What other countries do differently than the US to stop mass shootings

Except it has a phrase that the NRA and the GOP hate

WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Well regulated

Could easily interpret that to mean sensible gun laws

 

Your first sentence is not as true today as it was 20 years ago.

So far, it seems Uvalde is attempting to advance the same old gun control sophistry advanced by Sandy Hook and others.

 

I have no idea why we don't do that. We used to maintain many mental health facilities and we have fewer today. We had less crime committed by sociopaths and psychopaths as a result. My guess is that we decided to support the rights of the mentally ill instead of opposing their activities. The judicial system in general has declined in many areas of the U.S.

School shootings started 20 years ago at Columbine High School. The shootings were committed by sociopathic youngsters who have motivated other young sociopaths over the intervening years. We hate the shootings but, strangely, are unwilling to do what is required to prevent them. I guess we need a purge at the top of of every judicial organization. I have no power to fix it. If I did, it would be fixed.

 

If we made prison terms so horrible, so awful, and so inescapably certain (without the possibility of parole, 'early release', etc.) for those who commit crimes using firearms, we would almost certainly see a dramatic drop in those crimes.

You get a ten-year, zero-tolerance sentence for any crime in which you used a firearm? No movies, no TV, no internet, no books, no newspapers -- nothing! You sit in your solitary prison cell, you're taken out into the prison courtyard for an hour of fresh air each day, and you are served three meals per day in that prison cell... that's it, that's all. Ooh! Now, who in the world would want to endure a prison sentence like that? Imagine "The Count of Monte Cristo" without the happy ending!

Hint: Prison doesn't have to be a 'fun time down at the community rec-center'! That idea was cultured by the bleeding-heart sob-sisters at the ACLU and similar organizations....

 

School shootings started well before Columbine. Have you forgotten Jonesboro Arkansas Middle School? And there were a number of others earlier.

 

And they could have been stopped at Columbine

 

That doesn’t happen now?

 

How? Not without draconian and unconstitutional measures.

 

We do have generally "sensible gun laws" -- BUT -- even a staunch defender of the Second Amendment like myself will agree that because we have changed significantly as a society during the last fifty years, we should raise the minimum age for purchasing or personally possessing a firearm to 21, and possibly even 25! Why?

Why support raising the minimum age for gun ownership? Largely because we have become a society FULL OF IRRESPONSIBLE 'ADULT CHILDREN', with little or no meaningful education, common sense, healthy family structure, or respect for anything of real merit and value. We have cultured two successive generations of Americans ("Millennials", and "Gen Z'ers"), too many of whom are shallow, ignorant, functionally useless, and almost totally dependent on the government or relatives for their support.

A feature of Obamacare even makes it permissible for them to remain on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26! They take on massive amounts of debt to go to college, major in subjects that are little material benefit to anyone, and then whine and complain that government should pay off these tuition debts for them. AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TRUST THEM WITH FIREARMS...?!
.
I fully support the Second Amendment, but only for people who are mature, responsible, intelligent ADULTS... so, even though this puts me at odds with my fellow gun-rights defenders, raise the age for purchasing and possessing firearms!

. "Next, I think I'll paint my Glock the same color... it's, like, so COOL!"

 

“Draconian”!!

Hyperbole much?

2 things - continue the “assault rifle” ban and secondly mandate gun responsibility. I know that is such a hard and frightening thing for the “Guns is best” crowd but that second amendment of your does say “WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. That actually means laws in and around the use of guns

 

No. The real reason is that the brain actually takes until 25 to “mature”. But a very large number of mass shooters were much older than 25. Las Vegas, Pulse Nightclub etc


If you go by this it is probably safe to arm 65 year olds lols!

 

Even when you try to find 'common ground' and reach common-sense, collaborative solutions, those who oppose ownership of firearms for lawful self-defense pick you to pieces. I offer raising the minimum age to 21 or, better yet, to 25, and it's still not enough -- because it's not perfect...?

Look, I steadfastly oppose gun ownership by ALL "Criminals and Crazies"... and I've said so here in this Forum for YEARS. But, if all the hyperliberal, gun-hating Left wants to do is carp and criticize, then to hell with it! To them I suggest that they amend the Constitution to strip out the Second Amendment and confiscate everyone's weapons of self-defense. Then, when 'da boyz in da 'hood' come kicking in their front doors, armed with illegal firearms from all over the world that they got on the black market, I'll have the last laugh!

