Nashville school shooting

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

And after that response..seems time to bring this one out again

[shoothoops]

President John F. Kennedy -- Assassinated with a high powered, low-cost assault weapon.
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Assassinated with a high-powered, low-cost assault weapon owned by someone who never should have owned a weapon
Senator Robert F. Kennedy -- Assassinated with a handgun by someone who probably under federal law shouldn't have owned a weapon.
President Gerald R. Ford -- Twice shot at using a handgun by women who should not have owned a handgun.
President Ronald W. Reagan -- Wounded by a mental patient who should not have owned or possessed a handgun
Pope John Paul II -- Wounded by a Bulgarian terrorist with a high-powered handgun.

Gang, we tried after each of these incidents at gun control. After President Kennedy was assassinated, we probably had the most comprehensive gun control in the form of reduction of mail-order assault rifles. But, after all of these incidents, very little happened. And most of these people are the elected leaders of the United States.

I wish you luck in trying, but I think this country will have better luck punishing folks who illegally possess firearms. And dealing with mental health issues, which I suspect are much greater than Europe.

Brother Vander:

Suppose the assailant did not have access t an automatic weapon. Suppose instead she entered the building with three Glocks and began firing indiscriminately. How would Nashville been that much different?

It's the guns:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons

[Spotcheck Billy]

An idea from an armchair politician (yours truly).....if we can't ban these weapons...

Why not tax both these guns and their ammunition at a rate of something like 200% (or more)? There is a societal cost to them, and that cost needs to be factored into the price people pay for them. This is how we have treated cigarette smoking, which was previously one of the major causes of death in this country, just like guns are now.

It won't solve everything, the guns already sold are already sold. But it at least will raise the barrier of acquisition. And it would only require simple majorities in each house because it would be a reconciliation (budget) bill. Could have been done in 2021-2022 Congressional Session.

I like Chris Rock's idea from 2012, this would never happen if bullets cost $5000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

[Uncle Rico]

Imagine the kind of person who continues to shrugs their shoulders, make excuses, deflect, minimize this continually happening over and over again. 

Looking at her face and thinking about what she did and that she's gone should make you feel sick.  If it doesn't, something is very wrong. 

And again, the damage that an AR15 does compared to a handgun is catastrophic.  But sure, people need to have those because freedom.  Pathetic. 

Don’t worry.  Once we get pronouns taken care of, this kid will be safe

[Jockey]

Kids are a necessary sacrifice at the altar of the Republican Party.

[Uncle Rico]

Kids are a necessary sacrifice at the altar of the Republican Party.

Not true.  They’re loosening child labor laws and saving them from the horror of being taught about racism in America.  And think of all the books they can’t read now.  Kids have never been safer

[Vander Blue Man Group]

President John F. Kennedy -- Assassinated with a high powered, low-cost assault weapon.
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Assassinated with a high-powered, low-cost assault weapon owned by someone who never should have owned a weapon
Senator Robert F. Kennedy -- Assassinated with a handgun by someone who probably under federal law shouldn't have owned a weapon.
President Gerald R. Ford -- Twice shot at using a handgun by women who should not have owned a handgun.
President Ronald W. Reagan -- Wounded by a mental patient who should not have owned or possessed a handgun
Pope John Paul II -- Wounded by a Bulgarian terrorist with a high-powered handgun.

Gang, we tried after each of these incidents at gun control. After President Kennedy was assassinated, we probably had the most comprehensive gun control in the form of reduction of mail-order assault rifles. But, after all of these incidents, very little happened. And most of these people are the elected leaders of the United States.

I wish you luck in trying, but I think this country will have better luck punishing folks who illegally possess firearms. And dealing with mental health issues, which I suspect are much greater than Europe.

Brother Vander:

Suppose the assailant did not have access t an automatic weapon. Suppose instead she entered the building with three Glocks and began firing indiscriminately. How would Nashville been that much different?

Your response is part of the problem.  IT just feels like more excuses and justifications.

I don't know if anything would have been different in this particular instance.  Do you understand the different in damage that a bullet from an AR-15 causes vs. that of a handgun?  The difference in the accuracy and the discharge of the bullets?  Maybe that would have mattered.  We know it would have mattered in other mass shootings. 

I watched an interview with a doctor yesterday who described how the damage caused by an AR-15 round makes it nearly impossible to save the lives of people that have been struck.  The difference in the size of the exit wound is enormous. 

None of these "what if's" are reasons not to try. 

Again, this only happens at this frequency in America and it's not even close.  That's an indisputable fact.  So is the proliferation of guns in this country.  Now go ahead and ask that little girl's parents if they think it would have mattered if the killer "only had a glock" and see how that goes. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Don’t worry.  Once we get pronouns taken care of, this kid will be safe

You're right - it does all come back to pronouns.  The scourge of our time. 

