Not responding directly to anyone's post here.

Has anyone read the events leading up to this massacre. The guy was texting with a girl in Germany and telling her what he was going to do......"I'm about to go shoot my grandmother". He then went and shot his grandmother in the head. next, he sends this German girl another message saying "I'm going to go shoot up an elementary school now", and that's exactly what he proceeded to do. Besides the obvious, since he just commited mass murder, but this guy is truly F**ked in the head. He's sending messages like he's planning an outing.

Telling myself not to get sucked into this topic.... don't get sucked in... but....

Tried the daydream exercise and here's what came up..

Instead of another communal moment of silence at the next sports event I imagined the opposite. Instead of silence but an entire arena of "Fix it now!.... ". "No more deaths!" or some other call to action opportunity to vent.

And instead of the next event where there's a solemn reading of victim names, I imagined reading a list of every politician who's blocked reasonable gun legislation and has been taking money from the NRA...

Images are powerful. Create posters of said politicians, juxtaposed with school shooting imagery. The gorier the better. F#$% 'em.

....and at the very least, I'm making sure I vote.

Pfffft Pedants!

And, Or -- It's not the typical overlapping Venn diagram situation though, because the obese are also overweight so one circle is completely inside the other.

That's great, in theory, but I think it falls into the same situation as having political arguments on the internet. People say a lot, back and forth, and no one really changes their mind/opinion.

Also, the ideas of creating posters reminds me of the TV commercials for hungry children in Africa. At first, there is shock at their appearance. After seeing the images, over and over, its reported people eventually become numb to the suffering (to a degree). It's sad to say, or believe that, but I believe the same can be said for a lot of tragedies. People initially get angry/sad, and then time goes by, and its back to normal life again.

He isn't, he is just trying to trigger the libs. Reasonable people know that it is not Democrats standing in the way of gun safety regulations.


The Democrats could simply remove the rule that requires 60 votes to move legislation forward. Then pass gun control and or abortion rights laws with a simple majority. It's a fact. Harry Reid did this to move forward federal judges. Apparently federal judge appointees are more important than kids lives and woman rights. But But But the Republicans....

This makes me happy. I told my kids (& the extra kids I drive to & from school) to daydream about the world they want and their own personal goals. I didn’t talk about it in the context of the school shooting. See? I’m subtly indoctrinating the youth.

As I drive through my town, I see signs for the local sheriff race. Two of the candidates are unhinged 2A/ constitution sheriffs types. I’d like to put up a sign that provides the link between 2A/ constitutional sheriffs & gun fetishes & school shootings. I want people to make the connection.

I’m always reluctant to change the rules of the game in order to win. Is this what you truly want? Wouldn’t it be better to keep a rule that requires a larger majority of members of Congress to agree than allow a smaller number? We pride ourselves on majority rule while protecting minority rights.

Further, isn’t it better that members of Congress actually vote for something that benefits Americans and that most Americans want?

Why would you blame Democrats for respecting the rule of law and the spirit of democracy? Why do you blame Democrats instead of Republicans who violate the spirit of democracy as well as the rule of law?

What makes you like what is bad and dislike what is good?

Why would you blame Democrats for respecting the rule of law and the spirit of democracy?
First of all, the 60 vote rule isn't law. It's an old-boys-club agreement. The law is a majority to pass legislation.
Second, I would rather the Democrats disregard an old-boys agreement and 18 kids be alive, than disregard it so Obama's federal judges can get appointed. Wouldn't you?


Why do you blame Democrats instead of Republicans who violate the spirit of democracy as well as the rule of law?
My blame of the Democrats is that they could easily implement their plan for gun regulations and abortion rights, but they don't even try. On gun violence, the GOP believes that well armed citizens will reduce gun violence. And they've gone and implemented this where they can. Now I personally think this is silly, but it's their plan. They don't spend a lot of time crying that the Democrats blocked them. The democrats say they want gun control and could pass it using the same procedure they did for Federal Judges. They don't, and just blame Republicans. Why? Because like Abortion, guns gets them $ and votes. Also if they tried this, it would likely fail because some Democrats would vote against it. And then they couldn't blame the Republicans.

Since the second amendment establishes a right to own guns, it's not likely that trying to take away that right is possible. However, maybe what can be done is making gun ownership a more involved process and substantially more expensive.

Mandatory background check
Mandatory gun safety class for each and every gun. Classes range from several hours to several days. Must pass class for specific types of guns before being able to purchase.
Annual license fee for every gun based on purchase price
Mandatory liability insurance for each gun. Must have insurance at time of purchase. One week waiting period in order to procure insurance.
Must show gun safety class graduation certificate, license and proof of insurance in order to purchase ammunition.
Limit on amount of ammo that can be purchased within a certain time period, cross referenced by national database.

More can be added, but the general idea is to make it more difficult to get a gun and more expensive to own a gun.

---

Don

Tri-ing to have fun. Anything else is just a bonus!

I'm glad you're smart enough to understand that the "good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun" theory is fantasy. I think that many or most GOP Congresspeople also know this to be bullshit, but they use it to mask their completely amoral refusal to act in ways that would actually reduce gun violence (assault weapons ban; mandatory background checks and waiting periods; mandatory training, licensing, insurance, and other ideas that other posters have stated). And they use it as a way to please their NRA masters by encouraging more gun sales while thwarting the 90% of the population that wants at least some of these restrictions on guns.

Using the same logic do you blame the GOP for immigration control?

This is the current interpretation by the activist "conservative" justices. Hopefully, common sense will eventually prevail and the reasonable interpretation of the Founders' intent will return - that well-regulated militia members may bear muskets.

