The Killing of Innocent School Children

Jump to Last Post 1-33 of 33 discussions (461 posts)
  1. peoplepower73 profile image93
    peoplepower73posted 6 months ago

    Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      America yawns. The majority of the country couldn't care less about mass killings with yet another AK-47.

      If people really did, they would be pounding on Congress for solutions.

      1. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        what workable "solutions" are you proposing? Give detail. Be specific.

        (and take note of the "workable" in the previous question.)

        And BTW... since you don't actually know the difference between an AK and an AR I doubt you have ANY solution at all other than posting some nonsense that makes you fffffffeeeeeellllll ggggooooodddd but has no relationship to reality, reasoning, rationality, or facts.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Relax. I've given them many times in the past including to you. But extremists would rather argue and foam at the mouth than solve problems. Possible solutions include:

          1. Close the gun show loophole.
          2. Improve the tracking databases for people with violent tendencies / mental health issues.
          3. Increase spending on crime prevention in a country that doesn't spend enough.
          4. Restrict access to the Colt AR-15 and Kalashnikov assault rifle and other weapons designed for killing people

          5. Most importantly, ban the NRA.

          1. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            "1. Close the gun show loophole."

            What is a "loophole". (Not what a "gun show loophole" is, but what is a "loophole."?

            "2. Improve the tracking databases for people with violent tendencies / mental health issues."

            "tendencies"? So much for that "innocent until proven guilty" part of the Consitution, eh.

            "3. Increase spending on crime prevention in a country that doesn't spend enough."

            So how much do we spend on crime prevention and how much do you want us to spend?

            "4. Restrict access to the Colt AR-15 and Kalashnikov assault rifle and other weapons designed for killing people"

            As noted, you people sound like a five year old kid on his first tricycle attempting to solve the traffic problems around Chicago when it comes to firearms.

            "5. Most importantly, ban the NRA."

            Again, as noted, you people have a inbred hatred for all parts of the Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              No, I just have contempt for bloodthirsty gun nuts.

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                and that is the best she can do, eh. And then whines about why we can't have "dialogue"

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Not at all. It's just that some people are beneath me. And some are way beneath me.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Let me translate that for the Dear Readers...

                    Daum... Burton has got me so trapped in a corner that the only option I have is to ignore him and his ability to destroy every attempt I make to sound reasonable.

                  2. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    still looking for your definition of a "loophole".

                    What's the holdup?

                  3. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Still looking for your response as to which post I said to arm all teachers with assault rifles. YOU made the claim... should be easy for you to back it up, eh.

                    Still looking...

      2. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Then you should be delightful with this "solution" proposed by a Republican representative...

        H.R.34 - Safe Students Act

        https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … 4/text?r=1

      3. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        The ak47 is the weapon used often by government controlled armies that kill poor people in weaker countries that refuse to be cheap labor while they loot their resources. Apparently they are not grateful for the cheeseburgers, cola, Marlboroughs, diabetes and 24% APR that their benefactors provide. The World Yawns. My solution is to lock up Hillary, but no one listens.

    2. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      when you get around to figuring out how to make people perfect then you can get back to us. But right now, all you have to offer is to try to take away the guns from the people who didn't do any harm and leave them defenseless in the face of people who do do others harm. That's it. Your sole drum you beat.

      1. Aime F profile image83
        Aime Fposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        It’s not about “making people perfect.” This isn’t an issue in any other developed nation (and none of those are filled with perfect people, either.) This is a problem pretty specific to the United States so it’s your country’s job to figure out how to fix it. But you don’t and you won’t. It seems you’re all content to shrug and say “thoughts and prayers, this should never happen, blah blah blah.” Doesn’t mean shit unless you’re gonna do shit. Apparently Making America Great Again doesn’t include finding a solution to American children getting murdered in school. As a mother I cannot imagine sending my child to school everyday having good reason to fear for her safety there, that absolutely breaks my heart.

        1. PhoenixV profile image66
          PhoenixVposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          I think part of the problem is the disingenuous politicization.  Personally I think there is too much violence on TV and films. Too many violent video games and a culture that has fallen into that type of entertainment as opposed to ya know, real life. But, sadly or unfortunately, there is no political angle there, so...

          1. profile image60
            SueD57posted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I think a HUGE part of this - maybe ALL of this - is what kids are exposed to on television, films and video games.  Coming from a previous generation I can see - and have lived through - the transition from healthy childhoods spent outdoors, riding bicycles, skateboards, roller skates and anything else that had wheels on it, eating un-modified food, much of which came from the family garden, being given and EXPECTED TO DO chores, being given and EXPECTED TO FOLLOW boundaries, rules and accepted social mores - to this generation of listless, bored, unhealthy, poorly parented, rude, aggressive, profane, over-indulged, narcissistic brats who have been brought up to believe that self-esteem is something they are owed, not something that they have to develop in themselves by becoming a contributing member of society.  Video games are the scourge of the earth. It wasn't children who developed these "games" - it was adults who damn well should know better than to teach a 7 year old that gunning down the most pixelated entities grants him another life span, projects him to a new "level".  Technology held such promise in the beginning - and it's become our undoing as a society.  And then, for a child to have the added misfortune to have been born in the USA where God is spelled G-U-N, and parents worship their "right to bear arms", then the only thing that's shocking about mass murdering school shooters is that they didn't start long before they did.  And sending "prayers and condolences" to the victims' families is a hollow sentiment, a cheap, patronizing slap in the face when it comes from people who have never said a genuine prayer in their lives and probably can't even define the word "prayer".

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              "And sending "prayers and condolences" to the victims' families is a hollow sentiment, a cheap, patronizing slap in the face when it comes from people who have never said a genuine prayer in their lives and probably can't even define the word "prayer"."

              You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump in 2020.


              https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13917909.jpg

          2. Jean Bakula profile image96
            Jean Bakulaposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Blaming school shootings on rock music and violent videos is an old, tired, lazy excuse which never was right.

            I lived while Ozzy Ozborne got blamed for violence. If you listen, most of his words are about being anti war.

            Marilyn Manson grew up with a conservative Christian family who were sexual perverts in private, and attended a private Christian school.. His Grandfather had secret stashes of bestiality (a topic Christian fanatics know a lot about). They are always the ones worried that they may be forced to marry goats if Human Rights laws get passed. Manson's performance art is mostly against the bigotry of religion. He's very intelligent. He goes a bit far, but is excellent in interviews. He believes most shooters are people who have been teased, taunted and threatened, while their parents, teachers, or pastors ignore it and try to blame it on the lame excuses above.

            Somebody should listen to these disturbed individuals, and maybe they would feel less hopeless and violent.

        2. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          "It’s not about “making people perfect."

          Then just what is it about? You want people to stop doing evil things? What is YOUR proposal then other than hoping and wishing for unicorns to come and save the world?

          "This isn’t an issue in any other developed nation"

          You just might want to check with Norway, France, and many other countries before you make a fool of yourself again.

          "so it’s your country’s job to figure out how to fix it"

          How about we immediately shut down all media coverage of such incidents so that no disturbed person will consider being a "copy cat killer"? You up for that?

          "But you don’t and you won’t."

          I know... I know... we can make murder against the law. That should work well, eh.

          "" Doesn’t mean shit unless you’re gonna do shit. "

          Okay... step up to the plate. Specifically, with detail, and within the constraints of the Constitution, tell us what we need to do. Don't be shy.

          Be sure that your recommendations or laws fit the criteria of guaranteeing to work for social deviants who, by nature, will reject and not obey any of your recommendations or laws. Also be sure that they don't impact the freedom and liberty of those 99.999 percent of gun owners who do no harm to anyone.

          " Again doesn’t include finding a solution to American children getting murdered in school."

          You keep mentioning "solutions" but I don't think you really know what that word actually means as you have not offered any of those magically "solutions" that you seem to think are just hanging about, being ignored like unicorns. 

          "As a mother I cannot imagine sending my child to school everyday having good reason to fear for her safety there, that absolutely breaks my heart."

          As a mother, you are an emotional thinker who refuses to use logic, reason, rationality, or facts to everyday living. We don't base laws on what makes you ffffffeeeeeellllll ggggggoooooddddd.

          1. Aime F profile image83
            Aime Fposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            First of all, the patronizing arse schtick isn’t cute. 

            My proposal is that you make it harder for people to walk into a school and kill 17 people like it’s nothing.

            Please link me to the stories about people shooting up schools every few weeks in “Norway and France and many other countries” as I seem to be missing them and Google seems to not be posting those articles. But clearly you’re a guy in-the-know so I’ll wait patiently for your very special information.

            I am totally and completely up for not publishing the names of mass murderers and sensationalizing their every action leading up to the point that they killed a bunch of people. Yes. You should do that too.

            As far as mass shootings are concerned, gun control does make a difference in other countries. I know people are gonna jump at me with overall murder statistics but I believe mass shootings should be treated as a separate issue.

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              "First of all, the patronizing arse schtick isn’t cute."

              It makes you look foolish to the readers. That is sufficient in itself.

              "My proposal is that you make it harder for people to walk into a school and kill 17 people like it’s nothing. "

              Guess you missed the "give detail and be specific" in my request for your proposals. (Oh, sorry... was that patronizing?) But since you DIDN'T actually give any details or specifics it pretty much tells the Dear Readers that you are intellectually bankrupt on the real concept of "doing something."

              "Please link me to the stories about people shooting up schools every few weeks in “Norway and France"

              Never said that shootings occur every few weeks. But surely you are aware of the number of terrorist attacks in France over the past few years? And the Workers' Youth League shooting in Norway?

              " am totally and completely up for not publishing the names of mass murderers and sensationalizing their every action leading up to the point that they killed a bunch of people. Yes. You should do that too."

              There ya go Dear Readers. Not only against the 2nd Amendment but against the 1st also. Very typical.

              "As far as mass shootings are concerned, gun control does make a difference in other countries."

              Yes, we have a problem with disturbed people who are taking advantage of our freedoms here to harm others. No, you cannot claim that "gun control" is the difference maker.

              1. Aime F profile image83
                Aime Fposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Nah, it makes you look like a patronizing arse.

                Tell you what, how about I come back to this on March 1st when I’m no longer on vacation and have the time to actually delve into a lengthy conversation. I wasn’t planning on having a full-blown gun control discussion but I wanted to address your post given the tone.

                To finish addressing what we’ve already started: I’m honestly not sure why you’re comparing one mass shooting 7 years ago in Norway to the current situation in the US. And I’m not against the 1st amendment, I’m for listening to experts who say it’s a bad idea to give mass murderers so much media attention. You’re kind of dramatic, you know that?

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  "Nah, it makes you look like a patronizing arse"

                  I am always happy to leave it to the Dear Readers to judge how I "look." But you do have to note that you can't really ever answer any of my points. How does that make you look?

                  "Tell you what, how about I come back to this on March 1st when I’m no longer on vacation and have the time to actually delve into a lengthy conversation."

                  Enjoy your vacation. I just got back from three weeks of laying on the beach in the Philippines. Beats the 24 inches of snow they got here in Chicago while we were gone.

                  ""I wasn’t planning on having a full-blown gun control discussion but I wanted to address your post given the tone. "

                  We will be waiting with bated breath to read your specifics and details.

                  "To finish addressing what we’ve already started: I’m honestly not sure why you’re comparing one mass shooting 7 years ago in Norway to the current situation in the US."

                  You were the one who declared that mass shootings didn't happen in other countries.

                  "And I’m not against the 1st amendment, I’m for listening to experts who say it’s a bad idea to give mass murderers so much media attention. "

                  If you want to tell the media what stories they should or should not cover then, yes, by definition, you are against the 1st Amendment. But let's think about that for a moment, eh. If it the media giving the mass murderers so much media attention that is the problem... then the problem really isn't the firearm they are using. It is the desire to be a copycat killer and get noted in the history books.

                  " You’re kind of dramatic, you know that?"

                  I prefer to consider myself as a bulwark against misinformation and the desire to control other lives based upon what makes people such as you fffffeeeeelllll gggggooooddddd.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              "As far as mass shootings are concerned, gun control does make a difference in other countries."

              Which ones?  The only one that can positively say one way or the other is Australia (that and the countries where govt. slaughtered millions of unarmed citizens),and the gun grab was a dismal failure there.  Of course if the goal is to prevent shootings rather than preventing killings...

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                What are your specific solutions to the problem of mass shootings?

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Less "helpless little lambsies" would be a start

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    In other words, no solutions. Just let a lot more people die.

                2. Leland Johnson profile image91
                  Leland Johnsonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  My solution is to follow Israel's example.  We have to increase armed security in our schools.  It works there.  For more please see my hub on this issue.  Thanks

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    As I sat in the parking lot, picking up my grandchildren from their school the day after Sandy Hook, I looked around and thought just how easy it would be to smash a car into that crowd of kids exiting the school.  Or an 18 wheeler or other large vehicle into a school bus.  Or lob a grenade/bomb through a window.  A canister of Zyklon, Sarin or even just chlorine opened upwind of the playground during lunch recess.  No guard is going to stop any of these from happening, and killers will find a way to kill.

                    Not to put down the Israeli solution - it has very definite merit - but their circumstances are not ours.  Guards cannot be anything but a temporary protective measure - a bandaid on the wound - as they do absolutely nothing to "cure" the underlying "disease" of why so many of our people decide to go on a killing rampage.

        3. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Aimee, I usually agree with you, but please don't put all Americans in the same basket as Jack Burton.

          We unfortunately have a horribly written Second Amendment to the Constitution that is open to vastly different interpretations. It blocks many efforts at more effective gun control.

          The National Rifle Association is extremely wealthy and makes gun control efforts even more difficult because of its vast campaign contributions.

          Yes, we have a shameful problem. But a large part of the country wants it solved. We just have some big barriers that make solutions difficult.

        4. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          "This isn’t an issue in any other developed nation"

          Perhaps you need to expand your horizons a little...

          Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe

          https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compa … nd-europe/

      2. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Jack Burton:  You sound like a selfish person who has no empathy and who only thinks about your own well being and could care less about others. What would you do if your kid was killed in a school shooting?

        As far as workable solutions go, we could march on Washington for starters and get them to stop taking massive campaign funds from the NRA and block their very powerful lobby groups.  That is the root cause of all of this.  It's all about money and you and your kind have bought into the fear factor of protecting yourself with assault weapons.  I will not argue with you as to the definition of assault weapons. That is an exercise in futility.

        1. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          "You sound like a selfish person who has no empathy "

          It's true I don't let my emotion dominate my thinking and don't base my decisions on what is best for the country on what makes me fffffffeeeeelllll gggggooooodddd or what unicorns may or may not like.

          "What would you do if your kid was killed in a school shooting?"

          I would be sad. And if your kid was killed in an auto accident from a drunk driver you would blame Ford Motor Company? If your kid was killed by a bolt of lightening on his way to school you would blame Ben Franklin? If someone evil fed your kid rat poison you would blame the Pied Piper?

          "As far as workable solutions go, we could march on Washington for starters and get them to stop taking massive campaign funds from the NRA and block their very powerful lobby groups. '

          We've always known that those who hate the 2nd Amendment almost always hate the 1st Amendment also. This is graphic proof of that concept.

          " It's all about money"

          And selling autos that cause tens of thousands of deaths a year is also "all about money" eh.

          "and you and your kind have bought into the fear factor of protecting yourself with assault weapons"

          1) We've already established that you have no clue as to what a supposed "assault weapon" is, eh

          2) You'll have a lot more credibility if you agree that when you hear someone breaking into your home late at night you'll insist to the 911 operator that the cops leave their firearms at the stationhouse before they come to investigate.

          " I will not argue with you as to the definition of assault weapons. That is an exercise in futility.""

          Yes it is. Because you've already shown your ignorance on the subject. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is pretty much forever. So which side are you going to fall on?

          1. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Mr. Jack Burton, I support you.  As a result of reading this thread, I've renewed my membership to the NRA for an additional two years.  I believe it is an organization that protects me from individuals who are ignorant of guns and gun safety as seek to punish law abiding gun owners for the actions of others. 

            All the laws in the world won't stop mass killings in the United States.  Those who believe such things are ignorant of the real problem.  I grew up in a world where everyone had a gun and we had no mass shootings. My neighbor had over 20 hand guns and we never had a problem.  Trust me, it was also a rough neighborhood. 

            These types of shootings didn't start becoming common until the 1980s. Laws won't cure this situation.  It just make people who like to play on others emotions feel good and that is all it does.

