? please specify.

democrats run chicago, which has strict anti gun laws? how is that working out?

you are not persuadable by results. ideology is all that matters.

if it’s not a mental health issue, why didn’t these things happen in the 1950s with this frequency? we’re guns invented in the 1990s?

almost everything you say is destroyed by historical facts.

all those crazy things you say the gop stands for, yet people are leaving blue states for red ones, and the gop is poised to do great in november. why is that?

this week, senate republicans proposed a school safety bill. senate democrats killed it. so stop saying the gop does nothing. you’re lying.

the 2 sides have different ideas, and neither side is willing to compromise, and you are a perfect example of that ideology-driven stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

have you ever once said a democrat idea was wrong or a republican idea had any merit? ever?

democrats run the federal
government . what have they done last two years to stop these things? please specify.

democrats run chicago, which has strict anti gun laws? how is that working out?

you are not persuadable by results. ideology is all that matters.

if it’s not a mental health issue, why didn’t these things happen in the 1950s with this frequency? we’re guns invented in the 1990s?

almost everything you say is destroyed by historical facts.

all those crazy things you say the gop stands for, yet people are leaving blue states for red ones, and the gop is poised to do great in november. why is that?

this week, senate republicans proposed a school safety bill. senate democrats killed it. so stop saying the gop does nothing. you’re lying.

the 2 sides have different ideas, and neither side is willing to compromise, and you are a perfect example of that ideology-driven stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More than 100 TV ads from Republican candidates and conservative-aligned groups showed guns or used guns as a talking point this year,

Pull your head from the Sand

the GOP unwillingness to try to prevent these Crimes is the actual issue ..

And chicago has a Gang and Gun Issue .. but get back to me when there intent is shooting and killing children Wholesale ..

How And Why Chicago Violence Became Conservatives' Favorite Talking Point

and clearly yours

For a certain segment of conservative politicians and pundits—far from all, to be sure—pointing out what is often referred to as “black-on-black crime” in Chicago has become the preferred shorthand for castigating ineffectual liberalism, reinforcing racial wedges and feigning a concern for crime victims—even when their voting records paint a different picture of their priorities.


https://chicagoist.com/2016/08/29/ho...nce_became.php

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

More than 100 TV ads from Republican candidates and conservative-aligned groups showed guns or used guns as a talking point this year,

Pull your head from the Sand

the GOP unwillingness to try to prevent these Crimes is the actual issue ..

And chicago has a Gang and Gun Issue .. but get back to me when there intent is shooting and killing children Wholesale ..

How And Why Chicago Violence Became Conservatives' Favorite Talking Point

and clearly yours

For a certain segment of conservative politicians and pundits—far from all, to be sure—pointing out what is often referred to as “black-on-black crime” in Chicago has become the preferred shorthand for castigating ineffectual liberalism, reinforcing racial wedges and feigning a concern for crime victims—even when their voting records paint a different picture of their priorities.


https://chicagoist.com/2016/08/29/ho...nce_became.php

if the democrats want to solve this and have the right ideas, why haven’t biden and the democrats in congress passed those solutions? Who’s stopping them? They run the show. Do you not get that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if the democrats want to solve this and have the right ideas, why haven’t biden and the democrats in congress passed those solutions? Who’s stopping them? They run the show. Do you not get that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because laws die at Mitches feet and two democrats will not work to eliminate the filibuster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

More than 100 TV ads from Republican candidates and conservative-aligned groups showed guns or used guns as a talking point this year,

Pull your head from the Sand

the GOP unwillingness to try to prevent these Crimes is the actual issue ..

And chicago has a Gang and Gun Issue .. but get back to me when there intent is shooting and killing children Wholesale ..

How And Why Chicago Violence Became Conservatives' Favorite Talking Point

and clearly yours

For a certain segment of conservative politicians and pundits—far from all, to be sure—pointing out what is often referred to as “black-on-black crime” in Chicago has become the preferred shorthand for castigating ineffectual liberalism, reinforcing racial wedges and feigning a concern for crime victims—even when their voting records paint a different picture of their priorities.


https://chicagoist.com/2016/08/29/ho...nce_became.php

chicago style violence claims way more lives than these mass shootings. John had the numbers

Your side ignores that, because it’s not a politically winning issue for them.

I’m not distorting anything. your side is. they spend all their energy on mass shootings because they think it helps them win elections.

They never talk about the much larger scale problem, because it makes their side look incompetent. Which, unfortunately for you, they are.

