Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

a reply to: MOMof3

I'm certain it will pay off, and it's really where the focus needs to be. And really, that's the whole point. The focus shouldn't be on the tool used, but rather the person who uses the tool. The tool can't do anything on it's own.

Prior to 1934 a 12 year old could walk into a school with a machine gun. Did they do it? No, but they could...and perfectly legally too. Again, the point is...did they do it? No, they didn't...even though they could.
So what changed?

What changed is the people, not the guns. In fact, if anything the laws which have been passed since then have made firearms less lethal, not more so!

Prior to 1986 a legal adult could go order a machine gun out of a magazine, no questions asked. AR-15 type firearms (which are not "machine guns" by the way) were available in any gun store, and anyone over 18 could purchase one. Were there schools shot up by machine gun toting monsters prior to 1986? Not that I'm aware of. So again, what changed?

What changed is society, what changed is kids and the way they're programmed. That's what changed. Passing laws to address something which isn't the root cause of the problem is pointless.

Let's address the real problems, and it's not a problem over the colors red and blue and which is better, but rather a problem everyone (red and blue alike) should be focused on. Let's fix the part that changed, not the part that didn't.

a reply to: face23785

A Glock 19 and Walter P22 are the weapons used according to wiki. And they are listed as semi automatics.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

A Glock 19 and Walter P22 are the weapons used according to wiki. And they are listed as semi automatics.

Yeah, as are most handguns sold these days. But ARs are the problem right?

Do you even know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic gun?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

A Glock 19 and Walter P22 are the weapons used according to wiki. And they are listed as semi automatics.

Those aren't "war weapons".

originally posted by: Willtell
It doesn’t have to be laws.

How about a massive public campaign for the unity of the country


An educational campaign to be more civil and caring to each other


We sell soap, sex, drugs why not love, understanding, hope, healing.

If this crazy nut saw a sign saying WE LOVE YOU

Maybe, just maybe he might have stopped.

Overtime that may work

That's the gist of Trump's speech today.

I don't know how it went down in the US, but you might have heard the sound of a global facepalm.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Willtell
It doesn’t have to be laws.

How about a massive public campaign for the unity of the country


An educational campaign to be more civil and caring to each other


We sell soap, sex, drugs why not love, understanding, hope, healing.

If this crazy nut saw a sign saying WE LOVE YOU

Maybe, just maybe he might have stopped.

Overtime that may work

That's the gist of Trump's speech today.

I don't know how it went down in the US, but you might have heard the sound of a global facepalm.

That wasn't a facepalm, that was the slap of common sense you heard.

a reply to: face23785

Because Obama was voted to fix health care system. Then Dems lost in 2010 and nothing got done after that.
You guys gave the republicans all the power they asked for. Why is Wall Street still here unhappy and people afraid?

I think we all agree that these types, or any types of shooting need to stop. The problem comes with how to go about it? You can't just take people's guns away. That's just not going to happen.
I am from and live in England. Our laws are very tight on guns. We have problems on occasion but nothing of the scale America is going through right now.
When we get angry with something we moan and maybe throw a few punches. Calm down and carry on.
Would things be different if we had a gun on the table next to us? Would we be so angry we would use it? We don't have that kind of choice.

If you are going to stop these shootings, the whole country has to come together and sort out a solution. It's so sad hearing of these shootings all the time. Something does have to be done. But what?

My thoughts are with all those affected in this sad time.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

Because Obama was voted to fix health care system. Then Dems lost in 2010 and nothing got done after that.
You guys gave the republicans all the power they asked for. Why is Wall Street still here unhappy and people afraid?

No he wasn't.

And Wall Street is unhappy? People are afraid? No. Wall Street is still strong, with the recent selloff leaving the market as it was back in the summer/fall months of last year. People are far more optimistic now than they were two years ago. People are excited to be receive their "crumbs" (hey Pelosi, since a few thousand a year is crumbs, you don't mind being charitable do you?), and if the Crumbs Act passes, they won't be taxed for it. People will be HAPPY!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: MOMof3

I'm certain it will pay off, and it's really where the focus needs to be. And really, that's the whole point. The focus shouldn't be on the tool used, but rather the person who uses the tool. The tool can't do anything on it's own.

Prior to 1934 a 12 year old could walk into a school with a machine gun. Did they do it? No, but they could...and perfectly legally too. Again, the point is...did they do it? No, they didn't...even though they could.
So what changed?

What changed is the people, not the guns. In fact, if anything the laws which have been passed since then have made firearms less lethal, not more so!