            The government makes too many mistakes.  The FBI failed in the Florida shooting.  Here is another example of where the government failed.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … s-shooting

            The reality is we have a cultural problem.  One of the things that has changed significantly are the prescription of psychotropic drugs.  Many mass shooters used such drugs.  I believe we have a significant mental health problem and these drugs do more harm than good.  Here is a good article to prove my point.

              http://markets.businessinsider.com/news … 1002085657

            Also, our culture no longer values religion.  The idea that we will some day have to answer to a higher power is slowly being eliminated from our society.  If you don't think you're going to be held accountable for your actions in this world, what does it matter what you do? 
            Video games glorify violence.  Some of them are so graphic, kids struggle to understand fantasy from reality.  Saw a documentary on kids who had killed other kids and showed no remorse.  Many of them went home and went to bed.  These same kids in prison were made to watch a play about the crime they had committed.  They saw the lifeless body, crying parents and friends, the body being put in a bag.  After seeing this, they then realized what they had done.

            Guns don't kill people, people kill people and that's were we have to start. The mental health industry has failed us all. Quit blaming the NRA, trying to ban guns and start working on people valuing life.  I think people believing there is a power greater than themselves at work in our lives is a good start.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Fascinating.  The NRA and guns are the cause of killings.  You really, really, need to think about that long and hard - that the NRA caused this "troubled" (read: mentally ill) kid to go on a killing spree.

        3. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          A lack of empathy and any desire for solutions is common among gun extremists.

          1. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            as noted, I don't make my decisions on what makes me ffffffeeeellll ggoooooddd and has no chance of working at all. When you bring me something based on reason, rationality, facts, and logic then we can talk about your "solutions".

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I already did. Some people would rather argue than discuss.

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                yeah... we must have missed that one. Perhaps you hid the "solution" after you posted it.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Pretty bold statement, isn't it?  And an extremely stupid and obnoxious one to boot.

            "Empathy" has done a lot to solve murders hasn't it?  We cry and we cry and we talk about taking the least harmful guns, the most common guns in the country, because we can make a "good" cause for it...while the murders go on and on and on.  Guess "empathy" doesn't extend to actually finding solutions that might work - they require change in ourselves and our lives and we don't want to go there, now do we?

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Not at all. Extremely stupid and obnoxious is blindly defending guns without offering any solutions.

              I see the cranky version has returned.

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Not at all. Extremely stupid and obnoxious is blindly blaming guns without offering any solutions.

                That is, solutions that are based in reality, facts, reasoning and rationality. If you really want to claim that "Ban the NRA" fits those criteria then go for it. Should be entertaining to read.

                BTW...what is your definition of a "loophole."

      3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13936277.jpg

    3. Onusonus profile image79
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      80,000 people in America die from alcohol related incidents every year.

      Selective outrage.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, and an 18-year-old can't legally purchase beer, but can legally purchase a rapid fire killing machine.

        Crazy world we live in.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Not so much "rapid fire", but an 18 year old can purchase a car.  Or diesel fuel and fertilizer.  Or matches and gasoline.  Lots of "killing machines" out there that even a 10 year old can buy quite legally - pretending that only guns can be used by a madman set on killing is foolish in the extreme and is exactly why we still have dead kids and people.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Pretending that only guns can be used by a madman? Who is doing that? Certainly not me or anyone else on these forums that I've seen.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Really?  They why no suggestions on reducing the carnage except by removing the 2nd amendment guarantees from people?  If you're not pretending that guns are the only tool that can be used why is that the only solution ever offered?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Regulating certain types of guns and restricting who can have them is not removing 2nd Amendment guarantees.

                Just because we're talking about gun-telated solutions does not mean we're excluding other solutions. Maybe you should start another thread on that.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  "Regulating certain types of guns and restricting who can have them is not removing 2nd Amendment guarantees."

                  Then you mean that anyone, anyone at all, can get that gun without restriction.  Either that or you are removing those guarantees from certain people.  Not that I'm necessarily against some restrictions (the insane should not own a gun, and no one should have a cannon in their front yard) but those "restrictions" you and others propose never seem to end and have been shown over and over to be completely ineffective.

                  Oh, those other thoughts are here already; https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/336 … ost3984059
                  It's just that none of the gun control crowd will discuss anything but taking guns away.  Apparently even the thought of changing who we are is abhorrent; to discuss the actual causes of the carnage is not something that appeals.  Only finding bandaids that appease the emotions and present the appearance of doing something even if it's ineffective.

                2. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  And demanding that people have their speech approved in advance by the government, or that they wear muzzles "just in case", or that they are limited to only reading one newspaper a week is not restricting 1st Amendment guarantees, eh.

        2. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          And an 18 year old can give his life for our country while serving in the Armed Forces, eh.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, it's a crazy world we've made for ourselves.

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              yep... because the country is not worth defending, eh.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                That's right, Jack! Bring on the personal nukes so we can protect ourselves properly! Why draw a line on what we can own? roll

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  how droll...

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Is that an agreement, Jack?

        3. Onusonus profile image79
          Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          You do realize that if Democrats stopped shooting people, gun violence would drop by 90%

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Your foolish posts are tiresome. This should not be a partisan issue.

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              But you don't want to speak to the accuracy of the post, eh

          2. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Apparently you missed the shooter wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap in his online rants, oo! So much for your comment! roll

            1. Onusonus profile image79
              Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Doesn't change the statistic much at all.

    4. Dean Traylor profile image95
      Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      If there's a silver-lining (and that's a big IF) it's that the students are outraged and the parents are outraged like I've never seen before. There's been way too much apathy on this issue . People die while politicians try to brush off the issue or search for cliched talking points to justify no action on the matter. I, myself, am tired of hearing all the mental gymnastics and manipulation of the term "common-sense" to justify policies that don't make any sense at all.

      1. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, it is time for all good citizens to rise and demand the end to "free killing zones" that surround schools. The notion that posting a "sign" is going to protect the innocents inside is incomprehensible, and those who actually believe in it have blood on their hands.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this
          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Just wondering if you think mass shooters care whether they die from a teacher's bullet, or a police officer's bullet, or a self-inflicted bullet? Most seem resigned to dying from a bullet.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Just wondering if you think a school shooter will continue to shoot and kill after being shot dead by a teacher on the spot instead of waiting for the cops to show up?  Last I heard the Florida shooter was in the school for only 7 minutes.

              But mostly I posted that in response to the "free killing zones"; there are none in that school district.  Perhaps it will help, perhaps not, but for absolutely sure it can do no less than making fake "assault rifles" illegal to own.  It is thus a reasonable solution to try, right?  Or is protection by anyone not a cop, whether teacher, individual or otherwise, verboten?

            2. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              It's not the "dying from a bullet" that counts. It is WHEN they die from that bullet, eh.

        2. Dean Traylor profile image95
          Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I teach at a school and I've never seen those signs.And my school is not exactly located in a posh wel-to-do neighborhood. So, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I'm assuming that a "gun free zone" sign is the same as a "free killing zone" sign.  Perhaps Jack will verify that.

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              of course it is. And taylor knew that quite well.

              1. Dean Traylor profile image95
                Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                It's traylor, jack...and if youre thinking of getting into the mind-reading business...let that thought go...

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  if you feel more comfortable having an extra and unnecessary  r in your name that is fine with me.

                  and I am always happy to leave it to the Dear Readers as to how well I can read minds.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    The Dear Readers already know how bad you are at reading minds, Jack. No surprise there! hmm

                  2. Dean Traylor profile image95
                    Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, then the dear readers will agree with me on this. Years ago, I had journalism instructor who marked students down a grade for misspelling someone's name. If you do that, he reasoned, its either a sign of contempt or a lack of an ability to look at details that can affect a story. I think he was right on that one. So, of you're going to come up with some made-up term to fit your ideological need, then you've essentially the argument.

          2. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            How droll...

      2. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Students have announced a march on Washington on March 24.

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … 349263002/

        Trump has offered to speak to the marchers and blame all gun violence on Hillary and the FBI.

    5. Coffeequeeen profile image84
      Coffeequeeenposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      It's terrible what happened.  When will all this stop?  My prayers are with the friends and families of the victims.  sad

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I respectfully suggest another way of responding in addition to prayers is a contribution to an organization such as Everytown for Gun Safety, founded by Michael Bloomberg.

        https://everytown.org/

        It's a small step in responding to the massive campaign contributions by the NRA that block so many attempts at better gun control.

        1. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Yeah, it's better to have one person such as bloomberg give tens of millions of dollars to influence a cause all by himself than one organization such as the NRA use the small donations from millions of members to do the same.

    6. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Well, my family is from the Ukraine.  They don't have mass shooting like this and guns are not difficult to get.  They have a national law that covers people owning guns.  Also, religion is a huge part of Ukrainian life.  In the small villages it's common to hear people great one another before they speak and say "Glory to Jesus Christ" and the Replay is "Glory forever" and then they start their conversation.  I think this belief has led to a deep respect for human life.  There is a level of respect for one another we in the United States don't have.  Would this work in the United States? I don't think so.  They are a small country with only 42 million people who is constantly threatened by Russia, one of the most powerful militaries in the world who have previously committed a genocide on the Ukrainian people.  The United States and our citizens fear no other country and don't know how this changes daily life.

    7. RTalloni profile image87
      RTalloniposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings is a true statement, but the sentiment is appropriate at the time of a tragedy. It is longstandingly appropriate whether anyone likes it or not.

      That said, the thought that senseless killings can simply be stopped is something laws throughout history have proved futile in their attempts to do. The discussions on the availability of all kinds of firearms are important and with rational thinking reason can prevail, but to attack the current administration over the latest homegrown terrorist attack is laughable. 

      Impassioned requests, proclamations, and even demands from people are acceptable, and useful for initiating change. Using the tragedy to spew more hate is to be no better than the criminals who commit the crimes.

      But there's no mistaking that passivity is not the answer. Starting with compassion for the victims, their families, and our country, then moving the discussion forward in useful ways is a good beginning.  For instance, consider swift and severe penalties for known criminals of vicious crimes rather than promoting the idea that guns have behaviors so criminals have excuses.

  2. Sychophantastic profile image85
    Sychophantasticposted 6 months ago

    Another made-up story by the lamestream media to try to take our guns away.

    Just like Sandy Hook, this story is a fake! This did not actually happen. Truthful web sites all over are exposing this fraud for what it is.

    Every liberal politician wants to use this fabricated story as a lesson about how we need to take guns away from lawful citizens.

    Resist!

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      NRA rules!

      1. GA Anderson profile image80
        GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Hi there promisem. Let's see if we can discuss this - and - keep it from becoming just another "gun control" thread. You know, those AKs and ARs aren't needed type of threads.

        A quick look found that although the U.S. is the leader in guns per citizens ratio, there are more than a few countries that also have a high ratio of gun ownership. Granted, it is usually only half of our rate, but  it is still enough for a point. Why aren't these other countries also seeing mass shootings?

        If our ratio is around 88 per 100 citizens, then a country with around 48 per hundred certainly should at least be in the ballpark with us - regarding mass shootings. But they aren't. So, doesn't that point to something other than gun ownership as a cause?

        That wasn't a rhetorical or leading question. It was a serious one for discussion.

        By the same logic that produced that question, I think we can address another point. I have seen it proposed that the instant notoriety, (24 hr news channels/instant on camera reports), is a motivating factor, yet several of the countries that have about half our rate of gun ownership also have "instant news" like we do. So, can that be a realistic motivator?  Culturally, do we handle the notoriety differently than other countries?

        GA

        1. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          " Why aren't these other countries also seeing mass shootings?"

          Lots of questions could be asked here. Amoung them...

          Why has there been a dramatic increase in the number of mass shootings. (and I am not talking about the phony stats that orgs such as VPC gin up.) I am talking about legitimate, horrendous incidents.

          Is there any common background of being on psychiatric drugs found amoung the shooters?

          1. GA Anderson profile image80
            GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Hi Jack Burton. I am sure you are right, that there are many other questions, (besides gun ownership), that could prove insightful. Yours, about psychiatric drugs may be one of them.

            A first thought from me would be to ponder why it might be a cultural thing, (other than the culture of gun ownership) - which would fit in with you "why the dramatic increase" question.. Unfortunately I don't have a "second thought" to help with what that cultural thing might be.

            GA

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Remember in the 70s when we had a rash of bombings?  Maybe this is a "trend" like that was a trend.  I don't know why things like this run in cycles, but that seems to be the case. 

              No, limiting access to guns won't cure the problem, but making it hard to obtain a high-powered killing machine might deter some potential shooters.  Obviously, it won't deter all, but if we deter one or two out of every ten that would save many lives for a relatively small cost.

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                When you use phases such as "high powered killing machines" it so notes to every experienced gun owner that you really don't know what you are talking about.

                For your education, the AR and AK rifles chambered in their most common round, the .223, is considered by shooters to be a medium-powered rifle. There are many standard hunting rifles that are quite more powerful with a much longer range.

                And there are about 15,000,000 ARs in citizens hands right now. In the past year, about 14,999,990 of them were not used to harm anyone. Perhaps you can justify a logical, reasonable, rational argument as to why those 14,999,990 people have to have their liberty and freedom limited because of the actions of about 10 people. Do you consider taking away those rights of those millions of people because of the actions of just a few handful a "minor cost"?

                Do you also consider taking away the rights of all Muslims to practice their religion based upon the actions of a few who use that same religion to slaughter thousands in terrorists acts? After all,  if we deter one or two terrorists out of every ten that would save many lives for a relatively small cost.

              2. GA Anderson profile image80
                GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Hi PrettyPanther. I don't think it is a trend. I don't have any support for this opinion, other than it seems right and logical to me, and it is what I think also - but check out wilderness' comment earlier in this thread: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/336 … ost3984059

                That is, I think where we should be looking for the cause(s) of these mass shootings, particularly the school shootings.

                I can't agree with your thought about "...  if we deter one or two out of every ten that would save many lives for a relatively small cost." I do not see it as a relatively small cost. And following the context of this response - it also does nothing to address the problem.

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  But it is a "small cost"...to those that don't own a gun, down't want a gun and don't ever want to even see a gun.  It's quick, cheap and easy then - someone else pays the price.

            2. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Geez, GA, supporting and complimenting a gun extremist starts to push you into his camp. Is that really where you want to be?

              1. GA Anderson profile image80
                GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Well promisem, I will try to be polite here, but....

                It appears that you are more concerned with addressing  posters than their posts. Tsk! Tsk! Isn't that a trait I have seen you accuse others of?

                Other than being from Jack Burton, what did you see that was extremist about his comment that I responded to?

                If, in your mind, considering  a thought, rather than its source puts me in a "camp," then you probably don't have enough labels to cover my travels.

                But... (yes, I always have a but), in this case you are almost right. I usually end up where I want to be, and on this issue, I can see Jack's campfire from where I sit.

                https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13904420.jpg

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  When attacked, I defend myself. When attacked personally, I fight back.

                  When someone posts something reasonable for the first time, what I don't do is attack the person rather than the post. You fail to see the difference.

                  If you clear your emotions and actually read my earlier posts to opponents like you and ReadMikeNow, you will see that I was polite and trying to meet you halfway.

                  You shouldn't be surprised at aggressive behavior when you take part in it and support people who think the same way as you. Denial is an obvious case of double standards.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image80
                    GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Geesh promisem, you sure make me work for it. But, since I wanted to make sure my responses weren't emotionally clouded, I figured it was worth the effort.

                    First, I didn't attack you, so I am guessing that is your explanation for being fired-up after exchanging comments with Jack Burton.

                    Anyway, here is the exchange you refereed to:

                    JACK BURTON WROTE:
                    " Why aren't these other countries also seeing mass shootings?"

                    Lots of questions could be asked here. Amoung them...

                    Why has there been a dramatic increase in the number of mass shootings. (and I am not talking about the phony stats that orgs such as VPC gin up.) I am talking about legitimate, horrendous incidents.

                    Is there any common background of being on psychiatric drugs found amoung the shooters?

                    GA WROTE:
                    Hi Jack Burton. I am sure you are right, that there are many other questions, (besides gun ownership), that could prove insightful. Yours, about psychiatric drugs may be one of them.

                    A first thought from me would be to ponder why it might be a cultural thing, (other than the culture of gun ownership) - which would fit in with you "why the dramatic increase" question.. Unfortunately I don't have a "second thought" to help with what that cultural thing might be.
                    ---------------------------------------------------------------

                    My response was concurring with Jack Burton that there were many questions that could be asked, and his "drug" question could well be one of them.

                    Now, that concurrence brought this response from you:

                    "Geez, GA, supporting and complimenting a gun extremist starts to push you into his camp. Is that really where you want to be?"

                    To my thinking, for you to take my response as "... supporting and complimenting a gun extremist..." and, that my response indicated I was "taking part in it, (the personal attacks between you and Jack?)," indicates it wasn't my response that was emotionally clouded.

                    Now, just to be sure I don't let my "emotions" get the best of me... I will wonder who you meant that "denial" crack for, otherwise, well, I'll tell Jack, that's what I will do. You'll be sorry then.