CT has had pure un checked
liberalism for decades. Sandy Hook happened here. Was that somehow the fault of republicans, who control nothing here in CT?

again, i’m reacting to actual results. You’re only reacting to what helps your ideology. Even now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Too much emotion on both sides and not wading through the thread, so this is likely one and done... This one hits close to the bone with a 3rd and 6th grader. Plus I am staying out of here in protest of ScottW fishing the keys for a month straight....

If I were the Dem in the senate, I would put up a clean bill with some of the topics presented here (background, waiting, etc). Get everyone on the record on each of these issues rather than a more convoluted bill trying to do everything.

I would recommend a book called 'Gunfight' by Ryan Busse. Interesting perspective (former gun company executive) on the cultural change in the last decade or so, particularly on the marketing of body armor/tactical gear/AR-type weapons etc. to couch commandos.. He has a Ted talk out there as well.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Only gun dealers with a Federal Firearms License are required to do a background check before selling a gun in Texas, not private sellers. Texas has NO state requirement for more comprehensive background checks when purchasing a firearm. Therefore, persons prohibited from owning firearms can easily obtain a gun - on the internet, at a gun show, even from a private seller out of the trunk of a car.
In states like Texas with no state-required background check, research has shown that 57% of private gun sales were done with no background check.
Around 80% of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained through transfers from unlicensed sellers. Including the purchase of his firearm by the Odessa/Midland mass shooter.
Texans overwhelmingly (79%) support universal background checks.

But it’s a mental health problem
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re dismissing the mental health problem because you don’t happen to like it. Utter failures in mental health policy are precisely why Newtown happened.

i’m totally fine with expanded background checks and probably ok with red flag laws although they’re ripe for abuse.

you’re also focused on the mass showings for political reasons, and completely ignoring garden variety handgun violence, which is irrefutably a much bigger problem.

that doesn’t mean we don’t consider your ideas about mass shootings. But like a dutiful liberal you only care about the smaller problem and ignore the issue hat claims far more lives. why can’t we address. both?

Because talking about the true causes of urban gun violence, is a political loser for the left, and you all know it. So it gets swept under the rug.

Black lives only matter when they help democrats win elections.

i think you have some good ideas. you’d have more good ideas, if you’d be willing to put down the Kool Aid and think outside the parameters of what liberalism tells you to think.

there’s good ideas in both sides. but both sides only talk about the good ideas that help them win elections. . both sides do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In 2008 Justice Antonin Scalia introduced another interpretation that gun proponents seize on to argue against gun control. He wrote the Supreme Court decision that individuals have the right to own firearms. But Scalia also stated, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” He approved of “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem I have with what Scalia said with his double negative, "not unlimited" is that he cops out from saying directly that it is limited. So why doesn't he say that "most rights are limited"?--that is the positive result of the double negative. And the double negative coming from his inclusion of it in an Court interpretation leaves the decision open to entirely voiding the 2A. For if there is no absoluteness to it, then it cannot claim any absolute immunity from being denied by some interpretation of the need to protect society.

If he cannot tell us in what way it is absolute, then it is not guaranteed, and can be eliminated if five Justices so decide. Saying that it is "not unlimited" without pointing out in what way it is unlimited, is saying that it is not an unalienable right, but rather a right or privilege granted by government, and can be limited or made void at the whim of government. Which is not what the framers of the Constitution said in the text of the Amendment.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

There can be some qualifications, but the default should be shall issue unless there is a reason not to.

If there can be a reason to, and the 2A does not clearly spell out the reasons, then the reason will be left up to those in government power and on the SCOTUS to spell out and enforce.

If the reason for voiding the protection provided by the 2A is left up to government, then the Amendment is not an unalienable right.

It's a Mental Health AND a Culture Problem.

I agree. The more nihilistic our culture becomes, the less life has meaning or value--and the more that destruction of life will be an attraction, an amusement, a source of power, to those who see or feel no, for lack of a better word, no sacredness, no concrete foundation, no reliable, predictable, believable reality or truth. Where all is relative, even your body can be shaped or transformed into ways that defy that which connected you to some semblance of reality. So the power you had as an individual in a structured society with coherent beliefs and customs becomes essentially frivolous. The excitement of succeeding in a prescribed society becomes a joke. Any accomplishment within the joke has fleeting value or purpose as it can be voided of meaning or importance with waves of new superficial attractions. The only believable reality is the power to participate in the joke in whichever way you choose. And the most significant thing, maybe the only significant thing you can do, the most powerful thing you can do, is just blow the whole joke up. And thus being something of actual importance to those meaningless people around you. And, for the moment, they can recognize that you are the most important thing in their existence

Lots of stolen guns in Chicago but it is NEVER the criminal's fault.

It's only their fault if they're a white supremacist.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's only their fault if they're a white supremacist.