[MU82]

President John F. Kennedy -- Assassinated with a high powered, low-cost assault weapon.
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Assassinated with a high-powered, low-cost assault weapon owned by someone who never should have owned a weapon
Senator Robert F. Kennedy -- Assassinated with a handgun by someone who probably under federal law shouldn't have owned a weapon.
President Gerald R. Ford -- Twice shot at using a handgun by women who should not have owned a handgun.
President Ronald W. Reagan -- Wounded by a mental patient who should not have owned or possessed a handgun
Pope John Paul II -- Wounded by a Bulgarian terrorist with a high-powered handgun.

Gang, we tried after each of these incidents at gun control. After President Kennedy was assassinated, we probably had the most comprehensive gun control in the form of reduction of mail-order assault rifles. But, after all of these incidents, very little happened. And most of these people are the elected leaders of the United States.

I wish you luck in trying, but I think this country will have better luck punishing folks who illegally possess firearms. And dealing with mental health issues, which I suspect are much greater than Europe.

Brother Vander:

Suppose the assailant did not have access t an automatic weapon. Suppose instead she entered the building with three Glocks and began firing indiscriminately. How would Nashville been that much different?

People who are about to commit these kinds of crimes don't think about possible punishment. I mean, they either know they are going to get life in prison (or the death penalty, depending on the state) or they kill themselves (or commit "suicide by cop"). Although it's true that some murderers -- like Kyle Rittenhouse, George Zimmerman, O.J. and hundreds of cops over the years -- literally get away with murder, and are often supported by the gun-lover lobby.

There are already laws on the books for variety of non-murder gun violations. Yes, enforce them. And create some new ones, such as failure to lock up one's gun if there are children in the house. Make bump stocks illegal and enforce it. Make silencers illegal and enforce it.

And while no reasonable person would argue against banning semiautomatic weapons, there are many other things that should be tried far short of banning guns -- and they have been discussed in this thread and in every previous thread after one of these incidents (so, in other words, lots of threads and lots of discussions and lots of suggestions).

The crazy thing is that some of these have the support of 75%+ of Americans -- even of Republicans. When is the last time anything had the support of 75% of Americans? And yet many of our representatives are so deep in the pockets of the NRA that they won't even enact policies that their constituents want. People who claim that all life matters believe access to guns matters more.

The best thing to get the ball rolling? Vote against politicians who put the sanctity of guns ahead of the sanctity of life. Lots of those a-holes make themselves easy to find. They send out Xmas cards with their families posing with guns, or they twit posts of "enemy" politicians in crosshairs, or they mention the 2nd Amendment with reverence any time they talk about the Constitution. (Not free speech, not freedom to assemble, not the right to vote in free fair elections, but guns guns guns.) Others are more subtle, but only a little more. Regardless of what party they're in, vote 'em out. That'd be a damn good start.

[dgies9156]

OK gang.

First off, as I said before, if we can ban semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, Uzis and any other high speed weapon of choice, wonderful. I'm all in favor of it and I'll vote for politicians that support it. I'd support tougher ownership laws and I'm a big believer in consequences. I'd like to see state laws changed to severely punish people convicted of illegal activity with a gun -- including folks who possess firearms and are not adequately licensed and registered to own firearms.

I come from a family where my brother-in-law was an avid outdoorsman, including hunting. He resigned the NRA over their unwillingness to support bans on certain types of ammunition that pierced police Kevlar vests. Even President George H.W. Bush resigned the NRA over some of their more bizarre gun policies.

All of this said, I'm a pragmatist. Every time we have an incident, we have calls for more gun control. Let's assume we get it. The are more firearms than people in the United States and millions of illegal, unregistered firearms that are floating around in gray and black markets. Illinois, for example, has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and yet there is no shortage of illegal firearms on the streets of Chicago. Think the source will dry up? Think again!

Cocaine, heroin, PCP, Meth, fentanyl, etc., all have been universally illegal in the United States for decades. Yet, there's enough cocaine in this country to cover every street in Miami with a three foot dusting of cocaine. If there's one thing the war on drugs has taught us, if there's a demand for something, illegal or otherwise, someone will supply it. My point is, the Insane Idiots Street Gang Ltd., will find guns. If the law would stop them, then why do we have the slaughter we do on the streets of Chicago? Or Miami? Or Rockford? Or St. Louis?

What I'm trying to argue is that this country needs to change its tactic. Make any illegal firearm possession and/or use a felony. Punish the offenders with long, parole-free sentences. Figure out what constitutes the minimum criteria not to be "cruel and unusual" punishment and then apply the criteria to firearms offenders. Combine that with a re-evaluation and refocus of our efforts on mental health treatment and I'm guessing we'll have a better outcome.

Bottom line: there's no one solution. You can make weapons harder to get but we need strong punishment, better mental health and dare I say, more hope.

[Hards Alumni]

Kids are a necessary sacrifice at the altar of the Republican Party.

Yeah, well Democrats had power for months and didn't do anything either.

Blood on both of their hands.

[MU82]

OK gang.