                    GA

        2. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          GA, I appreciate the serious attempt at a rational discussion. I think your overall point about cultural factors is important.

          An article in Psychiatric Times about research into mass killings says, "particular attention should also be paid to a youngster’s access to or fascination with firearms and the presence of writings or drawings with violent themes, as well as dysfunctional peer relationships, including bullying."

          It also says, "crimes due to narcissism or a wounded ego are directly relevant to mass shootings."

          So a starting point is restricting access to guns for teens (i.e., close the gun show loophole), addressing the bullying problem and shifting cultural attitudes away from self obsessions.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            This is what I've been saying for months and years; the problem isn't guns, it is psychological and cultural.  We seem to be producing teens that are unable to cope with the stresses of daily life, that do not hold human life in any real regard, and that take lives in response to that inability to cope.  We see teens on a killing rampage, teens taking their lives because of a slight on social pages, teens turning to drugs to temporarily leave reality and calm their feelings. 

            It is sad that the Times (and you) suggests that limiting access to guns or stopping bullying will eliminate the underlying causes of these killing sprees.  These things do not even address the problem; just the symptoms that we see, and the result is that the teen grows into an adult with those problems and causes still intact.

            Fifty years ago we didn't see teens grabbing a gun (although they were readily available and not locked in a safe) and killing either their "opponents" or random people.  We didn't see them taking their own lives because someone said bad things about them.  What has changed, what have we allowed to develop that has resulted in an almost total inability to control their own feelings and urges?

            You suggest addressing the bullying problem, and we do...by trying to eliminate bullying and leave the child still unable to cope when it happens later in life.  You suggest taking guns from them, leaving the child still unable to cope with life.  Somehow we're to eliminate that "wounded ego", but it WILL happen during life and the child/adult is still unable to cope.

            THAT'S the problem, the cause, of these incidents.  It isn't that there is a gun available, it isn't that they are bullyed and it isn't that they have some dysfunctional relationships.  It's that they can no longer handle these problems and resort to a display of violence.

            Is it because kids have too much given to them and when they can't simply have whatever it is they wish they turn to violence?

            Is it because kids have too much time and not enough responsibility/duty?

            Is it because they have insufficient "people time" - not enough time with other kids - an instead communicate/interact only through digital media?

            Is it because we don't allow kids to solve their own "people" problems, instead stepping in to solve it for them?

            Is it because they've not been taught to respect authority, whether it is a parent, teacher, cop or anyone else?  Do we need to re-introduce spankings?

            I don't know, I don't have the answers - I'm neither psychologist nor social scientist enough to know - but I do know that addressing the symptoms, putting a bandaid on the hurt, doesn't solve the underlying disease.  We either address the causes of these mass murders or they will keep right on happening whether we take guns or not, whether we stop bullying or not, whether we institute "zero tolerance" in our schools or not.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              We agree that cultural and psychological factors are part of the problem. To your point about 50 years ago, the flood of violent programming in TV, movies and videw games doesn't help. We don't agree about easy access to guns.

              I think we also agree that none of us have all of the answers. My frustration is with people who simply fight any attempts to try solutions.

              For example, I don't understand why we as a country can't seem to come up with ways of tracking violent people with known mental illnesses who post death threats and buy assault rifles.

              We need actual steps to solve the problem followed by facts and research showing whether the steps actually work. If they don't work, we move on to new ideas.

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Promisem,

                I think we should agree the government failed in Florida. 
                I would like to point out that according to our current gun laws, people with a history of violence and mental illness are not thought to be able to purchase a fire arm. 

                "Cruz lawfully bought the semiautomatic rifle last February, according to Peter Forcelli, special agent in charge of the Miami office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
                The gun, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 .223, was purchased at Sunrise Tactical Supply, according to the Associated Press.
                Federal law allows people 18 and older to legally purchase long guns, including this kind of assault weapon. With no criminal record, Cruz cleared an instant background check via the FBI criminal database.
                If somebody is adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law."

                https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 … 340606002/

                Also, the FBI was informed about this man months before this incident.

                https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/nikol … index.html

                So, in the case of the Florida shooter, he had no record of mental problems, he had no criminal background. So, if a person has no record of committing crimes or mental illness...what can be done? Those who knew him informed the FBI, what more could they do in this case?

                I still believe it is not wise to trust the government to be completely competent but to anticipate and be ready for their mistakes.

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Mike, those are great questions. I just saw another headline saying that someone who knew the shooter called a law enforcement tipline about him only a month ago.

                  He apparently had mental health issues, told people he was a "school shooter" and took other actions that scared people. He was expelled from school and posted death threats on Instagram. Police visited his home dozens of times.

                  I can only hope the experts will review all of the facts about this case and come up with better ways to identifying these people going forward.

                  Frankly, sites like Instagram need to be part of the solution.

              2. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                "My frustration is with people who simply fight any attempts to try solutions. "

                No... your frustration is with people who simply fight any non-working, nonsensical approaches to solutions that you keep trotting out.

                "For example, I don't understand why we as a country can't seem to come up with ways of tracking violent people with known mental illnesses who post death threats and buy assault rifles."

                Ahhhh.... it's that old "known" that gets in the way, eh. Those that are adjudicated by the courts as being mentally ill are FORBIDDEN to buy or own guns. Did you know that?

                "We need actual steps to solve the problem followed by facts and research showing whether the steps actually work. If they don't work, we move on to new ideas."

                You remind me of the drunk who loses a $20 bill on Main Street and looks for it over on First Street "because the light is better there." Once he doesn't find it on First Street, him moving over to look on Lincoln Ave is not going to help him at all.

                But you have inadvertently articulated the exact reason why the gun owning community doesn't trust. you all all. We KNOW it is "not going to work". And we KNOW that then, you want to "move on" to something even more freedom-hampering. And when THAT doesn't also "work" you want to "move on" to something even more. Since human nature is human nature, you will NEVER be satisfied until you think you can ban all guns for all times.

              3. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                We don't agree on easy access to guns because you think that access is going to turn someone into a murderer.  I don't.  You think that preventing anyone from owning a gun that kills about 300 people per year is going to dramatically reduce the death toll of 8,000+...I don't and I base that on real world experience that says differently.  You want an immediate, easy, cheap (to you) solution and I recognize there is no such thing.

                I've thought about tracking crazy people, but so far I've not thought of anything that isn't worse than the disease.  The FBI, in this case for instance, got a troubling report and checked it out, but there was insufficient reason to take the guy off the streets.  To lock someone in a mental hospital, or even require a mental exam, because a third party thought they were unstable is not something I would agree to. 

                Finally, you're right - if a possible solution doesn't work, move on to something different!  Much of the world has tried gun control, including the US, and not a single example has produced any results.  Move on then!

                You mention TV and game violence: here is an example of massive hypocrisy that we all accept and encourage with open arms (and wallets): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE .  I don't know that TV violence is a significant cause to murders, but if it is we need to make some changes.  Changes to our whole culture, to ourselves, to our children.  But who wants to do that when it's so easy just to take someone's gun away and declare we are trying!

            2. GA Anderson profile image80
              GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Well damn! Wilderness. We must be fellow choir members. That was well stated. But I must wonder if it is just a generational thing that I so strongly agree with those thoughts? You do remember that our parents thought our generation was soft and weak, and going to hell too don't you?

              GA

              1. PhoenixV profile image66
                PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                No Facebook and Fentanyl back in the horseless carriage days, for sure. You have to admit that you and Wilderness' generation was a simpler time.

                1. GA Anderson profile image80
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Welllll... It wasn't quite the "horseless carriage" days PhoenixV, but yeah, it was pre-facebook and Fentanyl.

                  And yes, I do remember them as simpler days.

                  GA

                  1. PhoenixV profile image66
                    PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    I sincerely believe that you and Wilderness are on the right track. I think that many of the current generation are one FB like away from going postal. Have a good evening..or...er.. 23 skidoo???

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Maybe, GA.  Maybe it's just generational thinking.  But we didn't have school shootings when I went to school, kids weren't hanging themselves and unless it turned really physical and real physical harm was being done we took care of bullying without parental or school interference.  And when parents did step into bullying problems it was likely to teach self-defense, not go after bullys themselves!

                My God - we now have college children that require special counselling and "safe places" because somebody scrawled "Vote Trump" in sidewalk chalk!  If there is a difference of opinion, it's off to the counselor for some "special time" there!  Our schools, including colleges, are filled with counselors, but do they actually teach self control and self reliance or are they just there to comfort and say "There, there, it'll be all right - I'll see it doesn't happen again"?

                I really don't think it's a generation gap, just a perception thing from the ancient crowd.  Kids today really can't handle societies problems themselves - they need an adult to do it for them every step of the way.  And those kids are growing up into adulthood (legal if not emotionally) and still can't control themselves, can't deal with life's problems.

                1. GA Anderson profile image80
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree with your perspective Wilderness. We have both said as much before. I remember the "counselling" threads that followed Pres. Trump's election, and one or two that dealt with Conservative speaker's invitations to speak at certain campuses.

                  I think I recall that it was one of the college campus issues that brought "safe place": into our vocabulary in the manner it is thought of today..

                  I wonder if the decision to tear down the wing of the school where the shooting occurred, (heard in the news today), is an indicator of the truth of your perspective?


                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    "I wonder if the decision to tear down the wing of the school where the shooting occurred, (heard in the news today), is an indicator of the truth of your perspective?"

                    I think it is.  It's another attempt to cover it up, to remove any indication that it happened, instead of learning to deal with it on an emotional level.  We talk and talk about our "feelings"...but never seem to do much to actually deal with them!  Another indication; we used to all have a family doctor that we went to when we couldn't handle a physical injury/illness at home.  Now we have the doctor and a psychiatrist, ready to drug us into "forgetting" the negative things we all go through.  There are some 7,000 child/teen psychiatrists in the country and the projected "need" is double that by 2020.  It's always the easy way out instead of actually dealing with our feelings, fears and stresses.

                    Instead of tearing down all the concentration camps, the people of Germany kept some...and required a visit by all school children.  Deal with the emotions and distress caused by those awful places - don't hide it away and pretend it didn't happen!

                2. GA Anderson profile image80
                  GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Following that line of thought, I will repeat an anecdote posted previously that I think offers support for your perception.

                  A Family Feud question was, "We asked 100 people, What would you do if someone insulted you?"

                  A 30 year-old male answered; "Call the authorities!"  Note that the question said "insult" not "assault." Do you think that would have been the first thought of a 30 year-old male thirty years ago? I sure don't.

                  That is where we are. College students need safe places, and 30 year-old males think of calling the cops because he was insulted. Geesh! Certainly makes that lady that called 911 because Burger King didn't make her sandwich right seem a little more understandable.

                  GA

          2. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            "close the gun show loophole"

            Interesting.... just what is your definition of a "loophole"? If you want to "close one" then surely you have some meaning of what it is that you are "closing."

            Specifically... with detail... what is a "loophole"? (not a "gun show loophole)... just a "loophole".

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I'm surprised you don't know anything about basic gun laws.

              Private parties can sell guns without a background check, recording the sale or even asking for an ID.

              So a depressed teenager, convicted felon or mentally ill person can get their hands on their beloved assault rifles without worries.

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I didn't ask for your definition of "gun show loophole" now did I?

                Matter of fact, I specifically posted that I didn't want that, right.

                So... let's try this again. Maybe it will work this time.

                What is your definition of a "loophole."

              2. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                That's not the only way they get them.  This goes back to the point of how laws don't affect those who don't obey them and only punish those who do obey them.

                "While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals."

                https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr … in-america

          3. GA Anderson profile image80
            GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Come on promisem, lets leave that pet "gun show loop-hole" thought in its cradle.

            Looking at your Psychiatric Times article points, let's go a step deeper. Regarding fascination with something, in this case guns, that is not a new thing. It would be a fascination with fire for future arsonists, with cruelty to animals for a developing psychopath. Is there a cultural motivator for these fascinations that we can address, or are they just a fact of humanity - there will always be bad or faulty people?

            I can see the logic in all those report points, but none of them address the "why" it seems to be a magnified problem in the U.S. I would think that more than just a minority of young U.S. humans - say from 6 to 16 years old, experience bullying, peer relationship problems, and wounded egos, yet the truth is that only a super minority of those young humans progress to a point of horrendous acts. Surely those issues aren't proprietary to the U.S., why don't other developed countries have similar problems?

            So why does it appear the U.S. generates a disproportionate, (if the research is valid), number of young humans with a negative fascination with guns? If gun access is the problem, and we have twice as many guns as some other nations, then why don't they have at least half as many mass killing events as we do - if guns are the problem?

            Ease of access naturally comes to mind, yet, several of those "other" countries also have pretty easy access to guns. At least one, has at least one gun in every adult male occupied home. Shouldn't ease of access also indicate they would have similar problems?

            Gun control isn't the problem - it just masks the problem.

            GA

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              So much for trying to find a middle ground. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you want to avoid the obvious problem of the gun show loophole. (As well as rejecting any discussion about the assault rifle problem.)

              Can you please offer ideas or suggestions about solving the issue rather than raising only questions?

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                "So much for trying to find a middle ground."

                "It's just that some people are beneath me. And some are way beneath me."

                Hmmmm... would it be actually possible that these two sentences come from the same, identical poster? Why, yes, it is. Wonder what her definition of "middle ground" really is?

                "the obvious problem of the gun show loophole. "

                Again... what is your definition of a "loophole." Why are you so afraid of such a simple, little question? The Dear Readers are getting curious.

                "rejecting any discussion about the assault rifle problem"

                yeah, that is because any "discussion" about what you call assault rifles is about as fruitful as dicussing geography with a flat earth believer. YOu don't know what you don't know and what you think you know is based upon total ignorance. Please explain the potential for any possible communication under the circumstances .

                "Can you please offer ideas or suggestions about solving the issue"

                I posted a proposed law that was just filed in Congress. YOu ignored it.

              2. GA Anderson profile image80
                GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                It doesn't look like you are looking for a middle ground promisem, just more hooks for your pet gun control mantras.

                Can it be that you think the sole problem is access to guns? Surely you don't think nuts that do mass shootings would just fade away if they couldn't easily get their hands on a gun?

                How strong do you think your pet "gun show loophole" argument is regarding this mass shooting issue? How you checked to see how many mass shootings have been done with "gun show" weapons? I don't think you will find any mass shootings using "gun show loophole" guns.

                I have already offered an "idea" in this thread; Let's look for cultural reasons for this issue, something more basic than just blaming the guns. But I haven't offered any solutions, because I don't have anything more than just some thoughts. But... judging from this, and past, exchanges, I think my "thoughts" offer more potential than your "gun show loophole-type" solutions do.

                What other solution have you offered?

                Finally, regarding your "disappointment" - relax, things will be okay. There will be others that find merit in your "gun show loophole" solution. Just hang in there.

                https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13904420.jpg

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  "What other solution have you offered?"

                  She offered "banning the NRA"

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    LOL, I love the juvenile attempts to question my manhood.

                2. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  I already offered solutions above. Please read my posts.

                  And please stop the habitual condescension. The environment here has already deteriorated enough thanks to the other gun extremists.

                  Either lead or throw more hand grenades.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes you did.  Control access to guns and track those people that have known mental illnesses or make threats.  You mentioned a belief that TV and game violence is relevant, but provided no backup studies or evidence.

                    Both of which depend on stopping a killer from killing without ever addressing what has changed in our society, and how to change it back, to reduce the cause rather than the symptom.  Why did they decide to kill and what could we have done to remove that desire, rather than just look for it after it happens, is where the solution will be found. 

                    Consider the terrorism threat: we are constantly looking for terrorist activity in the country, constantly trying to stop them from killing.  We can't change their thinking for it originates outside our country and control.  You're putting the rampages by our children (young or old) into the same category and we can do better if we will but try.

                    Understanding that opinions differ, I'd still like to see some discussion by psychology experts on the violence of our lives - TV, game, sports (thinking of hockey, maybe, or MMA) etc. - can it cause a person to decide to kill?  Or is it a panacea, actually preventing violent behavior?

                  2. GA Anderson profile image80
                    GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Okay bud, I admit those last two sentences of my response could be seen as condescending. I suppose that is the lesser evil between the two most probable choices to describe them.

                    I do try to read your comments promisem, and that is why I think the rest of my response to you is valid. You keep returning with the same "gun show loophole" mantra. That isn't supportable. That's what I said. What other solutions did you offer that weren't tied to that same point?

                    GA

  3. peoplepower73 profile image93
    peoplepower73posted 6 months ago

    The killing of school children is a multi-faceted issue not  limited to mental health, gun control, gun lobbyists, the NRA, congress, the president, and all entities associated with easy access to guns, ammunition, and ancillary equipment.