Stupid statement by you both, so what no criminals go to trial, it’s the standard right dodge “guns don’t kill people”. Take all the assault rifles out of the picture since they became available and what is the reduction of the death rates and how many children are able to grow up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Stupid statement by you both, so what no criminals go to trial, it’s the standard right dodge “guns don’t kill people”. Take all the assault rifles out of the picture since they became available and what is the reduction of the death rates and how many children are able to grow up.

I agree that weapons that look like the AR-15 are disproportionately used in mass shootings. I'm convinced the look of those rifles fuels the fantasies of some very sick folks. But we tried an assault weapons ban, it didn't work. They let it lapse. Doesn't mean it wouldn't have some benefit today, but how do you get rid of the ones already out there?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The majority of responsible gun owners want better gun control but for some reason Republicans ignore those poll?

I'm going to pull this one quote because this is really where things distill from.

First and foremost, eff off for your statement that insinuates that only the firearm owners that agree with your requirements are responsible. Way to bridge the divide. But your statement there is just a mini version of the left's overall approach; marginalize and demonize the right.

A lot of Republicans want better gun control, but they do not want what the left brings. I'm willing to work for better legislation that would actually make a difference but no matter what goals or concession the right is willing to work on, it will never be enough as the left will want more and consume more. Want to know what would have worked here? A proper and well regulated Red Flag law. Why can't we have a Red Flag law that keeps firearms out of the hands of people that should not have them while respecting the rights of the significant majority of people?

The left wants no guns and the major effort made is to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding people. The left wants a UNIFYING topic they can rally support around to make Republicans Bad People, regardless of the facts on the ground. The left spends BILLIONS of dollars per year to get "assault rifles" banned for the 300-400 per year killed by them and you don't hear a fcking peep about the 15000 murders in America's cities every year. Gun homicides increased in cities by THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT in 2020 over 2019. Over Fifty percent of gun deaths are suicide, 45 percent are violent crime. Of that violent crime, a tiny amount are these "Mass Shootings". It is still too much, and most instances of those Mass Shootings are mental health.

The left moves the needle with "Common Sense" Gun reform. Everything from the Left is "Common Sense" and it is stated enough by politicians and a compliant and willing media, they believe it. But it entirely misses the problem, mental health.

I will not accept the lefts targeting of Legal Gun owners rather than targeting the people likely to commit the crime. We could work on that but we don't because the Left doesn't want that, they want to break those that don't agree with them.

So, no, I will give in to your demands. I will not accept your "common sense" and more kids are going to die because we can't work together because YOUR side demands changes that won't resolve anything at the problem level while directly impacting the rights of those that are not the problem.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Stupid statement by you both, so what no criminals go to trial, it’s the standard right dodge “guns don’t kill people”. Take all the assault rifles out of the picture since they became available and what is the reduction of the death rates and how many children are able to grow up.

Take "assault weapons" out of the picture and 2020's 46,000 gun deaths comes way down to about 45,700.

So, no, "assault weapons", the major target of the dems and, cough, Common Sense Gun Laws people, cough, is responsible for much less than 1% of annual gun deaths.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I'm going to pull this one quote because this is really where things distill from.

First and foremost, eff off for your statement that insinuates that only the firearm owners that agree with your requirements are responsible. Way to bridge the divide. But your statement there is just a mini version of the left's overall approach; marginalize and demonize the right.

A lot of Republicans want better gun control, but they do not want what the left brings. I'm willing to work for better legislation that would actually make a difference but no matter what goals or concession the right is willing to work on, it will never be enough as the left will want more and consume more. Want to know what would have worked here? A proper and well regulated Red Flag law. Why can't we have a Red Flag law that keeps firearms out of the hands of people that should not have them while respecting the rights of the significant majority of people?

The left wants no guns and the major effort made is to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding people. The left wants a UNIFYING topic they can rally support around to make Republicans Bad People, regardless of the facts on the ground. The left spends BILLIONS of dollars per year to get "assault rifles" banned for the 300-400 per year killed by them and you don't hear a fcking peep about the 15000 murders in America's cities every year. Gun homicides increased in cities by THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT in 2020 over 2019. Over Fifty percent of gun deaths are suicide, 45 percent are violent crime. Of that violent crime, a tiny amount are these "Mass Shootings". It is still too much, and most instances of those Mass Shootings are mental health.

The left moves the needle with "Common Sense" Gun reform. Everything from the Left is "Common Sense" and it is stated enough by politicians and a compliant and willing media, they believe it. But it entirely misses the problem, mental health.

I will not accept the lefts targeting of Legal Gun owners rather than targeting the people likely to commit the crime. We could work on that but we don't because the Left doesn't want that, they want to break those that don't agree with them.