Prior to 1986 a legal adult could go order a machine gun out of a magazine, no questions asked. AR-15 type firearms (which are not "machine guns" by the way) were available in any gun store, and anyone over 18 could purchase one. Were there schools shot up by machine gun toting monsters prior to 1986? Not that I'm aware of. So again, what changed?

What changed is society, what changed is kids and the way they're programmed. That's what changed. Passing laws to address something which isn't the root cause of the problem is pointless.

Let's address the real problems, and it's not a problem over the colors red and blue and which is better, but rather a problem everyone (red and blue alike) should be focused on. Let's fix the part that changed, not the part that didn't.

I have great respect for this.
It takes money. But idaho property owners are willing participants and pay high taxes for a low wage state to fund new schools and programs.

originally posted by: MOMof3

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: MOMof3

I'm certain it will pay off, and it's really where the focus needs to be. And really, that's the whole point. The focus shouldn't be on the tool used, but rather the person who uses the tool. The tool can't do anything on it's own.

Prior to 1934 a 12 year old could walk into a school with a machine gun. Did they do it? No, but they could...and perfectly legally too. Again, the point is...did they do it? No, they didn't...even though they could.
So what changed?

What changed is the people, not the guns. In fact, if anything the laws which have been passed since then have made firearms less lethal, not more so!

Prior to 1986 a legal adult could go order a machine gun out of a magazine, no questions asked. AR-15 type firearms (which are not "machine guns" by the way) were available in any gun store, and anyone over 18 could purchase one. Were there schools shot up by machine gun toting monsters prior to 1986? Not that I'm aware of. So again, what changed?

What changed is society, what changed is kids and the way they're programmed. That's what changed. Passing laws to address something which isn't the root cause of the problem is pointless.

Let's address the real problems, and it's not a problem over the colors red and blue and which is better, but rather a problem everyone (red and blue alike) should be focused on. Let's fix the part that changed, not the part that didn't.

I have great respect for this.
It takes money. But idaho property owners are willing participants and pay high taxes for a low wage state to fund new schools and programs.

There was less money and programs back in those days. Money is not always the answer. You keep missing that point in every thread. Money doesn't help parents ask their kids probing questions to figure out where their head is at.

And here's something else that changed. ...

Thirty years ago kids still played "army". They ran around with plastic guns and made shooting sounds and pretended to kill their enemies. At the same time though, they had parents, real parents, many of whom had actually been to fight in real wars. Their parents talked about the hellish nature of war, and the terrible and tragic scars it left on everyone who survived. And even though those very same kids (and I was one of them) could have easily went to dad's gun cabinet and grabbed a real gun, and real ammo, and played army...or went to a school and carried out a military style assault, they never did. Why? Because they had both sides of the equation, they had been taught these things by their parents who had seen the horrors up close and personal.

So what's different now? Well, for one thing, junior can now sit in his living room behind a video game controller and be the one pulling the trigger. He doesn't have to make pretend sounds, and his friends don't have to agree to be the ones who play dead. Nope, real bad guys show up on the game, and real gun sounds happen when he pulls that video game trigger...and real bad guys die. But junior doesn't have mom or dad sitting around to tell him the other side of the story, the horror part. All he knows is he just gets more points for killing more bad guys.

Further, not only is mom or dad not around to tell him, even if they were around the only stories they could likely tell would be ones from places like Iraq and Afghanistan, which horrible as they are, are a far cry from real "wars" where there are tens of thousands of casualties and deaths, where kill ratios are measured in percentages of total forces, not by individual names. (and I mean absolutely NO disrespect to veterans of these conflicts, it is merely a comparison). No, those stories would likely have to be told to them by their grandparents if they're even alive. But they play away, killing, killing and more killing. And what stories would some of the vets from these conflicts have to tell. They would have stories which would just reinforce these behaviors, stories about PTSD and mental illnesses going untreated by a society that doesn't care about them, or their efforts. They are not stories about epic battles won and tragic losses.

So yes, I honestly do see this as a significant piece of the problem. Kids today can step outside reality, and frankly step outside social norms, and sit down behind one of these first person shooter games and become a monster. And it's not a very long step at all to go out there and start doing it for real...because after all, they rock at Call of Duty, right?

Frankly, I see it very much as being a 'part' of what has changed. Not all, but certainly a part.

First, I wonder if Cruz was a "dreamer"?

Second, if the US government would quit SPENDING THE MONEY to annually import a quarter million Muslim immigrants and settle them; use that money to increase security and put substantial fences around schools that don't have them and upgrade the ones that need it.
But then the US Government would require those schools to adopt the most stupid requirements to educate our children.