    I have participated in and created many forums on this issue, and they all end up in the same place, nothing is done.  The gun people argue about what is an assault rifle, more people are killed by other means, homicide statistics, and even banning of any instrument or device that can be used to inflict harm on others. 

    The speaker of the house, Paul Ryan just said, "now is not the time to talk about this issue."  If now isn't the time, when is the time?  What he is really saying is that we are going on a break, hopefully when we return, everybody will have forgotten about this issue...until the next shooting of innocent children! 

    Yes, more people may be  killed by other means, but tell that to the families of those who have lost their loved ones as a result of these horrific acts.  We all know it's not over.  This isn't the last time mass shootings of innocent people will take place.  When is enough, enough?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      "When is enough, enough?"

      You'll know when we finally decide to do something - something that has even a small chance of helping.  But it isn't now - now, all we care about is taking guns from people, which does not solve the problem of school murders at all.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Wilderness:  How do you know we never tried?  Don't give me this B.S.  that it doesn't work in other countries and therefore it won't work here.  I don't know if you have children in school or grandchildren, but how would you feel if one of your young relatives was killed in a school shooting or any shooting and any relative for that matter?

        1. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          My paternal grandfather was accidentally shot by his son, my uncle, and died a long, painful. lingering death. My maternal grandfather committed suicide with his hunting rifle.

          My uncle was accidentally killed when he was four with a handgun brought home as a war trophy.

          My brother in law attempted to kill my sister with his handgun, and when that failed, he committed suicide with it while she was listening over the phone.

          In my teens I worked at a job where we were robbed so many times I knew the local detectives on a first name basis.

          Is that enough trauma in my life to satisfy your blood lust?

          The difference between me and you is that you fetishize the firearms, believe they have a mind of their own and a responsibility in what happened. I know they were a tool that was misused in various ways.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Read it again; I did not say we never tried.  We did.  We instituted hundreds of gun controls and hundreds of times it has failed to produce the desired result of fewer killings.  It doesn't even result in a significant decline in the number of shootings.

          So we'll do it again in the hopes that this time the results will be different.  Isn't that the definition of insanity?

          I picked my grandchildren up from their elementary school the day after Sandy Hook, and the emotional distress as I sat in the car waiting for them and watching that mass of small children pour out of the school was indescribably.  But empathy, tears, distress - feelings - does not solve problems.  Cold, hard, rational study does, but that's something we never hear.  Crying over the carnage produces comments like "Don't give me this B.S.  that it doesn't work in other countries and therefore it won't work here." - you studied it and came to the same conclusion I did, that taking guns does nothing at all for the death toll.  But it feels good, doesn't it?

    2. GA Anderson profile image80
      GA Andersonposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Hey there peoplepower73. I addressed a response to promisem, that I should have also addressed to you.

      I hope you will check it out: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/336 … ost3983955

      Is it possible your thread could be about something more than the usual gun control rants - both pro and con?

      GA

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      So, currently it's illegal to sell firearms to anyone deemed to be "a mental defective" or "has been committed to a mental institution"(1)

      "A mental defective" in this context is anyone who has been determined by a court to be "a danger to himself or to others" or who "lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." It includes   recipients of "[a] finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case" and those "found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility . . ."(2)

      According to the Florida Department of Children and Families, the young person who committed the mass shooting in Florida (Cruz) was suffering from depression and ADHD, but he was not determined by a court to be a danger to himself or others, and did not lack the ability to consent etc.(3)

      Their evaluation said "Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun". It also said the previous year he was going to be "Baker Acted" (involuntarily institutionalized and examined under the Florida Mental Health Act) but was subsequently not; and that "[Cruz] revealed he was cutting himself"(4)(5). However the evaluation concluded that "the initial level of risk to [Cruz's] safety is low since [he] has services already in place"(6).

      This highlights the issue of how information flows (or doesn't) into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)(7). It raises difficult, and important questions around the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Even though the evaluation concluded a low risk implication; a safety risk was nevertheless identified. Should information about such risks be passed on by mental healthcare professionals to the NICS without a court order? If so, what are the constitutional implications (for both 2nd and 14th amendments)? If not, then how can that information ever be reliably captured?

      The Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (2016) was an attempt to to partly address this issue. The rule was repealed. The rule made it a requirement for Federal agencies to pass information on to the NICS for anyone claiming Disability Insurance benefits or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), who was deemed unable to manage there affairs due to a mental impairment(8). The aim was to improve the flow and range of information being captured within the NICS. In the case of the Florida shooting though, the rule would not have prevented Cruz being able to legally buy and own a firearm, as he was deemed able to manage his own affairs. 

      The ACLU and other civil liberties organizations opposed the rule on the grounds that (among other reasons) "it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward
      gun violence".(9)

      It's difficult not to conclude that the ACLU make a valid point, which further illustrates the difficulty of the issue. That point might lead some to conclude that a universal limitation would (ironically) be a better option than limiting the rights of groups of people, based on assumptions about "the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong". 

      (1) 18 U.S.C Title 18, Chapter 44, Firearms
      https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-20 … sec922.htm

      (2) Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms, Meaning of terms
      https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016- … 478-11.xml

      (3)(4)(5) https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Jud … 10303.html

      (6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act

      (7) https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

      (8) https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-con … -bill/2640

      (9) https://samjohnson.house.gov/uploadedfi … res_40.pdf

      1. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Don W:  I appreciate your research and analysis and how you tied it all together with the links.  However, no matter what kind of information, these various entities have on a person who is suffering from some form of mental issues, it is difficult to know when they are going to commit one of these acts.  The only real way to know is after the fact.  It is like the perfect storm where all the forces come together.  It is also like testing a match by lighting it, you can only tell if the match will light, after it has already been lit.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I think you're right. Protections that rely on essentially guessing who might commit this type of crime, based on whatever information can be pieced together about an individual, are not a great way of reducing the risk.

          Even a "better" background check (within the limits of the Constitution) could not have resulted in the relevant information about Cruz being in the NICS. He would still have been able to legally buy and own the type of firearm he used. For a background check to have been effective in these types of situation, the level of information required about individual, and the way it would need to be gathered, would itself likely be unconstitutional.

          In contrast, a blanket restriction on certain types of firearms would be less likely to fall foul of the same problem. SCOTUS has already ruled that "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”(1).

          Indeed, the sale of all firearms is already restricted in many ways. Additional restrictions are more likely to avoid violating the Constitution than "better" background checks, and in some cases may be more effective at reducing risk. The difficulties that remain are the practical and economic implications of implementing such additional restrictions. Those difficulties are not trivial, but also not insurmountable.

          (1) Supreme Court if the United States - District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008)
          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I agree with both of you about the difficulties in mental illness cases.  I saw on the TV the other day that both the FBI and the psychiatric association (or something similar to that) both said that 1) we don't have nearly the resources needed to either care for the potentially violent cases or find them and 2) we cannot begin to predict well enough which cases are actually dangerous to make any real calls on them.  All of this put together says, to me, that chasing after mentally ill people isn't the answer; if (IF) mental problems are as big as we seem to think the answer has to come in the form of preventing it in the first place.  Somehow.

            As far as further restrictions, I believe we've hit a dead end.  We've gone as far as we can go and still expect, or even reasonably hope for, any further lowering of the death toll by restricting guns.  We might be able, with massive restrictions, confiscations and rights violations, to reduce the number of bodies with bullet holes in them, but we won't cut the number of bodies.  Not until we figure out that a piece of iron isn't the problem; the brain behind the trigger is.

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Just to be clear, I do think some improvements can be made to background checks that can be useful, but I don't think that alone is the most effective solution.

            Two facts cause me to think further restrictions on firearms, in addition to improved background checks, would be a more effective solution:

            1.Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act (1934) and the Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)(1)

            2. The number of mass shootings I could find where a fully automatic weapon was used is: (possibly) 1. (it's unclear whether the weapon(s) used in Las Vegas last year was/were manufactured to be fully automatic or had been modified).

            (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_i … ted_States

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              As far as I've heard the guns in Vegas were equipped with a bump stock but no other modifications.  They were not fully automatic, even with that stock.  The stock results in a faster firing rate, less dependability and far less accuracy than even an automatic weapon.

              But to me the biggest problem with regulating bump stocks is that they are easy to make at home.  We can pass all the laws in the world and it won't make any difference - an historical problem with both killers and mentally ill people.  They don't care what the law is.

              Nevertheless, if we want another failed law on the books, something else to charge a murderer with in the "justice" game, it doesn't seem a major problem to me.  Those toys are enjoyed by only a few, and if those few must lose that fun to keep the populace happy until bump stocks flood the black market and our failure becomes apparent, so be it.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I suspected so, but hedged on the side of caution as I couldn't find a reliable source that explicitly said so (though I didn't search long). If that's the case it brings the number of mass shootings where the shooter has used a manufactured fully automatic weapons down to zero. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think it reflects the fact that access to those types of weapons is much more restricted.

                And although I think you're right, someone who robs banks or sells drugs for a living will not necessarily be persuaded to find a new career as a result of new firearms legislation; it seems clear (from information available) that there is a difference in the typical profile of those who use guns to facilitate other types of crime (drugs, robbery etc.) and those who use guns to commit mass shootings.

                So I think mass shootings represent a separate category of gun violence, and we need to acknowledge that measures targeted specifically at that type of gun crime, may not impact other types of gun crime. I'm sure a "professional" criminal could obtain a manufactured fully automatic weapon if they were determined to, but could an alienated person with mental health issues and hateful intentions do the same? Not easily (I'm assuming bump stocks will be prohibited also).

                Again, the sale and ownership of fully automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since 1934. The number of mass shootings where the shooter used a manufactured fully automatic weapon is: 0 (as far as I'm aware).

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  A professional can import such a gun from Syria or China if he has to.  He has the money and contacts to do so, while the psychotic wishing to kill someone does not.

                  But I see a third category of killer as well.  We have the psychotic mass murderer and the criminal (professional or not) that is willing to kill during their crime, but there is also the gang member that isn't out to kill random, innocent people but is quite happy to participate in a gang rumble, with guns or without.  And while I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gang member killed that way, there are all too often innocent bystanders that join the body count.  Plus it turns the neighborhood into a slum of a war zone.

                  That could be the single largest group of killers in the country - inner city gangs.  The only other one that might be bigger is the group of drug dealers.  Personally I find something wrong in that we begin to scream about gun controls every time there is a mass shooting, but the death toll from those events (although growing) is minute compared to what is seen in inner cities.  It seems that it is only an emotional uprising that brings out concern, that we are inured to the single deaths that occur far more often, every day.  And emotions and honest, well carried out, thoughtful research are not good bedfellows.  I've been watching this for years and arming teachers is the very first time that anything but gun control as ever been seriously considered by anyone with the power to make changes.  Though it won't, of course, do anything at all for killings outside the schools - the vast majority of killings.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    I think you're right to distinguish between different types of gun violence. A mass shooting is very different in nature to an armed robbery or a gang-related shooting. A control measure that reduces one type of gun violence, might not do the same for another. Which means there's no point rejecting additional legislation just because it can't fix all types of gun violence.

                    Restricting access to fully automatic weapons has clearly had a beneficial impact, in that no one has ever used one to commit a mass shooting. That hasn't stopped them being used to commit other types of gun crime, but that just indicates the issue needs to tackled from multiple angles.

                    You're right, gang-related violence shouldn't be of any less concern, but the solutions to that type of violence may well be different to other types of gun violence. There are lots of complex social issues at play there.

                    I also agree there needs to be thoughtful research on the issue. Part of the problem is that current legislation restricts government departments like the DHHS from carrying out that type of research. An amendment to a spending Bill in 1996 stated that: "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control"(1). The consequences have been that research institutions have avoided firearm studies, because it could place their federal funding at risk.

                    In 2016 Representative Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) introduced a Bill called the "Gun Violence Research Act" which sought to ". . . repeal the provision that in practice prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from sponsoring research on gun violence"(2). In terms of support for the Bill the Democrats supported it with around 120 co-sponsors. The number of Republican supporter was: 0.

                    That Bill is still on the table though, so you can contact your Representative and ask them to support the Bill, if you haven't already.

                    The problem with arming teachers with firearms, is that teachers don't exist in isolation from society. They're people too, and they can suffer from mental illness like anyone else. E.g. "A teacher arrested for firing a gun at school Wednesday had turned himself in previously, believing that he had caused the death of a person who might not exist . . ."(3)(4). Teachers with guns, just means more people in schools with guns. As people are the key risk factor when it comes to gun violence, more people with guns in schools, just means more risk.

                    (1) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104p … ubl208.pdf
                    (2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … /1478/text
                    (3) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … 384164002/
                    (4) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/us/g … index.html

  4. peoplepower73 profile image93
    peoplepower73posted 6 months ago

    Sychophantastic

    I hope that is satire!

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Sync is being a provocateur.  You shouldn't have responded.

  5. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 6 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13912342.jpg

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I'm sure if all of the teachers at the Parkland High School carried their own AR-15s, no one would have died except for the shooter.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        You might be right.  Or not, but we'll never know will we? Because we won't try something new, something that might work; we're still tied up in disarming the public and the continued failure to save lives that way isn't something to talk about.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I was being sarcastic in response to a ridiculous cartoon. The idea that all of our teachers would carry assault rifles all day at school is absurd.

          1. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Yes it is absurd. And the Dear Readers note well that YOU are the only one who keeps bringing it up.

            No one else. Just YOU.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Really? I don't see any other post about giving every teacher an assault rifle.

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                You don't see any other post about giving every teacher an assault rifle. None. At least from me.

                If you do, please quote it. Completely. In detail. With specifics. Find the words, "every," "teacher," and "assault rifle."

                Or you can just apologize for making stuff up.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            So is an expelled student returning and killing 17 children and wounding 14 more.  Which absurdity would you prefer?

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Neither one.

      2. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, your "helpless little lambsie" theory of "how things should work" gave everyone a lot of satisfaction, eh.

      3. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Bless your heart but you must be relpying to some other poster. I never said, posted, or hinted anything about arming all teachers.

        Keep searching, though. You might find the post you meant to reply to.

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image80
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months ago

    "Yet despite the fact that he was well known to local police, school and mental health officials, he legally purchased the AR-15 that he used to gun down his former classmates. Cruz slipped through the gaps in a dysfunctional mental health system and a gun background check setup not designed to stop mentally ill people who haven’t been incarcerated or court-ordered into treatment."  The legislation that would have required those background checks (passed by President Obama near the end of his terms) was rescinded by Trump almost a year ago.

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      No... this is simply not true. The process that Congress repealed had nothing to do with this situation.

      For a honest look at this read "No, the GOP Did Not Just Repeal the Background Check System or Give Guns to the Mentally Ill"

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 … ntally-ill

      If you are too concrete in your thinking to actually read this then at least read this portion of it...

      It is for this lattermost reason — not from any great fidelity to the Second Amendment — that so many organizations urged the GOP to act. As the House Ways and Means Committee was sure to make clear, letters of support were received from ADAPT, which “urged Congress to use the Congressional Rule Act to repeal this rule“; from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pressed Congress “to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA)”; from the ACLU, which pushed “members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration”; from The Arc of the United States, which asked “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule”; from the Association of Mature American Citizens, which exhorted “Congress to quickly pass this Joint Resolution and restore the basic Second Amendment rights this rule has abridged”; from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, which implored “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule and prevent the damage that it inflicts on the disability community”; and, in addition, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Association for Rural Mental Health, the National Council on Disability, the National Council of Independent Living, the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery, the National Disability Leadership Alliance, the National Disability Rights Network, the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, and Safari Club International.

      All of them — every single one — urged that the rule be killed.

  7. Kathleen Cochran profile image80
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months ago

    That quote was from an article in today's Politico.

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      have you ever considered that Poltico is lying to you?

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image80
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months ago

    The stats for every other western nation concerning violence on TV, video games, etc. line up with ours.  The only difference in America?  The number of guns.  There is a solution.  Many Americans just don't like it.  You have to ask yourself at some point: Whose freedom am I worried about infringing on?  For me, it the freedom of students to live.

    1. Jack Burton profile image81
      Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Perhaps it will do you good to read, "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?" at https://hubpages.com/politics/damage-society-guns

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      The only difference in America is the number of guns? 
      1.  As a nation we're fat.  Others aren't.
      2.  We are much more open, geographically, than other nations.
      3.  We are less socialistic than other nations, less of a "nanny state".
      4.  We are richer, monetarily, than most other nations.
      5.  We pride ourselves on our freedoms - freedoms that other nations don't have.

      That's 5 differences, and I'm sure you can come up with 50 more if you try.  Pretty obvious that the number of guns isn't the only difference, so the conclusion that it therefore has to be guns is totally false.  Try again?