First off, as I said before, if we can ban semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, Uzis and any other high speed weapon of choice, wonderful. I'm all in favor of it and I'll vote for politicians that support it. I'd support tougher ownership laws and I'm a big believer in consequences. I'd like to see state laws changed to severely punish people convicted of illegal activity with a gun -- including folks who possess firearms and are not adequately licensed and registered to own firearms.

I come from a family where my brother-in-law was an avid outdoorsman, including hunting. He resigned the NRA over their unwillingness to support bans on certain types of ammunition that pierced police Kevlar vests. Even President George H.W. Bush resigned the NRA over some of their more bizarre gun policies.

All of this said, I'm a pragmatist. Every time we have an incident, we have calls for more gun control. Let's assume we get it. The are more firearms than people in the United States and millions of illegal, unregistered firearms that are floating around in gray and black markets. Illinois, for example, has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and yet there is no shortage of illegal firearms on the streets of Chicago. Think the source will dry up? Think again!

Cocaine, heroin, PCP, Meth, fentanyl, etc., all have been universally illegal in the United States for decades. Yet, there's enough cocaine in this country to cover every street in Miami with a three foot dusting of cocaine. If there's one thing the war on drugs has taught us, if there's a demand for something, illegal or otherwise, someone will supply it. My point is, the Insane Idiots Street Gang Ltd., will find guns. If the law would stop them, then why do we have the slaughter we do on the streets of Chicago? Or Miami? Or Rockford? Or St. Louis?

What I'm trying to argue is that this country needs to change its tactic. Make any illegal firearm possession and/or use a felony. Punish the offenders with long, parole-free sentences. Figure out what constitutes the minimum criteria not to be "cruel and unusual" punishment and then apply the criteria to firearms offenders. Combine that with a re-evaluation and refocus of our efforts on mental health treatment and I'm guessing we'll have a better outcome.

Bottom line: there's no one solution. You can make weapons harder to get but we need strong punishment, better mental health and dare I say, more hope.

We have been saying some version of your last paragraph in every one of these threads, including this one.

Yeah, well Democrats had power for months and didn't do anything either.

Blood on both of their hands.

Well, there's some false equivalence in there because, in general, only one side celebrates the gun culture at every turn. But I won't argue against the basic point you're making.

The Dems had 2 full years with the presidency, a 60-seat Senate and the strong House majority but failed to pass tougher gun laws -- or immigration reform, for that matter.

They did push through a health-care law that has become popular over time -- almost every red state now has expanded the ACA's reach and millions of people who lacked coverage now have it -- but they squandered other opportunities to make Americans safer and to improve equality. So in that respect, even though they don't pose in front of Xmas trees with rifles, they do have blood on their hands.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Talk about being honest with data.  "If we group all of these totally separate things together into one grouping I just arbitrarily decided to make up, combined they are the largest single cause of death!"  SMH

Also, there is a whole organization out there dedicated to ensuring Americans have the most tools out there to suffocate, poison, and drown people with, and their right to those tools shall not be abridged!

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Yeah, well Democrats had power for months and didn't do anything either.

Blood on both of their hands.

[Jockey]

Yeah, well Democrats had power for months and didn't do anything either.

Blood on both of their hands.

You are being totally dishonest. Dems HAVE NOT had a filibuster-proof advantage. They HAVE passed numerous gun control laws that were then killed in the Senate. They ARE STILL in favor of passing more common sense gun laws but the Rs won't have it.

You need to learn how government works before making untrue statements. If Dems ever get a 60-40 advantage in the Senate, then come back with your argument.

Until then, please tell me how Dems could have done it,. I'm all ears.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Bottom line: there's no one solution. You can make weapons harder to get but we need strong punishment, better mental health and dare I say, more hope.

Yes, in previous iterations of this discussion there have been more than a dozen suggestions, none of which individually or even collectively solve the problem 100%, but which taken together would surely reduce gun violence and deaths significantly without abridging the 2nd Amendment.

One side of the aisle absolutely refuses to consider any of the solutions. And the twats on here continue to fall back on their refrain of "Laws don't work, criminals don't obey the law, why do we even have laws anyway" idiocy.

[Jay Bee]

^^^ ban a lot of these theys

“No politics, unless we agree with you” — ScoopRules

[Uncle Rico]

^^^ ban a lot of these theys

“No politics, unless we agree with you” — ScoopRules

Try the new message board

[TSmith34, Inc.]

^^^ ban a lot of these theys

“No politics, unless we agree with you” — ScoopRules

[tower912]

Some of these arguments and statements are inevitable and predictable.   Including JB being offended.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

^^^ ban a lot of these theys

“No politics, unless we agree with you” — ScoopRules

[Jay Bee]

U guys just here 4 Da choc chip ice cream, like ur leader?

[ATL MU Warrior]

Everyone should eat more ice cream. The world would be a happier place.

[wadesworld]

U guys just here 4 Da choc chip ice cream, like ur leader?

Your leader too, aina?

[Jay Bee]

Your leader too, aina?

Duz u mean you’re?