If the guns had never been legal in the first place, the parent wouldn't have the guns to steal. The gun shows wouldn't have the guns to sell. Only criminals would own guns...but there would be fewer guns, and school shootings aren't generally perpetrated by the same people who participate in gang violence or other centers of illegal firearm possession.
After reading this thread I'm only using Rahvin's post as my launch pad. I hope he doesn't mind.
So guns are the problem? Stricter gun laws the answer?
You do know about Norway where some of the most strict gun laws have been implemented. You do remember Belgium where, again, very strict gun laws are in force. And certainly you all know about China where private gun possession is a capital offense.
Strict gun laws, even complete bans on guns, doesn't seem to have kept the crazies from raveging through grade schools.
Can anyone anywhere show where fewer guns, fewer knives, fewer hammers and chainsaws and molotov cocktails is an effective answer to stopping crazy people?
So then what is it in the USA that causes so many people to instantly blame the NRA for these acts?
I know. Emotions run deep and political emotions run deerper than most. So in the end we will all fight each other spending more time and more money on solutions for/against our pet symptoms instead of addressing the disease.
And, no, I have no idea how we go about finding and stopping crazy people before they act. And neither do you.
You're making a simple error - you're suggesting that gun control on the level of Norway's is intended to eliminate gun deaths.
It's intended to reduce them.
I err not. No one can show a definitive causal relationship.
Are there other factors of social norms, the constitution of the society, homogeneous population, disparities in economic spread, that could account for the differences in these rates?
But this is not the point.
The point is that, as we have seen in this thread, we will make this tragedy an excuse to mount a soapbox and blame everyone and everything we oppose in society, EXCEPT why the poor kid went nuts on a killing spree. Could we, should we, have seen any outward signs of extreme emotional distress? Who was watching? Who should have been watching?
Guns are too fucking easy a target and will do nothing to even slow these tragedies, as Anders Breivik and Min Yingjun have already shown.
We waste our breath on guns/no guns while the mental health system remains in tatters.
I guess that's my soapbox.
ABE: Just in case anyone is interested, I do not like guns. I will not allow one in my home. I have also found over the last x decades that the kinds of personalities that usually enjoy owning, caressing, shooting, licking their guns are not usually compatible with mine.
They want civilians to be armed. They want quarter-trained civilians with guns in enclosed spaces with a bunch of children in the case of schools and shopping malls.
Oh, the "B" team. The wannabe fantacy cops who aren't afraid to "stand their ground" when confronted by that black guy in the hoody, armed all the way up his boody, with that hairy eyeball look, staring at that Algebra book, with such malice in his heart.
You can just feel the comfortable warmth of knowing that your loved ones are protected by the George Zimmermans and Michael Jocks we have been graced with in this most civilized of nations.
If I go out and buy me a really big gun can I go patrol the high schools and guard all the pretty girls too?
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Confusion Connecticut Delaware Dumbdumb Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
For every case cited by one side the other side can cite two. For every emotionally compelling argument from this side there is another from that. Other than an exercise in emotional ranting, which has its attractions, no positions are being changed let alone the formation of consensus or compromise.
In microcosm this quite accurately mirrors the rantfest taking place today across the nation. With the same result: none.
There is a real rising shout for "something" to be done and we all know that the powers involved are as split as the society. But they are "political" and will find a way to feed the frenzied hoards quelling the passions.
What I predict will result is some band-aid legislation that appears to have substance but will have few, if any, teeth. Each side will wail inconsolably that such did not go quite far enough or almost went too far.
The passions will subside. The public's attention will drift. The status quo will return. Until, as there must be, the next mass tragedy unfolds.
Meanwhile, in the streets out of the national spotlight, the innocent will bleed and the killing will continue.
... nowhere in it did I see the authority given to interpret the Constitution.
I did get the idea they were supposed to make sure the laws passed by the Congress was in line with what was written in the Constitution.
And how does the court keep the congress in line with the constitution if the court does not interpret the letter, spirit and intent of the document? The document may not say "thou shalt interpret" in so many words but the wording and intent of Article III leaves no doubt where this power was to reside.
Why can't I disagree with the Court?
You are free to disagree with the court's rulings all you want.
But the law, which is what the court's rulings are, does not care if you agree or disagree. No one is above the law. If you violate the law there will be consequences.
But just because some Judge thought something was right does not make it right.
These are human institutions within a human society. Nothing will be perfect in every case. Someone, somewhere, has to be the final arbiter in fact and in law. There must be a final resolution to all adversarial issues. In the USA the constitution gives that right solely and exclusively to the Supreme Court. It may not be a perfect solution, but it sure seems a whole lot better than we have seen in a whole bunch of other systems.
I'm for tarring and feathering people who morally equate the aggressive murderous violence of our enemies with our right to self defense.
I hope, Faith, that you can recognize GDR's comments as political speech, tongue-in-cheek though they were. He was not saying that them there furriners had 2nd Amendment rights under our constitution. Though on a global scale, as independent nations, he's not really wrong. Scary.
You do know GDR was being facetious to make a point, yes?
Political speech is exactly what the 1st Amendment is designed to protect. You disagree with what he said and you have the right to disagree and to say so. But he does have the right to say it without being tarred and feathered (what happened to being run out of town on a rail? That is supposed to be part of the standard practice in a tarring and feathering.)
The limits on free speech go more toward incitement to do harm.
As far as my "cheer," it was a reaction to your "jeer." I don't do jeers and where I think appropriate I try to counterbalance those that do.
Anyway, please recognize GDR was making a ridiculous statement as a way of making his larger point. And, please don't tar and feather either of us for exercising the very right you used to make this objection.