    3. GA Anderson profile image80
      GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Kathleen,

      This is Jack Burton's link. I read it, but I did not verify the data in it.

      But .....

      Take a look and see if you think that it supports a statement that "It only happens here ... ... because of the guns..."

      "Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe

      https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compa … nd-europe/  "


      GA

  9. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    Who says gun owners are "not willing to compromise"?


    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13913525.jpg

  10. Kenna McHugh profile image88
    Kenna McHughposted 5 months ago

    I feel for the families, teachers, citizens and anyone involved. It's tragic. The shooter, such a young man, was PHD. Pain, Hypnosis and Drugs, psychotropic drugs.  Every mass shooter is on psychotropic drugs. That's why they have black box warnings.

  11. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    Every time we have a shooting in a gun free zone, the idea of disarming the citizens is raised. So you want to take away violate the rights of all of us to ensure that the only people with guns report to the government?

    Remember, the government isn't going to disarm. There's no fantasy world you can imagine where the government gives up their weapons. So your plan only ensures that the direct power of the government increases exponentially relative to the citizens.

    Let's consider our current President, Donald Trump. He's literally Hitler, right? And you want him and his henchmen to be the only ones armed? What happens if he decides to build that wall and deport every person of Hispanic descent? Maybe build some camps to expedite the process? Then declare martial law and make it illegal to gather and protest? You already believe he would do these things. If you've had all of us line up and turn in our guns, what's your plan when the new Emperor of North America is no longer responsive to polite letters and protest marches in pink hats?

  12. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    For those who whine that gun owners never have any ideas to put forth...

    7 Simple Steps to Eliminate School Shootings Overnight

    https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmc … t-n2450380

    BTW...there is no use debating these steps. According to many of the posters here, they simply don't exist at all. Can't debate what doesn't exist, eh.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Just one simple question:  Will those 7 steps stop murderers from killing schoolkids or just stop the shootings?  Which one, for instance, will stop a high speed car from plowing into the crowd of kids as they exit the school to go home?  Which one will stop the release of poison gas during recess? 

      They are decent suggestions, but they won't stop a killer that want's to kill kids.  They are a bandaid on the problem, but without any effort to correct whatever is causing those killers to kill.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I haven't been on this forum for a while because I'm trying to put all of the gun violence into perspective. 

        Can we agree that mental instability is the common denominator in mass shootings of both school children and others like the Las Vegas shooting?

        Can we agree there has not been enough funding for mental institutions since the early 80s?

        Can we agree that it is very difficult to determine when a mentally unstable person is going to commit these shootings until after the fact?

        Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment is a poorly written document and is subject to much interpretation, even though the Supreme Court has ruled on what it means?

        Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the 13 colonies from tyranny by a central government?

        Can we agree that there are over 200 state gun laws on the books with a huge disparity in laws among states?

        Can we agree that the states have the legal right to not enforce federal gun laws?

        Can we agree thus far the federal government has done nothing to prevent mass shootings?

        Can we agree thus far, the executive orders from presidents including Obama and Trump have been ineffectual on preventing mass shootings?

        Can we agree that the gun industry and  NRA and their lobby groups fund congressmen’s campaigns?

        Can we agree that the weapons of choice for mass shootings are rapid fire, high capacity firearms?

        Can we agree that said weapons can be obtained both legally and illegally with easy access?

        Can we agree that there has been a huge cultural shift in the way people including children relate to each other?

        Can we agree that some school children are bullied by their peers and will seek revenge in some form?

        Can we agree that under the Obama administration there was a huge increase in buying of guns for fear of a tyrannous government takeover.

        All of the questions I have posed contribute to the conditions in which mass shootings are created. They are almost like a perfect storm that falls into place for the typical mass shooter.

        I have tried to put myself in the place of a mass shooter and determine the phases that the shooter goes through and how the conditions I described above contribute to those phases. 

        Phase 1.  Motivation:
        Something has triggered the psyche of a potential mass shooter. Some of the most common motivations include bullying, anger, revenge, copy cat syndrome, the need to kill more than the last shooter.  Unfortunately, we just don’t know what motivates them, because most of them are killed while committing the act.  However, it would be ideal to know ahead of time as to when they are going to commit these crimes.  HIPPA laws and other state laws prevent the access to mental health patient’s information.

        Phase 2 Preparation
        The shooter may address their grievances on social media or document them in some form.  School children may even talk to their peers about their feelings. It has been shown that children who have that information do not know what to do with it or how to act.

        The shooter will then obtain the weapons either by legal or illegal means.  At this phase, the gun industry, including the NRA have set the stage for easy access to weapons as a result of their lobbying efforts in congress.  Congress is remiss in passing any laws because they are beholden to the gun industry for their campaign funding. 

        In addition, each state has their own set of laws that may usurp federal laws.  I believe there should be no state gun laws and only have federal laws that provide uniform legislation across all states.

        Phase 3 Planning
        In this phase the shooter lays out how they are going to attack their targets.  They decide how many guns they will use, what ammunition they need, who their targets are or whether they are just going to kill people with out any regard for who they are or single out specific individuals.  They will also plan out their escape routes and how they will defend themselves.

        Phase 4 Execution
        This phase is always done as a surprise to their victims. They may use distraction such as pipe bombs and setting off alarms to create chaos while giving  themselves the advantage. 

        Phase 5 Aftermath
        After the shootings have taken place, there is an upheaval by the people who want something done to prevent any further shootings and those who think it is waste of time to have any type of gun control. 

        History has shown that the federal government is not going to do anything about it because they are beholden to the gun industry and the NRA for campaign funding. 

        Gun advocates stand behind the 2nd amendment and have their reasons ranging from “it is my right to bear arms to protecting myself from tyranny and I don’t trust law enforcement to protect me, and every reason in between.”

        What can be done?

        There are two schools of thought, one is the defensive and the other is pro-active.  The defensive school is based on the 2nd amendment giving everybody the right to bear arms.  Therefore, we might as well be armed to defend ourselves from these shooters.  Wayne  LaPierre, the head of the NRA says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  But we know from experience, the element of surprise and the type of weaponry the shooter uses gives them the advantage in almost every case.

        The pro-active school believes in legislating change to reduce the number of shootings.  I believe the federal government should control the legislation instead of the states, thus providing uniform legislation across the fifty states. 

        In addition, there should be more funding for mental health issues, including facilities, research, and studies. The Trump administration has removed funding the CDC for prevention of gun violence and removed million of dollars of funding for background checks. Trump also removed a law that requires the mentally ill to be subject to background checks when buying firearms.

        I believe all of the items I have outlined are contributing forces to gun violence in the United States.  Feel free to add more or just comment.

        1. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          "Can we agree that mental instability is the common denominator in mass shootings of both school children and others like the Las Vegas shooting?"

          Somewhat. In many cases it is obvious. In other cases, not so much. For example, the Las Vegas case is still a total mystery. It is too easy to say, "only people who are mentally ill would do this, so therefore only people who are mentally ill do this."

          "Can we agree there has not been enough funding for mental institutions since the early 80s?"

          Nope. We might be able to agree upon the fact that it has been very difficult because of other issues to actually get people into mental health faculties. Dope 'em up, pat them on the back, and then send them back into the general population as a time bomb waiting to go off.

          "Can we agree that it is very difficult to determine when a mentally unstable person is going to commit these shootings until after the fact?"

          Yes, that we can agree upon.

          "Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment is a poorly written document and is subject to much interpretation, even though the Supreme Court has ruled on what it means?"

          No, it is clearly written. And it was clearly understood for the first 100 years of the country. Even the Dred Scott decision in the mid-1800s understood what the 2nd Amendment was clearly about...

          Were blacks to be considered citizens — with all the rights a citizen should expect — the Court enumerated what those rights would include:

          “It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

          "Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the 13 colonies from tyranny by a central government?"

          One of a multitude of reasons.

          "Can we agree that there are over 200 state gun laws on the books with a huge disparity in laws among states?"

          There are far, far more than 200 state gun laws. I did a quick study on that issue here: https://hubpages.com/politics/20-000-gun-laws

          "Can we agree that the states have the legal right to not enforce federal gun laws?"

          The states have no obligation, responsibility, or duty to enforce any federal law. Basic Supreme Court rulings over decades. They may if they so choose.

          "Can we agree thus far the federal government has done nothing to prevent mass shootings?"

          Only if we can agree that there is actually nothing the federal government can do to prevent mass shootings.

          "Can we agree thus far, the executive orders from presidents including Obama and Trump have been ineffectual on preventing mass shootings?"

          I wasn't aware of any executives orders from any president that touched on the issue of mass shootings. Therefore, by their non-existence, I would agree they have been ineffectual.

          "Can we agree that the gun industry and  NRA and their lobby groups fund congressmen’s campaigns?"

          Only if we agree that the NRA is one of the smallest of the lobbying groups, dwarfed by hundreds of millions of dollars by the unions, and other orgs such as Planned Parenthood.

          "Can we agree that the weapons of choice for mass shootings are rapid fire, high capacity firearms?"

          Nope. Not even close to being true. As described by the Washington Post...

          Lost in the diatribes about banning assault weapons is this inconvenient fact: the vast majority of mass shooters use handguns, not assault rifles, in their attacks. That includes Seung-Hui Cho, who used two handguns, including a Glock 19, in 2007 to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech University, the previous worst mass shooting in American history.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/loc … shootings/

          "Can we agree that said weapons can be obtained both legally and illegally with easy access?"

          If you can consider going thru a federal/state background check or risking a jail term "easy access" then we might agree.

          "Can we agree that there has been a huge cultural shift in the way people including children relate to each other?"

          That, that is agreeable.

          "Can we agree that some school children are bullied by their peers and will seek revenge in some form?"

          Yes, that is agreeable.

          "Can we agree that under the Obama administration there was a huge increase in buying of guns for fear of a tyrannous government takeover. "

          Actually the increase in gun sales started several years previously in Bush's administration. It did increase more during Obama's presidency, but not for fear of a "tyrannous government takeover. " It was the reasonable fear that when the Democrats were in power they would exercise their dreams and attempt massive bans on many types of firearms.

          "All of the questions I have posed contribute to the conditions in which mass shootings are created. They are almost like a perfect storm that falls into place for the typical mass shooter."

          You forgot one of the most major of the conditions, and that is the role the media plays. By glorifying these shooters it creates a "perfect storm" for those disturbed people who want to see their name across the headlines and on everyone's lips. I would put "copycat" as probably the number one reason why we are seeing so many incidents in so short of a time.

          "The shooter will then obtain the weapons either by legal or illegal means.  At this phase, the gun industry, including the NRA have set the stage for easy access to weapons as a result of their lobbying efforts in congress.  Congress is remiss in passing any laws because they are beholden to the gun industry for their campaign funding."

          Approximately 80 MILLION gun owners in America.

          If only TEN PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 8 MILLION gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

          Is there? Of course not.

          If only ONE PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 800,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

          Is there? Of course not.

          If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 80,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

          Is there? Of course not.

          And if only ONE ONE HUNDRETH OF ONE PERCENT of the gun owners do harm to others then that would mean that there would be at least 8,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

          And that’s about the right number.

          Many think that because 0.001 percent of gun users misuse their gun to harm others the other 99.999 percent should be subjected to laws taking their freedom and liberties away.   

          "In addition, each state has their own set of laws that may usurp federal laws.  I believe there should be no state gun laws and only have federal laws that provide uniform legislation across all states."

          No state can legally "usurp" a federal law. A state can pass a law that is stricter than a federal law, but that is it. They cannot negate a federal law. That is basic civics. Many states also have their own state Constitutional protection built in for the right to keep and bear arms. The federal government cannot willy nilly "usurp" or negate those laws either. 


          "History has shown that the federal government is not going to do anything about it because they are beholden to the gun industry and the NRA for campaign funding.  "

          What is amazing is how you can swing from fairly logical to just repeating emotional talking points. Perhaps you can explain to us why the Democrats, who held the complete Congress with a super-majority with the Republicans powerless to stop them, didn't "do anything" while Obama was president.

          "Gun advocates stand behind the 2nd amendment and have their reasons ranging from “it is my right to bear arms to protecting myself from tyranny and I don’t trust law enforcement to protect me, and every reason in between.”"

          How about, "You just admitted that there are mentally ill people who are planning to kill others, and your solution is to disarm and make helpless the very people they are planning to kill" Does that also work for a reason to object to gun control?

          "There are two schools of thought, one is the defensive and the other is pro-active.  The defensive school is based on the 2nd amendment giving everybody the right to bear arms.  Therefore, we might as well be armed to defend ourselves from these shooters.  Wayne  LaPierre, the head of the NRA says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  But we know from experience, the element of surprise and the type of weaponry the shooter uses gives them the advantage in almost every case."

          Advantage, yes. Overwhelming superiority, no. And who do we call where there is a shooter with a gun? Why, other people with guns to come and save us.

          "The pro-active school believes in legislating change to reduce the number of shootings.  I believe the federal government should control the legislation instead of the states, thus providing uniform legislation across the fifty states. "

          You've already just admitted up above there there is no legislation that can stop an unknown shooter who is determined to hurt others. Now, you say there is "legislation"? Be specific. Give detail.

          "In addition, there should be more funding for mental health issues, including facilities, research, and studies. The Trump administration has removed funding the CDC for prevention of gun violence and removed million of dollars of funding for background checks. "

          This is simply not true. In the 1990s the CDC was prevented by Congress for using federal dollars for anti-gun and pro-gun-control propaganda. That was it.

          You can read about it here by one of the prime participants in the issue:

          http://www.haciendapub.com/articles/pub … hy-wheeler

          "Trump also removed a law that requires the mentally ill to be subject to background checks when buying firearms."

          This is as far removed from reality as belief in the green-cheese Moon and is indicative of why it is so hard to have these conversations. There is so much that -- even good hearted -- people "know" that is not true that getting them to face the facts becomes almost impossible. After reading the facts it should make any reasonable person question what else they think they "know' about firearms, and just how the media misleads them on a regular basis.

          You can read the truth of the issue here:

          https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/cor … tally-ill/

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I disagree with some of your "can we agree" comments, but not many.

          The real disagreement comes when all you wish to talk about are mass shootings rather than mass killings.  Implicit in this is the thought that if killers can't get a gun they won't be able to kill, and that simply is not true.  Real world experience (Australia) shows us that and common sense tells us that.  So go back to your stages and change "shooter" to "murderer" or maybe "killer" and start over there.  And when you're all through you may have a better understanding of just why all the gun controls, up to and including confiscation of all legally owned guns, isn't worth a plugged nickel when it comes to saving lives.  Get off the "shooter" kick and deal with the roots, the causes, of mass killings instead of trying for another bandaid over the wound while letting it fester and grow beneath that cosmetic, useless "solution".

          1. peoplepower73 profile image93
            peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Wilderness:  You are talking about mass killings. I'm talking about mass shootings because that is how groups of  people are killed in mass shootings, it is  by guns.  Mass shootings are a subset of mass killings.  Why stop at mass killings, why not widen it to all deaths in the world? 

            You make the assumption that if guns were not available, the same people who commit mass shootings would use other means of killing those same people.  Yes, terrorists use other means, but their motivation and goals are different than killing a group of school kids.  There is no evidence that mass shooters would use other means, because the guns are so readily available.  How do you prove otherwise?

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              ever hear of the Happy Land nightclub killings with almost 100 people murdered? Or the Bath School bombing? Or Julian Marcelino. Or the Oklahoma City bombings? Or many, many more?

      2. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        lol Like it's as easy to get poison gas as an assault weapon!  Reaching a bit, aren't you?

        1. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          much easier for anyone knowing basic chemistry. Mixing bleach and ammonia together will kill people as quick as you want.

          From the CDC (source linked below): When bleach is mixed with ammonia-containing compounds, monochloramine (NH2Cl) (and dichloramine (NHCl2) are formed, which may produce tearing, respiratory tract irritation, and nausea. These compounds decompose in water to hypochlorous acid and free ammonia gas; the former combines with moisture forming hydrochloric acid and toxic nascent oxygen; the latter is a respiratory and mucous membrane irritant and can cause pulmonary edema and pneumonia.

          Source(s):

          From the Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00015111.htm

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            How does one disperse this homemade poison gas without being poisoned themselves, Jack? Since you're the expert......   tongue

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              perhaps they don't have plastic jugs or glass jars where you live. Perhaps. Maybe.

              I've included a pic here to help you in case you have never spotted on before... kinda like one of those "gun free signs" that some people find to hard to notice.
              https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13916127.jpg

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Yeah right, like no one would notice anyone carrying glass jugs full of chemicals, or wearing a gas mask for that matter. And how do you break a plastic jug?

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Really reaching now, eh.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Really trying to avoid answering now, eh?

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Jack's right - chlorine is easy to make, and with a little more effort several war gases are possible.  Just release them upwind from the target - the Germans did it in 1920.