I'll say it one last time -- if we make prison such an ungodly AWFUL thing for those convicted of committing crimes carried out with firearms, the numbers of those crimes will drop tremendously. Until we do that, we'll probably accomplish nothing, because for so many of these creatures, prison is actually just an acceptable alternative to government welfare handouts. They enjoy nearly all the 'comforts of home', and the fellowship of other creatures like themselves -- plus, they know their sentences will be cut by half, or even more, so they'll be back out on the streets before long. But, if we lock 'em up, and KEEP THEM LOCKED UP, they won't be committing any more crimes at all....

 

Did you miss my lols! At the end? Thing is you can have responsible children and irresponsible adults

Me ? I like the idea of legislating responsibility.

 

Actually, that does represent the majority of America. Just as Scotland has it's lochs, England has it's bucolic scenes, American has beautiful views of the land that many ancestors came for.

You want to view it as a gun, how about we view England with a knife problem? That is not the perspective I, and many others, see.

 

Plus if you look “before” and “after” the difference is measurable. This is why a lot of countries have followed what we did. Gun culture and gun (lack of) regulation are one area the USA does definitely NOT show the way for the rest of the world. When it comes to your horrific gunshot rate everywhere else goes “No and Hell No!”

 

What I suggested is a beginning toward improvement of 'legislating responsibility'... raising the minimum age for purchasing and possessing firearms to 21, or perhaps better yet, to 25, considering what a pile of **** this country has turned into.... It was not offered as a perfect 'end-all, be-all'.

I dare not post what I would really like to see done to the 'criminals and crazies' who go around murdering people because that would get even more of my posts deleted, and probably a ban put on me of a month or more. I am trying to reach out, but once again, this Uvalde tragedy has just solidified Americans into two 'camps' where neither side will tolerate what the other side says at all... so we resort to cursing each other and censoring whatever we don't want to hear or see. This will not end well... it never does.

 

Now that makes more sense!

 

They have more people in prison, as a percentage of the population, than any other country in the world.
It's all part of the freedom we hear so much about.

 

Please take a moment to review this analysis:
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

In it you will see, "The 1938 German Weapons Act". As you see, under the Nazis things changed quite a bit from what they had been under the Versailles Treaty, which, as I have said, was aimed at the German military by the Allied Powers.

All that notwithstanding, I am still very interested in knowing your opinion of how the 2nd Amendment should be altered or modified, or do you simply want to have the right of Americans to purchase and possess weapons of self-defense to be done away with altogether...? Surely it is clear to both 'camps' in this debate that 'Criminals and Crazies' (as I call them) must be excluded from any kind of ownership of firearms -- period! I have also become persuaded that we should raise the minimum age for gun purchases and possession to at least 21 (or possibly more), mainly due to how immature, irresponsible, and mindless so many 'adult-children' are in this country. What say you...?

 

Yes, and a large part of that is because of what we are comprised of today, compared with what we were forty or fifty years ago.... Think about it. Hint: the United States isn't Denmark, or Norway, or Sweden, or New Zealand. Think about it.

It can be truthfully argued that the U. S. was not 'perfect' forty or fifty years ago, but in so many ways, we're far worse as a society today.

 

As I mentioned the Nazis de-regulated gun laws, not vice versa. The Treaty of Versailles was not only for the military, because it banned gun ownership from civilians too. I quoted the text for you, so I am surprised you'd argue otherwise.

I told you earlier that your line if thinking always equates any measure with total ban of guns, but no one is suggesting such all-or-nothing approach. That means your argument is a fallacy. I already mentioned my opinion (national carry license for those who pass background check and mental evaluation), which will not require any changes to the constitution. I am in agreement with Anthony Scalia's statement about 2A, which I quoted earlier



Regulation after the 1919 Treaty of Versailles
The Treaty of Versailles included firearm reducing stipulations. Article 169 targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless." Article 177 further banned all civilian use of firearms, any civilian instruction on their use, and any civilian shooting exercises activity, especially banning all organizations or associations from taking part in any such use and/or activity or allowing it to happen.

In order to comply with the Versailles Treaty, in 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks

 

Bunkum! We have a more diverse population than you and I think NZ probably beats us both!

 

With some remaining differences in opinion about Nazis and deprivation of gun rights in the Third Reich for anyone except their supporters and 'friends', I will agree with you and Justice Scalia, in principle, about useful changes that should be made to our gun laws... although not to the Second Amendment, per se.

Boiled down, I never want to see weapons of any kind, ever again, in the hands of those 'Criminals and Crazies' I keep railing about... and I'm certain that the men who wrote our Constitution felt essentially the same way.

 

I didn't say we aren't "diverse", Bower... I said that, all-in-all, we're a far worse society than we were forty or fifty years ago.