But we have lots of gun laws. In many states, it's very difficult to legally obtain a gun. But, somehow, the criminals never have a problem obtaining a gun. It's almost like the criminals don't care about the gun laws.
In almost all mass shootings the guns were bought legally. therefore we need to make it much harder to buy guns legally.
Correct. Criminals don't care about gun laws or mental health. So unless you are going to restrict free will, you have to restrict access to guns. No militaristic looking guns, guns that only function for self defense or hunting, such as long rifles or shot guns.
However republicans will literally hear none of it. This is the one issue where they are objectively wrong.
What are the solutions? Haven't watched television today but I saw a video clip online of a woman who said she was on vacation in TN. She grabbed the microphone and suggested something should be done. She offered no specifics.
* I don't know how an assault weapon ban was passed decades ago. Were W Clinton and Republicans in Congress more skilled passing Bills than current politicians? As some know, it was a 10 year ban. [A poster or two may want a straight forward definition of assault rifle: automatic or semiautomatic carbine rifle.]
* A weapons ban won't occur in U.S. Too many Limousine Liberals in gated communities are as well armed as their Republican neighbors.
* Convicted felons are already banned (usually) from possessing firearms.
* Many mentally ill are already banned from possessing firearms. If a person has dark antisocial thoughts, why would a person talk to a psychologist or other health care professions in 2023 knowing health care professionals turn in their clients now to law enforcement?
* Even if enough Democrats would vote to ban firearms which is unlikely, Democrats would lose in court. There are so many Democrats who talk like Amy Klobuchar, a firearm ban will not occur.
* For argument sake, pretend there are not Amy Klobuchar types in Congress. Pretend all Democrats voted to ban firearms. As I stated, courts would say, unconstitutional. The only way to legally stop this and not deal with a court challenge: ban ammunition. Nothing stated or implied in Constitution or Amendments regarding right to ammunition.
What are the necessary reforms exactly? I'm sure this gal broke a few laws in committing this heinous crime. Everyone is talking about honest conversations. I'm just curious what is considered to be necessary result of these with over 350 million firearms in circulation.
The necessary reforms? Ban drag shows and LGBTQ books in school libraries. That's the GOP playbook in 2023.
During the Vietnam War the government saw that the general public couldn't stomach seeing all the caskets being unloaded from the planes. So the government stopped letting the media take pictures of them.
Makes perfect sense.
We have become neutered to the horrific nature of what is happening. It's too abstracted and it has an air of unreality.
I guarantee you, if photos of these poor children and adults with their bodies blown apart appeared in our newspapers each time, enough people would rise to action and this would change.
And shouldn't there be a responsibility to disclose the truth, even if it is ugly and horrific? This is what we are allowing by our current lack of effective gun measures.
Let the truth be shown. Stop hiding it.
I have never seen a victim of direct abortion shown on TV. I once saw a documentary about abortion on PBS which showed a horrific image of a woman who died in a hotel room after an illegal abortion, but PBS didn't show the remains of the fetus.
What are the necessary reforms exactly? I'm sure this gal broke a few laws in committing this heinous crime. Everyone is talking about honest conversations. I'm just curious what is considered to be necessary result of these with over 350 million firearms in circulation.
The reform is MORE guns. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Gaius Baltar, is that you? "WE NEED GUNS, MORE GUNS, BIGGER GUNS, BETTER GUNS. . ."
What the media and police need to do is to release the actual photos of the victims, censoring nothing.
The reality of what is happening will be inescapable and so vial, things will change, and will change fairly quickly.
I have heard this said be a crime specialist and it rings true.
The general public would not have the stomach for how atrocious these things really are, and the public pressure to put an end to it would yield the necessary reforms.
That would not help. U.S. citizens have a high tolerance for blood. Look at photos of crowds at lynchings and government sanctioned executions. What you stated would simply harden U.S. citizens to violent images.
Were you the poster you commented on images of Viet Nam Conflict? Lyndon Johnson nearly made a deal, late 1968 to early 1969 during lame duck period before R Nixon took office to end Viet Nam Conflict. R Nixon and people around him sabotaged L.B.J.'s peace efforts. R Nixon's entire time in office, as President he was looking for ways to get out of Viet Nam. M.I.C. has a significant amount of power and momentum.
What the media and police need to do is to release the actual photos of the victims, censoring nothing.
The reality of what is happening will be inescapable and so vial, things will change, and will change fairly quickly.
I have heard this said be a crime specialist and it rings true.
The general public would not have the stomach for how atrocious these things really are, and the public pressure to put an end to it would yield the necessary reforms.
That would not help. U.S. citizens have a high tolerance for blood. Look at photos of crowds at lynchings and government sanctioned executions. What you stated would simply harden U.S. citizens to violent images.