          1. Dean Traylor profile image95
            Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Germans  in 1920? After World War I? I wasn't aware they tested anything during that time...considering the condition the country and the military were in at the time. Just curious....

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Oops!  Got the dates wrong; it was in WWI.  Watched a special on an area (in Poland, I think?) where it was used against the allies.  Didn't work too well - the wind wouldn't cooperate, plus we had word of it and provided gas masks as well as tried to tunnel in and destroy the camp before they could deploy it) but it DID kill a good many allies.  And was a part of why it eventually became illegal as a war weapon.

  13. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13916101.jpg

  14. Onusonus profile image79
    Onusonusposted 5 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28058655_1024117851087827_8173678471048069775_n.jpg?oh=665e9032b8e8768d5fbabf7433e58296&oe=5B1B5F2D

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      So how many people did he kill, Onus?

      1. Onusonus profile image79
        Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        So you're okay with that because, Obama. Figures.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          That's not an answer, onus. Try again!

          Is that an AR-15 you're holding in your profile pic, Onus? If so, does it make you feel empowered or a big man? If not, just why do you choose a pic of you holding a weapon?

          1. Onusonus profile image79
            Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            It's a pic of anti gun liberal goon Gabby Giffords at the range.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              The lady who got shot by a gun nut? Why in the heck did you use that photo? Are you glad she got shot?

              1. Onusonus profile image79
                Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Do you think it's right that she takes guns away from everybody except criminals and her own bodyguards?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Did she take your guns, Onus? If so, it's probably something in your background check.tongue

                  If not, that means you're either a criminal or a bodyguard. I hope it's the latter. yikes

                  1. Onusonus profile image79
                    Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Are those the only two choices?

                    And why do you hope I'm a criminal?

                2. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Here is your claim, onus. I asked you if she took your guns away, and if not, you must be either a criminal or a bodyguard.   Which is it?

                  1. Onusonus profile image79
                    Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Looks more like your claim Randy.

                3. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Your claim, onus. Deny it if you wish....

                  In fact, don't address me anymore. Getting you to answer a question is worse than Jackclee. If I knew that was Gabby Gifford on your profile page I would already have ended my conversation with you. It's one thing to back a pro-gun agenda, but another to use a woman's pic who has been shot in the head by a gun nut. Not cool in the least, Dude!  mad

                  1. Onusonus profile image79
                    Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Okay, now you quoted my claim. Last time you quoted yourself.

                    Also lackluster moral outrage defending a woman who wants to take guns away from everybody except her own body guards, and criminals.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

      ONUSONUS: This is what happens when you don't check your sources, but what you found fits your agenda.

      https://www.snopes.com/dontray-mills/

      1. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        According to your own source he was allowed to "plead guilty to one of the charges" even though they had him on 27 different charges of trafficking firearms.

        WHO made that decision to allow him to plead on one charge and walk on the other 26? Oh.... the Obama Justice Department. Would the judge have reacted differently to a guilty verdict of 27 charges instead of noting that the Obama prosecuting attorney didn't take it seriously himself?

        1. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Jack:  I have gone through all 175 of the posts on this forum and it looks like you have dominated the forum with your trite insults. You say you are not emotional about your replies, but after reading all of them, I say just the opposite.  You get your emotional kicks by insulting others.  What is your point for being on this forum? If it is to educate people, I think you are failing as a teacher. I certainly wouldn't want you as my teacher.

          1. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Let me translate that for our Dear Readers...

            "Wahhhh... Jack points out our foolishness and weaknesses and we have no answer for him so we'll just claim victimhood and declare ourselves satisfied."

            BTW... You really, really don't know my "point" about being on forums such as this, do you. Let me assure you it has little to nothing to do with "teaching" you anything except that which you are willing to learn. And that is why you get so frustrated and angry with me. You close your ears and eyes and shout to the world that your emotions trump logic, reason, rationality, and facts. When I point that out you then have no where else to go.

            2nd BTW... if you don't think you have "emotional thinkers" on your side perhaps you can comment on the "solution" presented of "ban the NRA."

        2. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Jack: You get so emotional that you didn't read the whole story or you just love to  put out misinformation, because it makes you seem like an authority... to yourself..  Here is what was said:

          "According to the meme shown above, Mills’ plea bargain was negotiated by the Department of Justice (or in some versions, the Obama administration or President Obama himself). However, Mills’ sentence was seemingly light because he pleaded guilty to only one of the numerous charges against him, and the choice of giving Mills probation rather than jail time was not the result of instructions from the Justice Department (or higher) but rather the personal discretion of Judge Rudolph Randa (who was appointed as a federal district judge by President George H.W. Bush and has a history of making controversial decisions), based on his view of Mills’ contrition and likelihood of re-offending."

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            So it comes down to another Republican giving a light sentence to an illegal gun seller and not from Obama who is blamed for it on the right? Yeah, that sounds about par for the course.

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Not all Republicans are created equal, you know. Some are pretty tragic in their willingness to appease something other than justice and righteousness.

              I'd personally consider tar and feathers for the judge for even accepting the plea bargain.

          2. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            With whom did Mills negotiate his "plea bargain" that allowed him to plead "guilty" to only one charge instead of 27?

            Himself? His attorney? His momma?

            No... the Obama Department of Justice was the other partner who negotiated with him and was satisfied with the plea bargain. Do you dispute this? It is in your own reference.

            "and the choice of giving Mills probation rather than jail time was not the result of instructions from the Justice Department (or higher) but rather the personal discretion of Judge Rudolph Randa"

            I never said otherwise, did I. What I said was the judge probably considered the Justice Department's not taking this seriously as a signal that he didn't have to take it seriously either.

            But it is fascinating that I, as a strong pro-gun thinker, want to see people like this put away for life or longer. His 27 guns on the streets in the hands of social deviants can allow them to cause immense and tragic consequences to innocents for decades. Meanwhile all the gun control people such as you seem to be defending the situation as is and seem okay with it.

  15. Sychophantastic profile image85
    Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago

    Conservatives are the only ones exposing these hoaxes for what they are: fake news.

    Sandy Hook was just a made-up fake story designed to start a conversation to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

    Similarly, who's to say that this latest "shooting" isn't just a Hollywood stunt? Liberals have been trying to take our guns away forever and these so-called "mass shootings" are just stunts to make us believe that we need gun control.

    Here's a great article on Hubpages about how Sandy Hook was faked (it's not my article):

    https://hubpages.com/politics/Sandy-Hoo … or-Fiction

    Those of you who are buying into this liberal media hoax are just sheep being sent to the slaughter. Start doing your own research! Conservative media, the real media, is the only one exposing these hoaxes for what they are!

    1. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Sycho:Why don't you ask the parents who lost their children in the shooting, instead of believing and re-posting something that is fake? Please don't post this again on my forum. It is sickening to even think this way.  What is the matter with you? Have you no common sense?

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, he does. He is using satire to make fun of the gun rights people.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

          promisem: Oh,  thanks sorry about that.  He caught me off guard. Usually I'm pretty good about detecting satire, but obviously not this time.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I think "he's" a "she"!  But you never know. Looks like a she in her profile drawing.

        2. Sychophantastic profile image85
          Sychophantasticposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Promisem,

          I don't like you.

  16. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    I'll take seriously a proposal for laws and regulations to prevent school shootings when the one proposing it isn't

    1). utterly ignorant about how guns work and

    2). pretending as if he's the only one who cares about school shootings.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      How many assault rifles do you have, Jack? And what makes you an expert on firearms?

      1. Dean Traylor profile image95
        Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        In case you're wondering, a certain someone cherry-picked a speech to police officers here's the article and much of the speech given

        https://www.policeone.com/school-violen … is-denial/

        1. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          and that changes what I posted how?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Did you miss my last post, Jack? How many assault rifles do you own, and what makes you such an expert on firearms?  I have two among my many other hunting rifles and shot guns and can field strip all of them if needed. No high capacity clips for the assault rifles though. So you see, I do know how firearms work and can handle them safely. What's your experience?

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Well, I have been shooting for a long, long time. Including about 15 years with the Seabee Reserves where we were required to be regularly qualified on all small arms. Had a lot of fun there and spent many hours on ranges across Arkansas, Texas,Indiana, California,and Illinois being trained by the best.

              I've tried to pay it back by helping to train many hundreds of people ranging from teens to women to minorities in how to safely and competently shoot firearms. Had a lot of fun doing that also. My two best students were brothers who went on to do several tours in Afghanistan as Army Rangers. Their mother never forgave me for introducing them how to shoot. :-)

          2. Dean Traylor profile image95
            Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Hush now, You've been exposed. So tell me: did you do it so people can come and visit your website and buy security products?  Also, why did you use quotes from person that been accused of having liberal thought?

            1. Jack Burton profile image81
              Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Are you posting drunk? Seriously.

              What "website" and "products" are you posting about?

              It was YOU who gave a link to a website that matched the info that I posted. Not me.

              1. Dean Traylor profile image95
                Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                The one that links to your profile page, genius. Also, why did you post the first two or three paragraph and disregarded the rest? And why did you fail to mentioned that it came from a speech at a police convention 30 miles from San Fransisco?

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Yep... drunk.

                  1. Dean Traylor profile image95
                    Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Dry for more than a year. But with all the garbage you place on this thread, you sure make one want to drink.

                2. Dean Traylor profile image95
                  Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh, by the way, because you posted portion of that article without giving the person who actually wrote it (especially the non-quoted sections) any credit, that's ground for plagiarism.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    you might want to take another look at that post, sport. And I stand by my accusation that you are posting drunk.

      2. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Don't have to be an "expert". Just don't have to be utterly ignorant.

        And while I don't discuss my personal firearms in a context such as this I can state with certainty that when the zombie apocalypse comes my home will be one of the safer ones on the block. 

        How about you... how much do you know about the Fighting Seabees without having to turn to Wikipeida?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          My dad landed on Omaha Beach and was in the Battle of the Bulge. I actually knew some Seebees who served in WW2.  No need to look them up. I seriously doubt you have any firearms at all.

          And you do know zombies are not real, or do you?  lol

          1. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Honors to your father. Mine was in the Pacific Theater.

            And you can doubt what you wish. I have no control over that. Or interest in what you do or do not doubt.

            But the really smart people will go to my Hubs and see where my interest is focused.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              My dad's brother served in the Pacific and another in the Aleutians during the war. My personal protection weapon is a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. I'll take on an intruder wielding an assault rifle any time with my shotgun. While he's aiming I'll be blasting his butt to pieces.

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                never was much of a shotgun kind of guy outside the trap range. But I understand their appeal to some. Lots of trainers recommend them for home defense.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Years of dove hunting will teach you something about shotguns a clay pigeon never will. The average dove kill per box of 25 shells is 8 birds. A very humbling sport if you can't shoot well. Clay pigeons? A piece of cake compared to hitting a diving, speedy feathered missile such as the mourning dove. I once saw an Afghanistan veteran dove hunting with hardly any birds at all to show for his effort. He was shooting like hell though!

                  1. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Never been a hunter. Haven't shot at an animal in over 55 years. But with the trouble I've had getting the clays into edible shape after knocking them down I am not sure that doves would be an improvement.

        2. Aime F profile image83
          Aime Fposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Everyone knows that guns are not an ideal weapon for the zombie apocalypse. Eventually you run out of ammo and the noise attracts more zombies. Maybe it’s time to start investing in crossbows.

          1. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Edged weapons are the best, which is why every time I come back from the Philippines I bring a couple of bolos back with me. These are not "tourist trade" items but from the back hills where the farmers depend upon a tough knife and blade that will stand up to years of hard work.

            Makes chopping off those z-heads a piece of cake.

            https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13917871_f1024.jpg

  17. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    LTC Dave Grossman, US Army (retired)

    “How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years? Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That’s right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century.
    Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?”

    Standing on the stage of a high school auditorium, Grossman walked to the side nearest a wall as he addressed the crowd.

    "Look up at the ceiling! See all those sprinklers up there? They’re hard to spot — they’re painted black — but they’re there. While you’re looking, look at the material the ceiling is made of. You know that that stuff was selected because it’s fire-retardant. Now look over there above the door — you see that fire exit sign? That’s not just any fire exit sign — that’s a ‘battery-backup-when-the-world-ends-it-will-still-be-lit’ fire exit sign.

    He walked to the other side, nearby a fire exit and exterior wall, Grossman slammed the palm of his hand against the wall and exclaimed, “Look at these wall boards! They were chosen because they’re what, fireproof or fire retardant? There is not one stinking thing in this room that will burn!”

    Pointing around the room as he spoke, Grossman continued, “But you’ve still got those fire sprinklers, those fire exit signs, fire hydrants outside, and fire trucks nearby! Are these fire guys crazy? Are these fire guys paranoid? No! This fire guy is our A+ student! Because this fire guy has redundant, overlapping layers of protection, not a single kid has been killed by school fire in the last 50 years!"

    “But you try to prepare for violence — the thing much more likely to kill our kids in schools, the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill our kids in schools, and people think you’re paranoid. They think you’re crazy. They’re in denial.”

    I want you to stop for a moment and think about how much fucking money is spent on ways to put fires out and stop them from spreading. How much time is spent on training what to do if a fire burns and spreads? Now how much money and time is spent on stopping violence?

    Very little because it makes YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.

    The idea of trained staff and security with firearms in your children's schools shocks you. Well... reality check. The image of your child in a casket due to a murderer in school with a gun will be infinitely more shocking I guarantee you.

    Passing laws restricting firearms would have the same effect as passing laws against fire. If changes in firearm laws are your answer as to how we can save children's lives, you are naive, uninformed about human conflict, and frankly have nothing better to fucking offer. You are grasping at straws in the darkness of ignorance. I do not hold it against you. Anyone asked to solve a problem they are not equipped to solve will make an effort to do so if they believe it to be necessary.

    ACCEPT that evil walks the earth and you or your children may one day see it.

    LEARN about how the human reacts in moments of danger and peril.

    DEVELOP SKILLS to stay alive whatever they may be.

    SHARE the mindset, knowledge and skills with your children and loved ones.

    WATER puts out FIRE.

    GUNS stop GUNS.

    You all keep pissing in the wind and wringing your hands.

    - Lt Col David Grossman

    1. Rochelle Frank profile image96
      Rochelle Frankposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Brilliant! How many people will understand this?

  18. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    3 disturbing facts about mass school shootings that change everything

    https://www.shaunconnell.com/mass-schoo … ing-facts/

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I like the article, for there is much truth to it.  But the conclusion, right at the end, I disagree with for the root of the problem is not how to protect schools from guns (that's easy - turn them into prisons every school day with barbed wire, impenetrable doors and lots of guards), it's the madness that is overtaking too many of our kids - kids that grow into adults with that sickness still festering inside.

      Guarding schools is a good short term defense, but we need to be aware that it is not a long term answer.  As soon as murderers discover they can't shoot their way to glory in a school they will turn their attention to either a different location (crowded theater or largish restaurant?) or turn to a weapon that can get by the guards.  A dump truck through the wall, a bomb through the window or even poison in food/water supplies.

      Those insane enough to want to kill innocent people, particularly small children, will not be stopped by a few guards in an otherwise defenseless building.  Armor and protect it like a prison, maybe, to a larger degree, but it would still be vulnerable to the right tools.

  19. Jack Burton profile image81
    Jack Burtonposted 5 months ago

    When do we get to talk about the other reasons?

    https://spectator.org/when-do-we-get-to … r-reasons/

  20. Rochelle Frank profile image96
    Rochelle Frankposted 5 months ago

    I know a retired police officer who says the same thing, and had the experience of using a shotgun to save lives . . .his own and others.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      A shotgun is all anyone needs to protect their homes, Rochelle. No need for assault rifles with 30 round clips. I'm all for doing away with common citizens owning military rifles with high capacity magazines. They are for attacking, not defending. Why do you think they're called "assault rifles."?

      Most people want them because they look scary, unlike a mere hunting rifle. It scares heck out of me that some people can get them so easily.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        "Why do you think they're called "assault rifles."?"

        To instill fear into the listener and promote the disarming of America.  Certainly not for any factual reason for the term refers to military grade automatic weapons.  That it has become common to refer to common hunting rifles by that terminology does not make those tools "assault rifles" any more than calling Iron Pyrite "gold" makes it valuable.

        "I'm all for doing away with common citizens owning military rifles with high capacity magazines."

        You have to know that there are precious few "military rifles with high capacity magazines" in the hands of the citizenry.  The question becomes "Why would you promote that lie when you know better", and the answer is likely the same: to instill fear into the listener and promote the disarming of America.  Am I right?  If not why would you say something so obviously untrue?

      2. Jack Burton profile image81
        Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Good thing we have the "Bill of Rights" instead of the "Bill of What Randy Thinks People Need."

