Three kids killed by shooter at Christian school

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is archaic and open to discussion.

 

I know you are but what am I?

Ok scared guy. Have a goodnight sleeping with your guns and blanky.

Zero discussion. Point proven again.

 

Someone just doesn't get the problem with chastizing people who merely disagree with you on policy as uncaring of dead children, even when it's turned around directly in his face.

 

Trying to shut down a discussion by making false equivalents like ascribing an all or nothing position to an opposition asking for nuanced discussion. Par for the course from your ilk

 

That it’s the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution should remind you of its importance. Right up there behind free press, speech and religion.

With regard to securing schools, can we at least agree that all school exterior doors and windows should be bulletproof and this should be mandated by law? A shooter, for example, shouldn’t be able to “shoot out the front door” of a school. Yes it would cost, but can we at least agree on that?

 

I'm not sure why you think I'd be against that.

There seems to be 3 contingents here. One side that will not relinquish any interpretations of "freedoms" regarding gun regulation, one that wants to ban guns and then another that wants a holistic approach that is open to nuance which includes looking at regulation along with safety measures and considerably more attention to root causes and prevention.

I'm for anything that makes it safer for kids to go to school. Of course added impediments to schools should be implemented but I'll ask again where does it stop? When the next shooter evolves how will you protect the busses? Car pickups? Bus stops? Sporting events? Dances?

 

At what point on the gun policy spectrum do you stop caring about dead children?

 

I'd say the point where you're unwilling to even have a discussion that considers any number of issues that reoccur in these shootings.

 

I'd be happy to have a discussion with you (and I think most gun rights advocates would) if you didn't stand on the graves of dead children, point at us, and say we don't care about them.

Makes many of us think your goal is to demonize us, not actually find a solution.

 

If we ban assault rifles, do you just assume mentally deranged and evil people won’t find other means to carry out their violence and terror on children? It’s not as simple as “if we ban assault rifles, these shootings will stop happening.” One only has to look at certain cities and states that have some of the most stringent gun control laws in their jurisdictions, yet have some of the highest rates of gun murder in the country.

 

At first blush, not a bad suggestion until you think it through. Then you encounter a myriad of issue that are typical when you try to address a problem with a work around rather than directly.

School architecture is a big factor. Your suggestion works better for a big square building with internal classrooms. You still have to harden every window and every door, including fire escapes.

Every school I attended in Florida from grades 2-12 had classrooms that opened to the outside...a large, covered walkway. The expense of hardening those classrooms just increased exponentially. What about when the kids are in motion? They would be vulnerable walking to the lunchroom, when they are outside for recess or gym class, and waiting for busses or their parents to pick them up at the end of the day. How to you protect the older children who change classrooms for each subject.

I know hardening the schools is one of the first reactions your hear from right wing legislators who have no intention of upsetting the NRA, but there are too many weaknesses with that "solution" to afford a high level of security.

 

Logistics issues exist even more so with gun legislation. Short of outright gun confiscation, restricting assault rifles is a prime example of a “work around”, not confronting the issue directly.

The issue is not the guns, it’s the people who are carrying out these heinous crimes. We’ve always had a 2nd Amendment, but mass shootings happening with regularity is a more recent occurrence in our history. Mainly confined to the past 30 years or so.

What changed? Our culture. Our way of life. Our way of raising children. Our values and standards. All of this has lead to increased mental illness and lesser value placed on life. When you think about how sick and twisted a person has to be to take a gun into a school and do that. It’s a grotesque sickness that you’ve seen mainly in the past 30 years or so in our history. Our 2nd amendment rights were always there. The issue isn’t the Bill of Rights. It’s the people who abuse them.

 

Advance society. Repeal 2A. Encourage the children with guns to grow up.

 

Why? Did it move when you read that?

 

This is the unavoidable solution to an obvious gun violence problem in the U.S. Evolution is hard.

 

The answer is you harden all the doors and ban assault rifles. Some doors will still be breached and some shootings will still take place with assault rifles. The idea isn’t to stop every shooting it’s to MITIGATE.

 

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Every person I know who owns and uses guns is a mature, mentally stable person who is socially responsible and contributes positively to society.

 

Didn’t the Nashville woman carry a loaded pistol with her? A ban on assault rifles would not have stopped that killing. In fact, it seems like in most of these cases of mass shootings the killer is also caring pistols. I’m not sure that banning assault rifles does much except make people feel good for doing something.

 

I would be thrilled if >99% of all gun owners fit that description. How do we make laws, regulation, policy that moves us in that direction?

 

Vast majority are exactly as described. The .0001 percent of legal gun owners that are dangerous get all the press.