(02-15-2018, 01:38 AM)TJBender Wrote:

(02-15-2018, 01:21 AM)jj82284 Wrote: The bigger problem here is that this person was known to be prone to violence.  Student after student is proclaiming that everyone knew this kid was troubled and potentially dangerous.  In a sane society we should have the basic infrastructure to make sure that when someone demonstrates themselves as a threat to themselves or others they are A.) segregated so that they can't commit harm and B.) rehabilitated if possible.  The idea that we should focus the entirety of the debate on the weapon used and not the person who committed the crime would be like going to a father whose daughter was raped and killed and saying, "hey, at least he didn't use a gun"

Whenever we talk about MENTAL HEALTH we always think of it in the terms of The voice in the radio said this or the little alien on my shoulder made me do it.  That says nothing of the nihilistic blood lust that has begun to permeate our culture.  The devaluation of human life and the primacy of feelings specifically rage naturally gives way to more and more anti-social behavior and in extreme cases violent psychopathy.  

Last of all, why is no one talking about actually protecting the schools.  The debate generally devolves into Should we or should we not Take guns away from the good guys.  Should we or should we not ad this hurdle that only law abiding citizens will comply with.  Should we or should we not have more and more spaces where bad people KNOW there is no armed opposition.  At what point do we make the common sense suggestion that we SHOULD have the infrastructure to make sure that a student who has already been expelled with a history of terroristic (little t) threats can't just walk onto a school campus?  When are we going to seriously consider "Should we or should we not have basic security in vulnerable locations to make sure that in extreme circumstances we don't just have a shooting gallery?"

Or, here's an idea, how about we make it harder for people prone to violence to get guns that they use to shoot up schools. Now, how would we ever do that?

Oh, right, COME DOWN ON THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE THEM ACCESS TO THEM.

You can't dodge this issue forever. At some point, access to firearms is the source of the problem. If this kid didn't have access to a gun, would he have gone in with a knife? Possibly, but then we're talking about one or two potential deaths before he's contained, not 15 people shot with an assault rifle. Having riot police in every public place is not only impractical, but it sends the worst possible message to Americans that we are being occupied, and we should be ok with that because it's for our own good.

1.) your major premise is flawed, there are other methods of mass killing.  2.) No one is talking about riot police.  We are talking about having a few armed personnel on site to make sure that when you have a target that we know to be suspect that there is a response before shots are actually fired.  We should both be able to agree that the idea that anyone who wants to walk onto a school campus can make it all the way to the most vulnerable in our society is a little bit of a flawed system.  

There are lots of problems intertwined here, and none of them are a matter of simple common sense. If you forcibly ban all guns, you pretty much end gun violence, sure, but how many people get turned into swiss cheese by the FBI in the process of enforcing that ban? You can continue to send thoughts and prayers, but how's that been working out lately? Seems like all of our bought-and-paid-for Congressional representatives/NRA mouthpieces are praying for more prayers.

Or more dollars.

Hey, maybe this all comes back to campaign finance reform, too. If there were limits on the amount that companies could donate and an end to PACs and SuperPACs, the NRA, amongst other companies, would quickly lose much of its grip, and maybe there would suddenly be room for a dialogue that focuses somewhere between "ban all guns" and "come get it from my cold dead hands".

Another misnomer, in the main the NRA doesn't fun candidates.  They don't have to.  The second Amendment is woven into the DNA of this country.  Second, the idea that its even possible to ban guns is ridiculous on its face.  I am still waiting for a positive report from the city of Chicago where all the bad guys realized that they were in violation of the states strict Gun laws and just abandoned mass shootings.  That's not the way the world works.  

Going after the people who negligently give, sell or provide access to firearms, and coming down on them hard with jail and prison sentences that hit them in a meaningful way, seems to me to be a very effective and efficient way of addressing the problem that Republicans in the House love to point back to--the guy who should never have had access to a gun. If that's true, if the access to the weapon was the root of the problem, and if that access was the result of negligence or willful ignorance of the laws, then go get the person that gave it to them. Whether that's a shady gun show dealer who ignored the rules or a parent that didn't lock up their gun properly, go get that person and put them in jail for it. That's how you send a message, and that's one big way to stop letting people who shouldn't have guns get them.

Omar Mateen was sanctioned by the Government United States of America to carry firearms and discharge duties as a security guard.  The simple facts that a.) the state will never be able to weed out everyone within a population of 320 million who is prone to violence b.) the state will never and can never keep track of 320 million firearms c.) criminals and psychopaths don't care what the law says are precisely why the right of free individuals to own and keep their own form of protection is so important that the founders codified it into the bill of rights.

---