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Not a good thing, Jack. Our forefathers never imagined the carnage which could be committed by one firearm. And the politicians on the Right simply do not care as long as they get contributions from the NRA. Trump got 3 million I understand. Blood money no doubt!

          1. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13917985.jpg

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              BS!

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                how droll...

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Not as droll as your meme, that's for sure!

                  1. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    As long as it causes a Dear Reader to go, "Hmmmm...." I am satisfied.

            2. peoplepower73 profile image93
              peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Jack Burton:  Why limit it to AR's why not ICBMs with nuclear warheads?  If they could think about ARs, don't you think, they could envision ICBMs as well?  See how your logic sucks!

              https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13919776.jpg

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I'm sorry, this meme just makes to point of the NRA.  Nukes don't kill people, people DO kill people.  People build the Nukes and fire the Nukes.  They are only able to cause any harm when people make them harm others. If people who look at this and don't have an IQ that enables them to see the difference between an international threat and a debate on our Second Amendment rights as American citizens...you IQ doesn't make you able to engage in an intelligent debate.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                  peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Readmikenow:  What is an ICBM?  It is a firearm that shoots a projectile out of tube towards a target, to kill people just like the firearms they used when the 2nd amendment was drafted. As a matter of fact, it is more like a catapult that launches whatever they could project to knock down the walls of castles.  If Wilderness says they could shoot chain shot out of cannon, and create carnage.  Then what is the difference with an ICBM?  The only difference  is the scale of the carnage.

                  Now let's see if an ICBM meets the test of the 2nd amendment.

                  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

                  Yes a well regulated militia does fire the ICBM.  It is necessary for a free state. And that militia is made up of people who have the right to bear arms.  And its protecting our free state of the United States of America, so therefore, it is not being infringed upon by a foreign country.

                  Now let's see if the 2nd amendment fits the typical civilian gun owner.  Do they belong to a well regulated militia? Not, unless they are in the military.  Do civilians  who are not part of that militia have the right to bear arms?  No, not according to the 2nd amendment because they are not part of a well regulated militia.  They could be a group of people like a gun club, but sorry, they are not members of a well regulated militia. 

                  I'm sure the framers thought of improving the accuracy of their firearms in launching projectiles...So if the framers could think of AR15s, then an ICBM  is just a projectile aimed at a target against some country that wants to breach our rights? Is that an intelligent debate?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    "ICBMs frighten me and therefore no one can own them."

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Where does "logic" lead us? 

                Well, the first machine gun (the "gatling", patented in 1862) was invented only 70 years after the 2nd amendment (passed in 1791) - let's start with assuming that the writers of the document were too stupid to envision any such thing and therefore they didn't mean to include the idea that the citizenry could ever own a machine gun (not the "assault rifle" under attack today, but a real assault gun).

                But the lever action Henry, the first repeating rifle, was also patented in 1860 and had the firepower of a dozen muzzle loaders - "logic" tells us that those writers could never have seen that one coming either.  It is "logical" that they intended only single shot weapons to be owned by the citizenry.

                But the first metal cartridge didn't come around until 1857 - it is again "logical" that the writers of the 2nd amendment never envisioned such a deadly evolution in arms technology.  Those single shot weapons using metal cartridges were never intended for general ownership; just muzzle loaders (although they could use cloth or paper "cartridges" that were basically used to premeasure the power and make loading the gun quicker).  Thus even the early Colt Sidehammer rifle should be banned because, although it used paper cartridges and had to be primed as any other muzzle loader, it was still a repeating rifle and not invented until 1855 - 64 years after the amendment and just 5 years before the first machine gun.

                Bottom line - "logic" inexorably leads us to the "fact" that the writers were too stupid to think that weapons technology would improve and it is "obvious" that "arms" meant only muzzle loaders.

                Wouldn't it be more honest to forego such convoluted "reasoning" in determining what the writers intended and just say "Those guns frighten me and therefore no one can own one"?

                1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                  peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness:

                  "Bottom line - "logic" inexorably leads us to the "fact" that the writers were too stupid to think that weapons technology would improve and it is "obvious" that "arms" meant only muzzle loaders." 

                  Your example stops at machine guns, why not project it all the way to ICBMs? They are current and most advanced method of launching projectiles.  You see it is a matter of scale.  Do you believe the framers could envision the mass destruction of complete cities?  Why not, it is just a matter of scale.

                  It's not guns that frighten me, it's how people use them to kill innocent people that does.  As you guys say, "Guns don't kill, but people with guns do kill."   I don't know if you read this reply that I wrote for Readmikenow  , but it bears posting again.

                  What is an ICBM?  It is a firearm that shoots a projectile out of tube towards a target, to kill people just like the firearms they used when the 2nd amendment was drafted. As a matter of fact, it is more like a catapult that launches whatever they could project to knock down the walls of castles.  If Wilderness says they could shoot chain shot out of cannon, and create carnage.  Then what is the difference with an ICBM?  The only difference  is the scale of the carnage.

                  Now let's see if an ICBM meets the test of the 2nd amendment.

                  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

                  Yes a well regulated militia does fire the ICBM.  It is necessary for a free state. And that militia is made up of people who have the right to bear arms.  And its protecting our free state of the United States of America, just like the  13 colonies were protected against a foreign enemy. so therefore, it is not being infringed upon by a foreign country.

                  Now let's see if the 2nd amendment fits the typical civilian gun owner.  Do they belong to a well regulated militia? Not, unless they are in the military.  Do civilians  who are not part of that militia have the right to bear arms?  No, not according to the 2nd amendment because they are not part of a well regulated militia.  They could be a group of people like a gun club, but sorry, they are not members of a well regulated militia. 

                  I'm sure the framers thought of improving the speed and  accuracy of their firearms in launching projectiles...So if the framers could think of AR15s, then an ICBM  is just a projectile aimed at a target against some country that wants to breach our rights?   It is just a matter of scale.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    I repeat: your "logic" can only lead to the "fact" that the framers intended that nothing but single shot muzzle loaders can be privately owned.  That's utterly ridiculous and it is extremely obvious (at least to me) that they did not put limits on the law.  The use of that "logical" train leading to the only conclusion possible is, therefore, a false trail.  It is irrelevant as "logic" indicates just as well that the framers did not put limits on private ownership at all.  After all, they didn't say a word about cannons...tools of death that, at the time, were far, far superior to a muzzle loader in killing capacity.

                    So again - how about we quit trying to re-form the words given and just be honest about it?  Provide an emotional argument to justify putting limits where the framers didn't and let it go at that instead of using a trail of false logic to "prove" that the mediocre weaponry of today was not intended to be acceptable?  The civilian ownership of a bazooka, an ICBM or even a bomb scares me, I don't want my neighbor to have one, and so I agree that it should be illegal to have. 

                    (If you want to go into the militia thing, start with the idea that every white male was a part of the militia.  Take it from there, then, and show that it didn't mean that - that it meant only those in the non-existent Armed Forces of the United States.)

                  2. Readmikenow profile image97
                    Readmikenowposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Peoplepower you actually wrote "Bottom line - "logic" inexorably leads us to the "fact" that the writers were too stupid to think that weapons technology would improve and it is "obvious" that "arms" meant only muzzle loaders."  The founding fathers were too stupid?  I'd say they were at a level of brilliant that is difficult for someone like you to comprehend.   In the words of Ralph Waldo Emmerson (Oh, I don't think he was stupid either) "What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying."

                2. mrpopo profile image73
                  mrpopoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Regarding repeating rifles, I came across this one from the 17th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    From long before the 2nd amendment was written.  Most interesting!

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Think they could imagine the carnage from a cannon ball?  Or worse yet, chain shot?  They didn't limit our right to either one...

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              What's your point? Do we use either to murder school children? Or to protect our homes? Where would you draw the line on what weapons a common citizen can own?

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                The "point" is that you were simply wrong. There were many available ways under the 2nd amendment in 1800 to create "carnage."

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  "Do we use either to murder school children? Or to protect our homes?"

                  What does that have to do with anything?  I don't recall anything in our laws that says you can only bear arms to protect school children.  What's the point you're trying to make?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    I didn't get your point either, Dan. What has cannonballs and chain shot to do with the OP?

                  2. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    i think you were replying to the wrong person

  21. Sychophantastic profile image85
    Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago

    Why are you people even discussing this? Can you not see the liberal hoax being perpetrated on us in order to dismantle the Constitution? This latest school shooting is already being proved to be a complete hoax, just like Sandy Hook. The very definition of fake news. The truth is if every student in every school had a gun, they could prevent these kinds of tragedies. Gun free zones will be the death of us all!

  22. Sychophantastic profile image85
    Sychophantasticposted 5 months ago

    The latest news: high school students being paid by George Soros to harass GOP lawmakers about gun control. The left is unbelievable!

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Your attempts at humor are anything but humorous, and your satire sux. Nothing personal though. roll

      1. Sychophantastic profile image85
        Sychophantasticposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        George Soros has really deep pockets. If you do your research, you'll find that almost every protest against our 2nd amendment rights is funded by George Soros.

      2. Sychophantastic profile image85
        Sychophantasticposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        The solution to these mass shooting is to make sure all school children are armed and can shoot back. If every school child had a gun, potential attackers would be a lot less likely to try to enter a school with a gun.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I just bought an AR15 assault rifle for my 6-year-old granddaughter to take to kindergarten.

          It has a Surefire MAG5-100, which is the newest 100-round magazine. No one's gonna mess with her.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Huh!  Mine carries a 50 cal machine gun.  I built her a tripod-on-wheels for the barrel and the thousand rounds of belt ammo fits in her backpack just fine.  It's a little heavy for a 6 year old, though the tripod helps, but she only slumps a little bit and the kids are real good at getting out of her way. big_smile Wondering if I should get her armor piercing ammo for the shooter with a vest - what do ya think? big_smile

        2. Sychophantastic profile image85
          Sychophantasticposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Well, who would go attack a school if they knew the kids had guns? Nobody! I guess maybe that sounds a little extreme, so maybe just all the teachers should be trained in the use of firearms so they can prevent any of these so-called school shootings.

      3. Sychophantastic profile image85
        Sychophantasticposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        These kids appearing on television as "victims" are actually crisis actors, paid people who go around to so-called crises and espouse anti-2nd amendment views.

        How do we know this is true? Because none other than Donald Trump Jr. read the article and give it his thumbs up to an article about one of the kids who is a son of an FBI agent. I trust Donald Trump Jr. to vet my media and clearly he has an understanding of what is true and accurate and what is not.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Are you a Russian? big_smile

          1. Sychophantastic profile image85
            Sychophantasticposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Donald Trump Jr. saw the article and approved.

            https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/92 … david-hogg

            So you know it's true.

  23. PhoenixV profile image66
    PhoenixVposted 5 months ago

    https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/gun-control-experts-agree.jpg

    1. PhoenixV profile image66
      PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      No doubt the FF envisioned these fellers.

    2. Dean Traylor profile image95
      Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I can't vouch for the others, but in terms of Hitler, that's not entirely accurate
      https://hubpages.com/politics/Hitler-an … ntrol-Myth

      1. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        The point of the "collage of men" was in regards to founding fathers not foreseeing changes in weapons and somehow that, is the only aspect to be considered. They knew that evil men and governments could, would and as even recent history will testify to this: turn on the populace and march them at gunpoint to gas chambers and mass graves by the tens of millions.

        1. Dean Traylor profile image95
          Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          And my point is that it's misleading. There's more to the story. Also, I've seen this poster (now a meme) for decades (with a few variations made). Also, don't forget something about the despots shown; many of them had a more lethal weapon: Their words. They didn't get people follow them by the way of the gun. They did it by a number of ways...but importantly, by their ability to communicate to people who were looking for someone that would pull them out of their misery. And when they finally took over, they systematically (sometimes with guns-- a lot of time with propaganda) liquidated their political enemies.

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Just curious, are you sure Hitler did not say: "Gun Control Works!!!" Ask the experts!" in Mein Kampf? With the illustration of various dictators even from the 1970s? I was sure it was in there somewhere. But we have you to set the record straight on that. Anyway, Hitler and Germany apparently passed a Law, that restricted in the most extreme form any weapons from the Jewish Population.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        LOL  That's hilarious!  Fake news from 40 years ago - who woulda thunk it?

        1. Dean Traylor profile image95
          Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Yep, fake as fake. And that poster has been around for years. Use to see them at gun shows, too. I've also seen an alternative such as ones that state Afghanistan and Somalia have gun rights.

          Also, calling me out for a missing  two-letter preposition? I could do that to nearly everyone on this site.

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            The 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which came into force the day after Kristallnacht,[10][11] effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich within the occupied Sudetenland and Austria of the right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition.[12]

            Sounds like gun control to me. 7 Million Conspiracy Theorists, perhaps that never believed a government would go rabid.

            1. Dean Traylor profile image95
              Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I mentioned that. He claimed he had no use for gun restrictions, with the exception of his enemies; however, many historian agree that this didn't help to suppress the Jewish population. By that time, everything was being taken away from them.
              In actuality the Wiemar Republic (sp) that came before Hitler had very stringent gun law (in that case, citizens were restricted or banned from owning guns). Ironically, it was meant to keep guns out of the hands of radicals from both sides of the spectrum (From the right the Nazis and other groups and from the left, the Communist). Thus, when Hitler came to power he lifted gun restriction for most of the population.

              1. PhoenixV profile image66
                PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Ahh... Now we come to my actual point.

                Again. Or for the first time if I didnt explain it in detail enough. To quote you:

                "when Hitler came to power he lifted gun restriction for most of the population"


                Then he killed the rest of them. Unarmed ones.

                This is what the FF Did Foresee.

                1. Dean Traylor profile image95
                  Dean Traylorposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Actually, if I'm following correctly, what you believe was something the FF foresaw, may have been a product of compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists to get the constitution ratified. Contrary to popular belief the creation of the US Constitution was not an easy-breezy process. It was contentious, ugly, and sometimes violent. After all, they started with trying to fix the flawed Article of Confederation before realizing that the type of government formulated by this doctrine wasn't working.  Federalist wanted a strong central government; the anti-feds wanted to ensure citizens  and states had rights. Somewhere along the way the issue of slavery became a huge thorn..which may have been a major factor in the creation of the 2nd  Amendment (although I don't know if that's a definite fact. Still, worth investigating).
                  Did the F.F. foresaw the rise of such despots? That's very speculative, even if some of them may have had a distrust of the strong central government..
                  As with Hitler: He loosened regulation. It was not a complete ban; however, he had remarked (as I mentioned in the article) that he hated the idea of gun control for citizen (or those people he deemed citizens). Also, as I've mentioned, the gun restriction implemented on Jews was part of a systematic measure to take every rights from them. As some historian stated they already had everything taken away from them before this was handed down upon them.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry about that - I didn't mean to "call you out" but, given both HP's and googles insistence on perfect grammar, just to help a little. I will try and remember not to repeat it.

            But...if you would care to proofread my hubs for grammar and spelling it would be appreciated, especially as I'm sure you can find such errors there.  I never turn down honest criticism that might get me a better ranking.

        2. PhoenixV profile image66
          PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          40 years? Cnn went on air in 1985.

  24. Onusonus profile image79
    Onusonusposted 5 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28056155_1592573584197254_8435844474319513612_n.jpg?oh=eadde982e653df7df88ed9a1e5f4f452&oe=5B111FF4

  25. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 5 months ago

    I hope everyone watched the special on CNN tonight with survivors of the shooting confronting Marco Rubio and a female representative of the NRA. Rubio had his ass chewed and refused to not take donations from the NRA in the future. He's already received over 3 million dollars from them.

    At least he showed up to take the heat unlike the coward Governor Rick Scott. These kids will be voting age soon and there will be hell to pay for the inaction by the Republicans who take money from the NRA.

    Vote Blue!

    1. Onusonus profile image79
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, vote blue and eventually only the police will have guns. The police. You know, the ones who are always being labeled racists and fascists by liberals.
      The police, who are always murdering black kids for no reason.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        You gonna preach or answer my question?

      2. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        The next step will be that the police will become more and more an arm of whoever is in power. They will become more aligned or opposed politically. Next thing you know it will be just a fascist government like Nazi Germany. Agencies like our IRS will be used to target opponents. Oh wait. My bad. Already happened.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

          PhoenixV:  And there you have it.  The "What if game with the paranoia."

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I have some Travel Awards built up. Would you like to travel to Syria or some city in Iraq and then tell us all how bad stuff doesnt happen if we ignore history and uhm reality?

          2. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I hate to burst your bubble but your an my gov. have killed far more innocent or non combative human beings than our citizens with ar15s.  (Aka full auto liberal tommy guns) ever will. Ever.