Interesting study from Science.org (https://www.science.org/...gun-deaths-more-10):


"On average, establishing right-to-carry and stand your ground laws resulted in a slight uptick in annual gun deaths—about 3% for each law, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Conversely, creating laws aimed at making it harder to for children to get their hands on guns—say, by requiring parents to keep guns in safes—reduced gun deaths by an average of 6%. States that enacted strict child access laws, make it illegal to carry a gun in public without a permit, and don't have a stand your ground law could expect to see an 11% reduction in annual gun deaths, according to the new model.
Eight states presently have that constellation of laws—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—and six of those states are in the bottom 10 for per capita gun deaths, according to CDC's state-by-state firearm mortality data.
However, because the study looked at a relatively small subset of gun laws, more research is needed to adequately understand how different laws such as background checks and waiting periods impact gun deaths, Kaufman says. And she suggests future studies could examine how these laws and their enforcement in different communities might also affect the impact that such laws have in different places.
Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who studies gun policy, adds that it will also be important for such models to look at nonfatal gunshot injuries to better understand the impact of guns on communities and public health"

The hungry children in Africa commercials and imagery run regularly so the effectiveness wanes over time. I'd launch my posters only and right around their election/campaigns - exactly and only to influence the vote. The most disturbing kind of negative ads. F@#$ em.

And I think the typical moment of silence thing makes it *too easy* to get back to normal ... ok, I've paid my respects. Next. Kinda like someone mumbling through a prayer and going back to the vices after the Amen. Instead, vent and chant and stay fired up.

Agreed. And your list makes a ton of common sense. I find it frustrating that the NRA and a subgroup of pols have a reflex reaction against considering *any* kind of legislation. F@#$ that.

I'm a car guy and I have no problem protecting my right choose, own, drive cars of my choosing *and support* stuff to ensure I and everyone else is capable. If law abiding gun-nuts and the NRA care about public safety, then they should support steps to ensure capable and responsible use. Instead we let 18years olds purchase multiple weapons, w/no background, or training, and let them loose to wreak havoc. F@# that.

Maybe we should just make it very lucrative for the NRA and pols - 50% of gun training costs and licensing fees goes directly to the NRA...for educational programs. Yeah, that's it.

And we have a winner as to "why" not much gets done that the Dem's say they want.

So limit guns to the wealthy? That doesn't seem fair.

Let us be honest.
This is not the last school shooting.
There will be many more.

But NOTHING will change.

But you always will have thoughts and prayers from the politicians.

Maybe the NRA can offer scholarship programs to those in need of training. Those in favor of more guns may even be willing to fund these.

 

I understand that Gov Abbott has proposed the following:

the numbers 13 to 19 will now be illegal in Texas vocabulary.

To which Senator Cruz added;

He will make the words: Teen(s), Boy(s) and school(s) illegal also.



.

---

Once, I was fast. But I got over it.

That's my point, except it's not limited to just children. Make it harder for everyone to get a gun. Make it much more expensive to own any kind of gun capable of semi-automatic firing. More expensive and lengthy gun safety class, much more expensive license, and very expensive liability insurance. Couple that with making these guns far more expensive. Any kind of semi-automatic has a minimum price of $5-10,000. Also people should be limited as to how many guns they can purchase within a given time period. For any kind of semi-automatic maybe only one per year.

---

Don

Tri-ing to have fun. Anything else is just a bonus!

ways that would actually reduce gun violence (assault weapons ban; mandatory background checks and waiting periods; mandatory training, licensing, insurance, and other ideas that other posters have stated).


I'm not jaded. I think most of them don't think any of these restrictions would do much to reduce gun violence.

Using the same logic do you blame the GOP for immigration control?
Well right now the GOP can't close a door in DC without the democrats permission. But yes, the GOP had several bolded opportunities to implement immigration control. Most notably the proposal W made, that both sides sat on.


Generally speaking, my support for the GOP is based on them screwing it up less than the democrats. With Trump, they are trying their best to convince me otherwise....

They do. May NRA instructors offer classes for free.

The “rule of law” is a cluster of values— it means that established rules, procedures, laws, and institutions remain stable and reliable. They apply equally to everyone.

You call this rule an “old-boys agreement,” but that does not mean it is outside the scope of the rule of law. Changing rules to obtain a favorable result is very dangerous territory. We need to change rules sometimes. If a rule is flawed, we need to fix it. But to change a rule for the purpose of obtaining a particular result requires a showing of very serious need and no other way to obtain it. Here, if the GOP cared about kids, they could vote to save lives. Changing the rule is not the only way to save lives.

Please understand the danger of undermining the rule of law. It is at the heart of democracy. If one political party violates an established rule or norm, the other side can argue they have the right to do the same. As the both sides violate rules, the integrity of our institutions crumbles. The rules are no longer steady and reliable— instead, the party in control determines which rules will be enforced.

Here’s an example: I support increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to match the number of appellate districts (13). I think access to justice and the demands caused by the increasing number of appeals requires more justices to handle the workload. I do not support increasing the number of justices in order to obtain favorable decisions. Do you see why one is a legitimate reason and one is not?

Destroying the rule of law destroys democracy. It can happen incrementally. So when you ask me whether I would trade the lives of 19 children for undermining the rule of law, that’s very hard. Because for every time that Dems change rules to obtain results, the GOP will do the same in the future and will likely escalate it.

Given that a normal, feeling person would vote for common sense gun laws, why would we need to undermine democracy? It should not be necessary to hurt our democracy in order to save our kids.

I’m a pig. I want everything. I want my democracy and I want these kids. I want it all. And there’s no good reason why we can’t have it all.