So, no, I will give in to your demands. I will not accept your "common sense" and more kids are going to die because we can't work together because YOUR side demands changes that won't resolve anything at the problem level while directly impacting the rights of those that are not the problem.







Take "assault weapons" out of the picture and 2020's 46,000 gun deaths comes way down to about 45,700.

So, no, "assault weapons", the major target of the dems and, cough, Common Sense Gun Laws people, cough, is responsible for much less than 1% of annual gun deaths.

Red flag laws MIGHT have stopped Sandy Hook. That poor kid was well known as being horribly broken. But it's also very easy to see red flag laws abused, where certain people would spend all day calling the cops, telling them that everyone they don't like, is too dangerous to own a gun. Very ripe for abuse.

Very, very tough.

"you don't hear a fcking peep about the 15000 murders in America's cities every year."

This is exactly true, and it's irrefutable proof that this isn't about saving lives, it's about demonizing the other side to win elections. If you actually want to save lives, you'd immediately implement stop and frisk in every single big city. We know that worked. We san see what New York looked like before, during, and after. But ideology is what matters here, not results.

You never get this worked up. Tough times. And getting worse.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Red flag laws MIGHT have stopped Sandy Hook. That poor kid was well known as being horribly broken. But it's also very easy to see red flag laws abused, where certain people would spend all day calling the cops, telling them that everyone they don't like, is too dangerous to own a gun. Very ripe for abuse.

A Red Flag law that has serious provisions to protect people's individual rights - current ones don't - and are written to mitigate bad faith manipulation - yeh, I can get behind those.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I'm going to pull this one quote because this is really where things distill from.

First and foremost, eff off for your statement that insinuates that only the firearm owners that agree with your requirements are responsible. Way to bridge the divide. But your statement there is just a mini version of the left's overall approach; marginalize and demonize the right.

A lot of Republicans want better gun control, but they do not want what the left brings. I'm willing to work for better legislation that would actually make a difference but no matter what goals or concession the right is willing to work on, it will never be enough as the left will want more and consume more. Want to know what would have worked here? A proper and well regulated Red Flag law. Why can't we have a Red Flag law that keeps firearms out of the hands of people that should not have them while respecting the rights of the significant majority of people?

The left wants no guns and the major effort made is to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding people. The left wants a UNIFYING topic they can rally support around to make Republicans Bad People, regardless of the facts on the ground. The left spends BILLIONS of dollars per year to get "assault rifles" banned for the 300-400 per year killed by them and you don't hear a fcking peep about the 15000 murders in America's cities every year. Gun homicides increased in cities by THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT in 2020 over 2019. Over Fifty percent of gun deaths are suicide, 45 percent are violent crime. Of that violent crime, a tiny amount are these "Mass Shootings". It is still too much, and most instances of those Mass Shootings are mental health.

The left moves the needle with "Common Sense" Gun reform. Everything from the Left is "Common Sense" and it is stated enough by politicians and a compliant and willing media, they believe it. But it entirely misses the problem, mental health.

I will not accept the lefts targeting of Legal Gun owners rather than targeting the people likely to commit the crime. We could work on that but we don't because the Left doesn't want that, they want to break those that don't agree with them.

So, no, I will give in to your demands. I will not accept your "common sense" and more kids are going to die because we can't work together because YOUR side demands changes that won't resolve anything at the problem level while directly impacting the rights of those that are not the problem.







Take "assault weapons" out of the picture and 2020's 46,000 gun deaths comes way down to about 45,700.

So, no, "assault weapons", the major target of the dems and, cough, Common Sense Gun Laws people, cough, is responsible for much less than 1% of annual gun deaths.

Do the math on mass shootings only, I'm betting it's a different picture and you just keep putting ignorant statements up one after the other. The "left wants no guns", so no left gun owners, no left hunters, no left owners of guns to protect their homes, what a crock John.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Do the math on mass shootings only, I'm betting it's a different picture and you just keep putting ignorant statements up one after the other. The "left wants no guns", so no left gun owners, no left hunters, no left owners of guns to protect their homes, what a crock John.

Not a crock, Bob. Receipts Bob, I bring receipts. The difference between me and you on this topic is that I have at least done some homework and you are reacting to the feels.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...hs-in-the-u-s/

[wdmso]

eff off for your statement that insinuates that only the firearm owners that agree with your requirements are responsible.


Now your hearing things ..

The public is getting sick and tired of the 2a crowd and their my way or the highway mentally.. so you have a choice participate in crafting gun laws or Keep ignoring the problem sooner or the later the public is going to fix the problem. And all gun owners won’t like the results…
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

eff off for your statement that insinuates that only the firearm owners that agree with your requirements are responsible.