            Why not go after them? Demand they disarm.  Of course we know what would happen if you tried to disarm your meek, benevolent caretakers.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image93
              peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

              PhoenixV:  You know not of what you speak:  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Syria is under the rule of Bashar Al Assad, a Shia Alawite.  His people are just plain Shia or Sunni.  He doesn't like them, so he is committing genocide to get rid of them and the Russians are helping him because of the oil fields. Iran is also Shia and they are also helping him in covert ways.  ISIS is also Sunni and is in the mix.

              Now, please tell me how this compares to the good ole USA and how do we go from where we are today to the conditions that are occurring in Syria?  Even if his people had assault weapons, they could not defend themselves from barrel bombs that are filled with gasoline, nails, and shrapnel and are tossed out helicopters indiscriminately. In addition, he has gassed many of his people. 

              I hope you do use your travel rewards and do go to Syria and see what it is really like and then come back here and compare it to America.

              1. PhoenixV profile image66
                PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Yea its probably not as bad here compared to the extra judicial killings of American Citizens in far away places. We do most of our killing abroad. For now. Out of sight, out of mind. Drone attack some kids. A village. Maybe a wedding. Install a vicious dictator one day, start a war to get rid him the next. Arm both sides. Let them kill each other. But you love your caretakers no matter how many innocent people they kill. You wont ever question them or try to stop them. Is it because you know that if you did, they would send SWAT or some other abbreviated agency to come kill you and everyone else in your house, maybe a few neighbors in the excitement. Oops.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                  peoplepower73posted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  PhoenixV:  I don't know what you are talking about and <personal attack snipped>

                  1. PhoenixV profile image66
                    PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    The things I speak of are true and verifiable incidents that have actually happened to the best of my knowledge and as I can recall. I do not smoke crack or abuse any drugs; prescribed or illegal. I do not drink alcohol or even smoke tobacco.

                    However I would almost rather be a drug addict than to be a person that is a liar, given to calumny.

  26. Onusonus profile image79
    Onusonusposted 5 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28058648_2140247106000619_3423795256248748643_n.jpg?oh=349240d5a7a878d7cdf7e7dc73b3162a&amp;oe=5B0FFF70

    1. Valeant profile image95
      Valeantposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      We also screened everyone to make sure that no dangerous inanimate objects could be carried on planes.  Maybe that's a bigger factor. 

      And 60% of airlines pilots have a military background.  So they already have formal training with weaponry.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I'm sure you're right - screening all passengers is more effective than pilots trying to shoot down a terrorist without putting the plane on the ground at the same time.

        But another one is the sheer number of people (including students) that enter the thousands of schools in the country every day.  Outside of a metal detector that's set pretty low, I don't see us doing much screening in schools.  We have neither the time or resources to do it anything like we do in an airport.

      2. Onusonus profile image79
        Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        There's plenty of cheap knives that can go right through a metal detector. If they're determined enough, they'll find a way.

        https://squattheplanet.com/threads/knif … ors.27497/

        By the way, that 60%. Your talking about people who were in the Air Force. Zero combat training.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          According to wikipedia, concerning basic training for the air force:

          "Third Week
          Trainees undergo extensive training with the M-16. Trainees will learn and practice the rules for safe use and handling of the weapon. They will also receive training in how to assemble, disassemble, clean and repair the M-16."

          In spite of having two nephews in the air force I'm completely ignorant of what training entails (except that one of them was whatever they call an MP and DID have extensive training in weapons for it).  So I'm not positive if this is true or not but I can add that https://www.military.com/join-armed-for … edule.html says that week 7 includes 9mm pistol training.  That's "formal training in weaponry", as indicated by Valeant, whether it's "combat training" or not.  And certainly fighter jocks receive "combat training" whether it includes guns or not.

          1. Onusonus profile image79
            Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Sure, a week of weapons training. I was in the Army, we went to the range a couple of times a year, but our main focus was in our regular jobs. I would guess that the former military people applying for pilot positions at the airport were Air force pilots. I'm sure they have extensive knowledge in firing missiles, but unless they are in the infantry I would say that they get much, much less experience at an actual firing range than your average civilian with a hunting license.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Maybe.  But I grew up on venison and elk, and the only time Dad and I hit the "firing range" was to pop off 3 or 4 rounds to sight the gun in each fall.

              1. Onusonus profile image79
                Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I see dudes skeet/ trap shooting there all the time. But everyone has a different experience.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely!  Our guns were not toys, were not used for entertainment or fun.  They were tools used to provide food for the family, just as Mom's garden shovel and rake was.

                  1. Onusonus profile image79
                    Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    What I find disturbing is there are two conflicting world views in this country. One side wants more gun control, which on certain levels can be reasonable. The other wants to see armed guards in the schools, which can be carried out in a reasonable manner, the same thing that politicians and entertainers get. The worst thing possible is to make people defenseless based on your world view. The idea that "we shouldn't have to protect our kids from bad people with guns, because it should be impossible for them to get guns" only endangers the children.

                    We live in a world with more guns than there are people. A bank may be a gun free zone, but at least it has armed guards. Why? Because they know somebody is going to break the rules. And kids are far more valuable than money.

  27. Mick Beet profile image37
    Mick Beetposted 5 months ago
  28. Leland Johnson profile image91
    Leland Johnsonposted 5 months ago

    What are your thoughts- Why aren't motor vehicles more heavily regulated on the basis of speed alone?  Do cars really need to be able to reach speeds of 120mph?  If cars could only reach a max speed of 55 it would lower the national number of deaths as well as reduce emissions.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      They used to be, back in the 70's.  Until gas prices eased, whereupon speed limits went right back up.

      But yes, cutting speed limits (or to an even greater degree, that max speed a car could reach at all) would save far more lives than any gun legislation could ever think of doing.

      But that would mean that voters would have to sacrifice instead of only those evil, hateful gun lovers that live to kill.

      1. PhoenixV profile image66
        PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        But if msm (leftwing media) and social media giants (leftwing media) and Hollywood (leftwing media) would make it their 24/7/365 mission to bombard the minds of their "audience" : that 70mph "extremists" cause more death than other things, I think theyd get on board with that "cause". Btw Chevy Ford and Toyota are obviously evil conservative capitalist that probably vote for Trump.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Get on board with everyone else slowing down, maybe.

          (Speed limits around me are now 80MPH, which means everyone drives 90)

          1. PhoenixV profile image66
            PhoenixVposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Liberal causes or liberal moral outrage of the day, seems to me, often has 2 things in common. A political angle and an infinite amount of free media coverage.

  29. Leland Johnson profile image91
    Leland Johnsonposted 5 months ago

    my point is that more people die in motor vehicle accidents than by gun violence and gun accidents combined.  I mean it isn't as if a person is more dead if killed by a gun vs. a car.

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I'd hesitate to make a comparison between total gun-related injuries and total vehicle-related injuries (both including fatalities), because without normalizing the data, it's comparing apples to oranges. It would probably be difficult to normalize the data accurately though.

      One way to do it is by exposure to risk, e.g. number of vehicle-related injuries per X number of hours driving, and number of gun-related injuries per X number of hours shooting. That would give you an injury rate for both types of activity. But it would be very difficult to capture that data.

      Even if you could capture the data, that still wouldn't be an accurate comparison of the risk. You would also need to consider the severity of injury. E.g. do the same as for the number of incidents, but also use an injury severity scoring system  (liked the one developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine)(1)(2). You would have to analyse both the likelihood and severity of incidents to determine the risk of harm associated with each activity.

      It's difficult to say without the relevant data, but I strongly suspect that, in general, more people spend more time driving than shooting. So although the total number of vehicle-related injuries is relatively high, the injury rate for that activity may be lower relative to other activities. Conversely, although total gun-related injuries are lower than vehicle-related injuries, it's likely that on average people spend less time doing that activity than driving, so the injury rate for that activity may be higher.

      In relation to your main point about vehicles. Are there ways to reduce the risk associated with driving further? Definitely. Reducing the speed vehicles can travel is a great idea. But I don't think that's a reason not to look at how the risk of gun violence can be reduced. The choice is not reduce the risk of vehicle-related injuries or gun-related injuries. Those outcomes are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. 

      (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injury_Severity_Score
      (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associati … e_Medicine

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I think you missed the point of those gun related injuries, for it is not the time spent shooting; it is the time spent subject to a possible shooting.  It's not the shooter that counts then, but the victim's time of exposure.  As that exposure is pretty much 24-7, the risk of being shot is extremely low - far lower than that of having an accident while on a roadway (driving or walking).

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          The risk of shooting is not determined by the amount of time people are exposed to the possibility of being shot. It's about the number of times shooting results in actual harm. A good example of that can be seen in comparisons between the risk of flying vs the risk of driving.

          To compare flying to driving you would take the number of fatalities resulting from flying/ driving and calculate a rate based on a common denominator, like the number of miles driven/ flown. E.g. in 2015 there were 416 aviation fatalities)(1) and 641,905 miles flown(2) giving a rate of 6 fatalities per 10,000 miles flown. There were 35,092 driving fatalities(3) and 3,095,373 miles driven(4) for the same year, giving a rate of 113 fatalities per 10,000 miles driven. So the fatality rate for driving was higher than it was for flying in 2015. Doing the same calculation for a number of years shows the risk of driving is greater than the risk of flying, in terms of actual harm. 

          To compare driving and shooting, you would need to do the same calculations, changing the denominator to a unit of exposure common between the two activities, e.g. number of hours the activity is done. And this is where the exposure becomes an important factor.

          If by some chance you could capture the total number of hours of shooting activity, then even if the total number of hours and the total number of fatalities were a tiny fraction of those for driving, the fatality rate could still be exactly the same, or even higher.

          That's why comparing the total fatalities caused by driving to the total fatalities caused by shooting is misleading. It is not an accurate comparison.

          If federal departments were allowed to study the risks associated with firearms without it negatively impacting their federal funding (in the same way the risks associated with vehicles has been studied) we would have a better idea of how shooting compares to driving in terms of risk.

           

          (1) https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/dat … 5-2016.pdf
          (2) https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita … 01_40.html
          (3) https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Pu … ion/812348

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            "It's about the number of times shooting results in actual harm."

            "To compare driving and shooting, you would need to do the same calculations, changing the denominator to a unit of exposure common between the two activities, e.g. number of hours the activity is done <hours driving, not times being struck by a car>."

            Which one is it?

            Fact is, which you agree with, it is the exposure.  You can be exposed to an auto accident any time you are where a (moving) car might be found - a road, a sidewalk, a parking lot, etc.  But not your bedroom, in the mall or inside a school, for there are no cars to run over you there.  On the other hand people have been shot in all those places, so that exposure must be included.  The actual exposure time for being shot, then, is 24 hours per day because you could be shot anywhere (unless you wish to take time off for astronauts or the time spent at the top of Everest).

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I think the main point is that total number of fatalities is not a reliable way to compare the risk of driving and shooting as activities.

              And to clarify, location is not relevant to calculating fatality rate. You just need to know how many fatalities resulted from the activity, and how much of the activity was done. How much it was done is the exposure because, by definition, you can't have a driving-related fatality unless someone is driving. Likewise, you can't have a fatality resulting from someone shooting a gun, unless someone is shooting a gun. So the exposure to the risk of driving or shooting in any given month, is the amount of driving and shooting that took place in that month.

              (to see why a location, including a bedroom, is not the most accurate measure of exposure to driving-related injury, do a Google image search on "car accident house").

              In the case of shooting, I don't think it's currently possible to accurately determine the total number of hours people spend doing that activity, which means it's not possible to accurately calculate a fatality rate. So I don't think an accurate comparison between driving and shooting is possible based on the rate of injury. You might be able to do some rough calculations based on law enforcement reports, gun range records, voluntary surveys etc. but current legislation around federal funding is, in practice, prohibitive of that type of research.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Not going to argue semantics with you, or what is "exposure" to either shooting or auto accidents.

                But I WILL say that any "comparison" can only be that we know, with zero doubt, that decreasing speed limits (and enforcing them, which we CAN do) will decrease the death toll, and with a very strong correlation between how much we drop the limit to how many lives are saved.  We don't do it.

                On the other hand, there is zero evidence to indicate that removing access to guns (which we canNOT do) will save any lives at all: on the contrary, what evidence we DO have says the opposite.  So we try to remove access to guns.

                I trust you see the obvious; when we know how to save lives we don't because we don't want to pay the price.  And when we DON'T know how to save lives we use efforts designed to force someone else to pay the price.  A rather ugly picture, IMO.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  It's true that in some places where traffic speeds have been reduced, the number of fatal incidents has fallen. So absolutely, if the goal is to save lives, then reducing the speed of vehicles in other places, or the speed of vehicles themselves, makes sense.

                  It's also true that access to fully automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since 1934, and the number of mass shootings involving manufactured fully automatic weapons is 0. So if the goal is to save lives, then access to other types of weapons . . . etc.

                  But people are not restricted to asking for one or the other. They can call for both, and I think they are. The Department of Transport proposed speed limiters for large commercial vehicles(1). That proposal apparently came "[a]fter a decade-long push by trucking and safety advocates"(2). But despite the fact that federal departments, truck advocates, and the insurance industry(3) are calling for it, the current administration seems to have decided that limiting the speed of large vehicles is less important than "economic growth" and "individual liberty"(4). Nonetheless, limiting the speed of certain types of vehicles is certainly on people's radar.

                  In addition to that, because driving is an activity that can have fatal consequences, and the goal is to save lives, it makes sense that federal funds are used to research issues around driving as a matter of public safety.

                  As shooting is an activity that can have fatal consequences, and the goal is to save lives, it also makes sense for federal funds to be used to research issues around the use of firearms as a matter of public safety. Part of the problem is that current legislation, in practice, restricts such research.

                  So you're right, reducing vehicle speeds can save lives, and that idea has progressed to the point of draft proposals being made. The same progress can't be said about the issue of gun violence, where federal departments are restricted from even researching the subject, let alone drafting proposals for risk reduction measures.

                  So anyone concerned about the dangers of driving can call on government to rethink their response to the proposals limiting vehicle speeds. They can also call on government to consider how automatic weapons have been regulated for the last 80 years, and how many of those types of weapons have been used in mass shootings. And they can certainly call on government to remove restrictions on research into firearms as a public safety issue.

                  I don't think any of those are unreasonable demands for a society to make of government.

                  (1)(2) https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/us-d … l-vehicles
                  (3) https://www.trucks.com/2017/02/23/speed … ave-lives/
                  (4) http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fle … ngton.aspx

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    "...the current administration seems to have decided that limiting the speed of large vehicles is less important than "economic growth" and "individual liberty"

                    Or the administration believes that vehicles with greatly varying speeds on the same highway is probably not a great idea.  That HAS been an objection, you know, and one I believe is valid.

                    Are you confusing reducing gun homicides with reducing homicides?  You seem to be assuming, against worldwide statistics, that reducing gun ownership have reduced murders because the bodies don't have bullet holes in them.  That there has not been a mass murder using automatic guns does NOT mean that no killer that would prefer an automatic has not killed with a different weapon.  Did Timothy McVeigh want a machine gun and "settled" for a bomb?

      2. mrpopo profile image73
        mrpopoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I agree, you can and should do both, otherwise it's veering towards whataboutism.

        One thing to note though: if the aim is to save lives, reducing the speed limit is a no-brainer. In fact, that line of reasoning could be argued for many luxuries like smoking, drinking, and certain foods.

        There's more weight behind gun rights given the 2nd Amendment and that guns have actual utility.

  30. Onusonus profile image79
    Onusonusposted 5 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28468542_1875477572510592_2519658456091190336_n.jpg?oh=7fb8ca2bf8bd36bfea57b9c26a42a9b8&amp;oe=5B4013E4

    1. Valeant profile image95
      Valeantposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13937639.jpg

  31. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 4 months ago

    Your argument does fail to factor in the increase in population from 18 million to 23 million over the time period.  So while the population increased, the homicide rate decreased.  The decrease in rate per 100,000 has gone down significantly.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Who are you replying to?  And what homicide rate?

  32. Onusonus profile image79
    Onusonusposted 4 months ago

    The same people marching today to take guns away from law abiding citizens balk at the idea of armed security in schools.
    Clearly it's not a safety issue, more like a control issue.

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13967255.png

  33. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    Mass killings will NEVER stop until Americans stop raising kids on pharmaceuticals  for one thing ,   it is the disturbed mind that kills pure and simple , not the gun , not the bully , not the gun owner , a moraless America breeds these acts of violence  Gun laws have been extensively tried .Violence laws have been extensively tried ,

    The systematic breakdown of the education system , same for the law enforcement community, lousy parenting skills ,  the lack of ANY and all  comprehensive mental health system whatsoever , ALL guarantee the recurrence of mass killings .

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)