Mass Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[AchtungBono]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Yeah, I was scratching my head throughout that whole article, too.

I'm just beyond sick of the comparisons to cars (or knives, or bats, as my mom heard someone say recently) because, as has been noted over and over and over and over and over again, they have non-violent purposes. A car's main purpose is to transport us places. Knives can be used to cut food. Bats can be used to hit a ball with. Yes, people have used all three for murderous reasons, but THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY WERE INVENTED FOR.

A gun has ONE purpose, ONE thing it was invented to do: To injure/kill an animal or a person. Even if it's in self-defense and totally justifiable, you're still endangering someone's life or taking it away for good. That is ALL a gun is there for. So the regulations involving them are, by that very logic, going to be a little bit different from how we regulate the other compared objects.

This is, honest to God, NOT that freaking hard a situation to figure out. I do not understand why people are digging in their heels so much on this issue. Twenty young children died last month in one fell swoop in the most horrific, senseless way imaginable and that is still not enough for this country at large to demand change? That fact is honestly what frightens me the most about this whole debate, because I don't even want to imagine what that means it will take to smack some sense into people.

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by BVS

Last night I saw a handful of people on facebook post almost the same exact line(so I assumed some talk show host said it and they just echoed it or something like that), but the argument was "we don't blame cars for drunk driving, so why blame guns for violent people?"

So all you 'guns don't need any control' people, let's look at how idiotic these kinds of "arguments" are shall we? Cars, drinking, and driving while intoxicated are ALL regulated. We're just asking for regulation. No one is blaming guns. So stop. That argument makes no sense. We are blaming the access to guns, we are blaming gun culture, we are asking what you need a 30 round clip for... Your obsession with guns is blinding you from common sense measures.

It is a stupid comparison because we regulate the hell out of cars. There are safety and emission controls. Also, you can't take an F1 car for a spin on the road because it isn't street legal. All we are trying to do is make things safer for our citizens.

[BoMac]

Mass shooting in Albuquerque home. Teenager kills 5 people, using assault rifle.

As you were.

[Irvine511]

Do I have a right to not get shot?

[corianderstem]

Nope.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Make it stop already. Please, somebody just make it stop.

[BoMac]

Shooting at Lone Star College in Texas.

Early reports are three wounded, and the shooting occurred in the library and cafeteria.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Getting rid of guns altogether and never letting a single person ever hold one ever again sounds more and more like a wonderful idea to me with each passing day. Idealistic, I know, but still...

[Jive Turkey]

I think the shadowy government agency responsible for all these 'shootings' is over doing it

[The_Pac_Mule]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Getting rid of guns altogether and never letting a single person ever hold one ever again sounds more and more like a wonderful idea to me with each passing day. Idealistic, I know, but still...

and unconstitutional

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

and unconstitutional

Because there is no way to amend the Constitution...

[BoMac]

Sure, but I've always viewed a constitution as a living, breathing document rather than something that's set in stone.

There are 27 amendments to the U.S. constitution which means that changes are, theoretically, possible.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by BoMac

Sure, but I've always viewed a constitution as a living, breathing document rather than something that's set in stone.

There are 27 amendments to the U.S. constitution which means that changes are, theoretically, possible.

And hey, the right to bear arms is an amendment, so it was not part of the original constitution.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Because there is no way to amend the Constitution...

What would you even call it if you made changes to your constitution? I can't even wrap my head around the idea

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

What would you even call it if you made changes to your constitution? I can't even wrap my head around the idea

Blasphemy, that's what.

[nathan1977]

David Mamet: Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Say what you like about Mamet...but at least he's provocative.

[BVS]

Eh, I don't even think you can call him provocative. I mean opening with a Karl Marx reference is predictable these days, it's the status quo.

[Vlad n U 2]

The guy lost me after his first paragraph.

[Moonlit_Angel]

The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences.

Um...no?

And yeah, this communism babble left me rolling my eyes as well.

I just have a few questions for all the people who keep insisting we need to put armed guards in schools: How are we going to pay for them? Obvious answer would be through taxes, but whose? And would that mean we'd have to cut something else to fund this?

And does this mean we'll need to add wings to the schools where all the guards' weapons will be stored (and hopefully locked up tight)? And what happens if a kid stumbles upon or breaks into that area of the school sometime?

I have a very strong feeling that everyone who advocates for armed guards/teachers wandering around schools has not really thought this idea through.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

What would you even call it if you made changes to your constitution? I can't even wrap my head around the idea

Amendments are possible in theory, but our dumbass congress can't even pass a fucking budget.