Muslim Immigration Into the US

a reply to: knoxie


No. That isn't inline with our ammosexual culture of gun humping.

I'm a proud uncloseted ammosexual gun humper. I love my gun culture. We put the GH in LGHBT


www.mygunculture.com

You better learn to respect my AMMOsexuality or it is a hate crime Enough of your hate speech and hateful ideology. Admit it, you just don't like ammosexuals. You discriminate against our gun culture. I laugh at the term "gun violence" (as though guns have their own minds) I thought all forms of bigotry was unacceptable.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Absolutely a part, probably a very large part Flying

Not only has our morals been destroyed, and ethics compromised, but we have violent and dangerous political rhetoric that we know kids are hearing. And then like you said, combine that with social media/video games and their glorified violence. Heck, terrorists use video games to train certain skills as a supplement or even in lieu of actual combat/physical weapons training

Now, millions of kids play these games and are just fine. But as you said, that is largely a function of having real parents vs. parents that do nothing but look after themselves and their own social life. When you're a parent, your life/social life/hobbies is effectively at the mercy of your children til that child reaches 18/21 or goes away to college. Yet how many parents (especially single parents) do we see going out on weeknights/weekends and getting sloshed drunk? Too many. How many parents have we seen leave their kids unattended while they go and get high, drink alcohol or prostitute themselves out? Too many.

This country is doomed. I mean, we'll survive as a Constitutional Republic...but things going to get worse before they get better.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

Because Obama was voted to fix health care system. Then Dems lost in 2010 and nothing got done after that.
You guys gave the republicans all the power they asked for. Why is Wall Street still here unhappy and people afraid?

That's a cute excuse. The sad fact is they could've done both, and didn't.

originally posted by: Painterz
Let the blood dry on the ground before politicising it eh.


And hey. UK had one school shooting. We sat down as a society and said this must never happen again. We disarmed, got rid of our guns. And lo and behold, no more school shootings.

Back to subjects, not citizens. No guns to stop the muslim invasion now. Good luck.

originally posted by: rhynouk
I think we all agree that these types, or any types of shooting need to stop. The problem comes with how to go about it? You can't just take people's guns away. That's just not going to happen.
I am from and live in England. Our laws are very tight on guns. We have problems on occasion but nothing of the scale America is going through right now.
When we get angry with something we moan and maybe throw a few punches. Calm down and carry on.
Would things be different if we had a gun on the table next to us? Would we be so angry we would use it? We don't have that kind of choice.

If you are going to stop these shootings, the whole country has to come together and sort out a solution. It's so sad hearing of these shootings all the time. Something does have to be done. But what?

My thoughts are with all those affected in this sad time.

Even before your gun laws were changed though, your problem was nothing like the US's. And there are other "advanced" countries that have gun violence problems like the US has, the "no other advanced nation" line is a myth. If you look at the other countries that have as much gun violence as we do, they're not all 3rd world hellholes and some of them have top ratings on the Human Development Index. Most of them are industrialized. It's simply not true that it's only a problem in the US and in "unadvanced" nations. There's also no correlation in the data between firearm availability and gun violence rates. There are nations with strict gun control that have a lot of gun violence, and nations with high gun availability that have low gun violence rates. The data suggests no connection between the two.

originally posted by: staticfl

originally posted by: Painterz
Let the blood dry on the ground before politicising it eh.


And hey. UK had one school shooting. We sat down as a society and said this must never happen again. We disarmed, got rid of our guns. And lo and behold, no more school shootings.

Back to subjects, not citizens. No guns to stop the muslim invasion now. Good luck.

Not to mention they still have mass killings, just not with guns. Did they forget Manchester already? But sleep tight, a gun wasn't used. That's all that matters.

a reply to: MOMof3

Being an overly reactive and emotional democrat doesn’t bolster your argument much.

There is surely a way to reach a solution to the problem of guns without pointing fingers at the opposit party. Not everything is an argument.

You must logically understand that Hitler disarmed his population before starting WW2. He didn’t want the people to rebel. Governments have this nasty habit of becoming corrupt and trying to control the masses and so that’s why our very intelligent forefathers allowed for the right to bear arms.

Surely you understand that? Surely you don’t want the government to think we are controllable? Oh, that’s right. You’re a democrat. You guys like to be controlled! Bigger government, you cry! Welfare for all! The hell with the Constitution! Bring in socialism! More spying! We love Hillary! What New World Order? What corruption?

Oops, sorry. I got carried away.