Now your hearing things ..

The public is getting sick and tired of the 2a crowd and their my way or the highway mentally.. so you have a choice participate in crafting gun laws or Keep ignoring the problem sooner or the later the public is going to fix the problem. And all gun owners won’t like the results…
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I chose to participate in gun laws, I will support gun laws that are properly crafted and focus on the problems, not the boogeymen brought out. As I stated this morning:

A Red Flag law that has serious provisions to protect people's individual rights - current ones don't - and are written to mitigate bad faith manipulation - yeh, I can get behind those.


And THIS ^^^^ might have prevented 2 days ago, Parkland, Newtown, Buffalo, and half a dozen others.

[Pete F.]

Here’s a start

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/defaul...2018%20(1).pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A bunch of police officers standing outside the school, while the shooting is going on, parents pleading for them to go in, pretty much demolishes the argument about the good guy with a gun saving anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A bunch of police officers standing outside the school, while the shooting is going on, parents pleading for them to go in, pretty much demolishes the argument about the good guy with a gun saving anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So the inability of police to reduce crime to 0, means there's no argument to support the existence of the police?

You do this a lot, to shoot down right wing ideas, you point out that those suggestions aren't guaranteed to be flawless. Can you name many liberal policies which you support, which we can't find a specific case showing them to be imperfect?

I notice you never hold liberal suggestions to the same standard, liberal suggestions don't need to be prefect. "Good" is good enough for liberal ideas, but conservative ideas are "demolished" if they are imperfect in any way.

[Pete F.]

An important thing to understand is that most people who have murdered large numbers of human beings were not mentally ill in any way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I think Herschel Walker wants to expand MH funding and do some other things. If anyone needs a job maybe they can apply to "look at young men that's looking at women, that's looking at their social media?"

We need to get into what happened to him, why, by putting money in mental health. Have people thought about that?" Walker said, referring to the 18-year-old alleged shooter in Uvalde, Texas. "We've gotta get back into prayer. People thinking now praying is bad. No, it's not bad. We need to pray for things like that. We need to continue to go out and fight, continue to take your constitutional rights away, and I think we can't do that."

Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Walker where he stands on gun control measures such as universal background checks or raising the age to buy assault weapons from 18 to 21.

"Well, you know, it's always been an issue, because as I said earlier on, they wanna score political points . People see that it's a person wielding that weapon, you know, Cain killed Abel," Walker said. "And that's the problem that we have. And I said, what we need to do is look into how we can stop those things.

"You talk about doing a disinformation," Walker continued, "what about getting a department that can look at young men that's looking at women, that's looking at their social media? What about doing that, looking into things like that, and we can stop that that way?"

Walker also mentioned "putting money into other departments rather than the department that's wanting to take away your rights," but did not specify any agency.

[PaulS]

Is the husband who had a heart attack and died shortly after visiting the memorial to his wife who was a teacher and was killed considered a victim also?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Is the husband who had a heart attack and died shortly after visiting the memorial to his wife who was a teacher and was killed considered a victim also?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

heartbreaking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[nightfighter]

Well we MUST be able to come up with something better than what we are "living" with... And beyond time to take the Republican/Democrat out of the discussion. Mass has the strictest I think I read. It is a starting point. Waiting periods at a minimum. Licensing. Meet face to face with somebody, not a Zoom. Background check with cross references to mental health records/prescriptions?

BUT we need to spend some money on the mental health system. NOW! I know of a 14 or 15 year old girl who sits on a cot, in a hospital corridor, for four weeks now, because there are no beds to deal with her depression! That just isn't acceptable. While we obligingly send $Billions to Ukraine (and rightfully so) should there not be an investment made in mental health and our own veterans while the money is flowing????

[Jim in CT]

after all the school shootings, how and why was there an unlocked door?

i taught at a school in a fairly poor town. Yet every single outside door had censors on them, if any of them
was ever unlocked, an alarm
immediately went off in the office, telling them which door was unlocked

Many parts of this issue are almost impossible to deal with - almost half a billion guns are out there already, evil is out there, and serious mental illness is out there. These are very difficult things to address.

Locking a door is not hard.

And the police appear to have a TON of explaining to do.

What a complete institutional/functional breakdown.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

We have trained every school shooter for years in what the schools do to stop them.
Usually lockdown drills are 4x a year, so an 18 year old boy has been trained 48x
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

If laws don't stop bad people from getting guns then WHY DID HE WAIT UNTIL THE LITERAL DAY IT WAS LEGAL TO BUY ONE?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device