Why the Second Amendment needs to be amended or abolished

Again. You are imagining a larger detonation than what the stinger offers. It's capacity to severe an airliner wing is doubtful.

 

They are everywhere but lightly used unless one is committed to one.

 

Exactly, if anyone believes the relatively mild deterrence of possessing an assault rifle will stop a person from committing the very serious crime of a mass murder would seem to me to be incapable of thinking logically.

If the punishment for murder doesn't stop someone from committing a crime, nothing lesser will either.

 

Sure, ban guns and guess what criminals and the mentally ill will use knives.

St. Johns, FL – Prosecutors released a slew of new evidence against a 14-year-old boy accused of brutally murdering a 13-year-old cheerleader by stabbing her 114 times and leaving her to die in the woods on Mother’s Day.

The teen had been stabbed 114 times, to include 49 defensive wounds to her head, arms, and hands.

The medical examiner located the broken point of a knife lodged in the dead teen’s skull, WTLV reported.

Prosecutors also released surveillance footage from inside Fucci’s home that allegedly showed his mother, 35-year-old Crystal Smith, washing blood out of his jeans after Bailey was stabbed to death, according to the New York Post.

According to court documents, Fucci allegedly told a classmate at Patriot Oaks Academy prior to Bailey’s death that he wanted to “murder someone,” the New York Post reported.

“[He said] he would find a random person walking at night, drag them into the woods, and stab them,” the friend allegedly told police, recounting a conversation she said she had with Fucci.

He even allegedly had plans to become a serial killer.

“He would act innocent after the murder and continue killing people,” the friend said of Fucci’s plan, according to police.

So much for your bright idea that eliminating guns will reduce murders by criminals and the insane.

 

Boy am I ever sorry I tangled with you. Nicely put.

 

Terrible story.
But 114 stab wounds could have been 114 bullets hitting 114 people. Knives are lethal but less able to hurt a lot of people in a short time like a gun can.

 

Good to hear.
I assume they are free of charge paid for from taxes.

 

Total crap, one bullet could have stopped 114 stab wounds, but you don't want to admit that, as it would destroy your anti-gun narrative.

 

...

 

Why the hell is the detonation relevant? A missile which doesn't even detonate could EASILY take out a wing!

 

Right, and an exploding engine mid flight would guarantee that the plane would ONLY loose an engine, with no other damage to the plane?

 

FIM-92's with ammo are easy to come by?

 

With a launcher and rockets that you made?

 

What would people use C4 for?

 

Yes, one bullet could have stopped 114 stab wounds.
Total?
Are you saying that a gun with 114 bullets in the hands of a person intent on killing isn’t more dangerous than a single knife in that persons hands?
You project a lot in your side of the argument. My narrative is anti spree killings by disturbed people with easy access to a plethora of guns.
It has been suggested that spree killers, who can rightly be called criminal after event, are often mentally disturbed, so I will pose the question again. If banning guns is not the answer to those types of spree killings, then where are the mental health intervention, support and prevention services that might stop spree killings.
This is a very plain question.
Are comprehensive mental health services provided free of charge to all American citizens who might need them? As a strategy to head off those inclined to spree killings? Available to everybody in need, free of charge paid for from taxes?
You can gracesslessly dig me out for my perspective as long as you like, but do you have a better solution to spree killings than banning guns? If you (or anybody else) has a solution then let’s hear it.
I suspect that school shootings and slaughtered children is something the gun lobby can stomach. They see spree killings as a price well worth paying in order to own guns. They don’t give much of a damn about dead kids as long as they’re somebody else’s dead kids.

 

No explosion will just result in punching a hole in the wing.

 

Re:

If you really want to see America's streets run with blood then watch what happens when government goons try to confiscate the guns you hate and fear so much.

There has never been 114 people killed at one time in America with any firearm.

The deadliest mass killing incident did not even involve a gun and the killer took the lives of 87 people(1) when the killer was only angry at 1 person and could not find a gun.

If he had been able to get a gun, only one person would have died so attempting to ban guns is likely to result in more deaths as determined killers simply switch to crude, home-made WMDs such as Bio / Chem weapons, home-made bombs, Molotov cocktails etc.