Were you the poster you commented on images of Viet Nam Conflict? Lyndon Johnson nearly made a deal, late 1968 to early 1969 during lame duck period before R Nixon took office to end Viet Nam Conflict. R Nixon and people around him sabotaged L.B.J.'s peace efforts. R Nixon's entire time in office, as President he was looking for ways to get out of Viet Nam. M.I.C. has a significant amount of power and momentum.
Images of caskets had nothing to do it.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
Photos of the 20 children at Sandy Hook, some with their faces blown off, would sway enough of middle America, to start the momentum.
And remember, there is a steady stream of this mass-shootings. The public could not take it.
The public - suburban housewives, college kids, mothers and fathers - not some people who knowingly choose to go witness an execution that they can prepare themselves for and which is happening presumably to a guilty party.
Again, only showing the truth instead of guarding the public from the awful reality of what is really going on. Look it in the face and see how many conscientious people will continue to turn their backs - a lot less than are doing now.
I wish I could have thought of this, but I heard it from a crime expert on the radio. They did bring up a good point, though, about the privacy of the families, and this would be a definite hurdle since they assuredly would be against it.
That would not help. U.S. citizens have a high tolerance for blood. Look at photos of crowds at lynchings and government sanctioned executions. What you stated would simply harden U.S. citizens to violent images.
Were you the poster you commented on images of Viet Nam Conflict? Lyndon Johnson nearly made a deal, late 1968 to early 1969 during lame duck period before R Nixon took office to end Viet Nam Conflict. R Nixon and people around him sabotaged L.B.J.'s peace efforts. R Nixon's entire time in office, as President he was looking for ways to get out of Viet Nam. M.I.C. has a significant amount of power and momentum.
Images of caskets had nothing to do it.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
Photos of the 20 children at Sandy Hook, some with their faces blown off, would sway enough of middle America, to start the momentum.
And remember, there is a steady stream of this mass-shootings. The public could not take it.
The public - suburban housewives, college kids, mothers and fathers - not some people who knowingly choose to go witness an execution that they can prepare themselves for and which is happening presumably to a guilty party.
Again, only showing the truth instead of guarding the public from the awful reality of what is really going on. Look it in the face and see how many conscientious people will continue to turn their backs - a lot less than are doing now.
I wish I could have thought of this, but I heard it from a crime expert on the radio. They did bring up a good point, though, about the privacy of the families, and this would be a definite hurdle since they assuredly would be against it.
Most people would not like seeing images of disfigured humans but it takes awhile to get legislation passed.
You keep talking from an emotional point. Read my first post on this thread. U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar who in my opinion did not exactly cross the line as a county prosecutor but on the other hand, a reasonable person could say A Klobuchar prosecuted cases in which cops presented her with b.s. evidence. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat probably has close to as many firearms in her house as does Ted Cruz. A Klobuchar is not going to wait for the police if she fears for her safety. The likelihood of getting enough Democrats, forget about Republicans to ban firearms is not a reasonable and logical ask, bloody images or not.
Bloody images would not sway U.S.S.C., Assault weapon ban. Was Dole U.S. Senate Majority Leader then? If so, Dole worked with Democrats and Republicans.
Don't have time to read 18 pages but I am sure this has been touched on.
Sensible gun reforms will never happen because the GOP is fully funded and sold out to the NRA. The vast Majority of Americans want sensible gun reforms. Even Gun owners want sensible gun reforms. But the GOP does not care because they are bought and paid for by the NRA. And the NRA is funded by Russian Mob money who like the US to be in Chaos. Meanwhile mass shootings will keep happening and citizenry will be distracted w. gaslight bickering on whether the shooters was mentally ill. Whether doors were locked. Video games. Whether there are more shootings in Democrat states vs GOP states. And the Fox News of the world will quickly spin that the left is going to "come take their guns" like fascists.
Then within a day or so the story will fade away again.
The Sandy Hook shooting was the turning point and proved that the US is OK with mass shootings and dead kids simply are not that big of a deal. At least not a big enough deal to get men to feel they could ever part with their God given right to possess a toy that makes them feel manly.
Watched the foxnews this morning. Sad sad state. They held up article as transgender killer. WTF IS GOING ON IN THE USA. Brian said obvious mental health issues because killer was transgender.
Guns, guns, guns and the ability to get high powered weapons is the problem. Joe security guard isn't going to stop someone who is intended to kill.
In his New Yorker story “Thresholds of Violence,” Malcolm Gladwell turned his attention to the psychology of school shooters. In a conversation with The New Yorker’s Dorothy Wickenden, Gladwell explains why the social dynamics of school shootings are comparable to those of a riot, where every act of violence makes the next one slightly more likely. He also explains why the problem is far too complex to be addressed through gun control.
His contagion theory has a corollary, as he mentions.
"The problem is not that there is an endless supply of deeply disturbed young men who are willing to contemplate horrific acts. It’s worse. It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts."
19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN): United States — 288 Mexico — 8 South Africa — 6 Nigeria & Pakistan — 4 Afghanistan — 3 Brazil, Canada, France — 2 Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1
Rare for pretty much every country in the world, except.......