Culture of Shootings , "Thoughts and Prayers" But No Solutions

Yes it should, over 360 million people, roughly 30K gun deaths (and the majority are suicides and gang violence in a handful of major cities, but let's not get lost in the pesky details....) So.....how many guns never are used to result in human death, percentage wise? Care to do the math? You will need a decimal and lots of zeroes to calculate it.

 

As guns are here to stay........ lets' address responsible gun ownership. Should people who buy guns go trough gun handling and shooting lessons ?/ Should they be required to review/refresh their skills on an annual basis...

Driving licences have to be renewed.........so why not he same principle for gun ownership . ?

 

I was being concise and to the point (leaving out the rubbish) in order to keep on topic but if you like I can answer your "entire post".

Mine makes sense. Yours makes no sense. Featuring even more "nonsense", I see no relevance of "angels on the head of a pin". It is as relevant as toothpaste is to lethal weapons. What "was", what "is", and what "will be" are seldom the same. Your "assistance" has done nothing more than stir the concoction of nonsensical blather and added an additional ingredient of the same balderdash.

So. Do you agree with me this time?

 

Yes, they should! That seems like a good idea to me. I'm surprised that such rules are not in place yet?

 

I am surprised too. They are at a commons tense level ........and not radical enough to get folks bent out of shape.

 

From "one" incident to being relatively "rare" is a huge switch although I can see your very words in the quote. Is your back against the wall?

 

Right!

 

No, that's not true. If it were true then all other nations around the globe would be just as violent "by nature". What we are looking at is failure of corruption in govenment rendering a large portion of its population destitute and marginalized. Well, nature is in the human and as is obvious that mankind/human character is vastly dissimilar from one nation to the next.

 

Sometimes I wonder what the reason was for the shooting at King Soopers in Boulder, Colorado. I don't see any racial evidence in all this but you never can tell.

 

All crimes are not race related.

 

let's first remove the right to free speech, then we can work on the other protected rights. How does that sound?

 

a couple of well placed 9mm rounds would have minimized the casualties. Too bad there wasn't an armed good-guy/gal nearby

 

Not without a change to the Constitution. As a Marine I swore to defend the Constitution and that would include against a government that tried to break it.

 

Good luck with that. There is a process to altering the Constitution. I doubt you could reach that threshold in regards to the right to bear arms.

 

About 10% of Nigerians speak English.

The "if you don't like it, you can move out" line is weak, and suggests we should accept mass-shootings and every other problem as a normal part of American culture which do not need to be addressed.

We have too many people who need mental care, and are not getting it. The Atlanta shooter tried to get help and didn't get it, and look at what happened there. I'll bet the Colorado shooter is going to be a similar case.

Every 2 years we lose more people to gun violence than we did in 10 years in Vietnam, or 20 times more than we have lost in 18 years in Afghanistan.

Gun ownership is common in South Africa.

 

The heroic cop who was killed was armed, wasn't he?

We need more mental health infrastructure

 

The US is unique in this area. We have approximately 1.2 guns per person in this country. The next closest has .6 guns per person. The next industrialized country has .34 guns per person.

 

Sounds silly. What possible use will removing the right to free speech be to anyone? WHY would you want to do that?

There is a good reason for removing the right to bear arms. Several thousand of them annually in fact. Where is the comparative benefit to not having the right to free speech?

It's a false equivalence fallacy.

 

The Constitution includes a system for making changes to it. If you would like to see the 2nd Amendment repealed I suggest you use that system. Until then you do not have the right to ignore the 2nd anymore than you do the 1st or 3rd.

 

agreed on mental health however, police react once called. Armed good-guys/gals on scene could well have reduced the number of casualties.

Forget your anti-gun stance and consider this, if you saw a pedestrian get hit by car, and the car drove off, would you stop to see if you could render aid?

Rendering aid would also be stopping an active shooter if possible and if you yourself are armed, and skilled, should do as such.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it allows some of us to be armed and others like you, to despise us. The nice thing is that those of us who would take action, don't care about your political leanings if we can assist you.

 

nah, it's just a protected right that you enjoy, but since you don't support the 2nd A, then you are ok with trying to dismantle it.

 

My way of dealing with shooters is to prevent them in the first place. You can't shoot someone with a gun that isn't there.

 

We could prevent drunk drivers by taking away alcohol.

We could prevent slander by taking way free speech.

We could prevent ODs by taking way drugs.

We could prevent residential drownings by taking away swimming pools and bath tubs.

Where do you wish to stop?

 

I don't enjoy it. It menaces my life. Having the childish Rambo fantasy of pulling out my trusty sidearm and saving everybody is not worth the trouble to me. I prefer to simply not have to deal with the problem in the first place.

 

I think with not having lots of people armed for no good reason will be enough. This is a Slippery Slope fantasy, you're going from one to the other here.