Since attempting to change human behavior has never been successful by manipulating inanimate objects (Prohibition, War on Drugs etc) the closest thing to a solution for our homicide rate is more accessible, more affordable and more comprehensive mental health care.

By the way, the deadliest school mass killing also was not done with a firearm. I was done with a simple home-made bomb (2).

So, again, banning guns will not stop people from killing each other and very likely have the reverse effect of more deaths with the more widespread use of crude WMDs.


(1) "Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


(2) "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...chool-massacre-180963355/#KSipwm4IUrIbB9uc.99

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED

 

Read what I typed

 

I am a militia of one when it comes to protecting my family. To defend your life and protect your family and way of life is a natural and individual right....which is why it is in the Bill of rights. Depending on the resources of government is not a natural or individual right.

Mental health issues and gang culture...are issues to be addressed and faced head on. Focusing on gun control does not address those issues but instead prioritizes those problems as unimportant.

 

Stump removal.

 

Which will leave the plane perfectly able to fly?

 

This doesn't matter.

Banning guns is not a viable solution, so it's not even on the table. We have 30,000 board certified psychiatrists and 100,000 licensed psychologists to support 325 million Americans. Even if funding was available, there simply aren't enough trained mental health care professionals to treat the mentally ill that need them.

Of course not, nor would this make any impact on spree killings unless you force every to get mental health counseling.

You'll never ban guns, nor would the government collect enough of them after a ban to stop spree killings. It's a pipe dream.

My suggestion to reduce mass shootings like active shooter and domestic violence looks at three actions: prevention, isolation, intervention.
Prevention is the process to reduce the chance that a shooter will have a firearm in the first place. It's easier for DV than for active shooters, as the Lautenberg Amendment can be used to disarm anyone convicted of domestic violence or with a personal protective order sworn against them preemptively or actively. For Lautenberg to be effective, we need to educate potential victims, their legal support and local law enforcement. Potential active shooters don't have that history and with HIPAA restrictions find it easier to pass background checks. Prevention against rampage shooters is much less effective.
Isolation is the action of keeping a shooter separated from his victims. For DV, removal of the family to a safe house is the primary tool, unless the DV offender commits another crime or is caught violating a PPO before any homicide attempts occur, when he can be arrested. For active shooters, limiting access to schools or other targeted areas via channelized entry, metal detectors and similar passive measures are the first step. Being able to effectively lock down classrooms and other sub-geographies is also necessary.
Sometimes none of these work, or the area under attack isn't conducive to isolation, and that's where intervention is important. The FBI teaches Run, Hide, Fight when thrust into an active shooter situation, and data shows that the best way to fight is with a firearm. The current strategy of limiting ammunition magazine capacity to force reloads where the shooter can be physically restrained is untenable and hasn't been shown to be effective as an active response with a firearm. It suffers from fatal flaws: that the pool of potential victims includes someone that is brave enough to physically attack the shooter, that the brave person isn't among the first shot, that he or she is lucky enough to be in a close enough position during a reload and that he or she is physically capable of restraining a shooter. The biggest flaw, however, is that this tactic requires at least 10 shots to be fired with up to ten dead victims before there is a chance to stop the shooter. We've seen with both the Uber driver and Philly barbershop that CCW holders are not so restrained and can act quickly and effectively enough to stop a shooter with no innocent lives lost.
[quote
I suspect that school shootings and slaughtered children is something the gun lobby can stomach. They see spree killings as a price well worth paying in order to own guns. They don’t give much of a damn about dead kids as long as they’re somebody else’s dead kids.[/QUOTE]
Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to protect children?

Automobile accidents kill more children than guns do, yet there isn't a single automotive safety bill introduced in Congress this session.

 

And your solution to spree killings is?
Have you got any answer to my question about mental health intervention?

 

How dare anyone suggest oppressing the rights of the mentally ill. It is always law abiding GOP voters that are responsible for the horrors that the mentally ill commit, because, GOP voters don't care...

Sounds like something from a bad B movie, don't it?

 

Stopping gangs and the mentally ill from being able to acquire firearms would seem to be better for families than expecting papa bears to arm up and protect them. You seem to be describing movie elements more than real life.