Latest School Shooting

[luvsJack]

Yes.

And we don't have school shootings on a regular basis.

And this boy used a shotgun didn’t he? So maybe we need to take a much wider look at this.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And this boy used a shotgun didn’t he? So maybe we need to take a much wider look at this.

It's easier for people to focus on the type of gun used..until an incident occurs that didn't use that type of gun.

It's why I'm so much for looking deeper at root causes instead of ban this ban that (though bump stocks I'm fine with a ban).

 

[luvsJack]

Canada has no restrictions on Hunting rifles, that will comply with our constitution

Its my right to blow smoke in your face, if you do not like it move to the USSR, yea that lasted

What are you talking about? Smoking is not a right given to us by the Constitution.


You do know this boy used a sbotgun?

 

[*DisneyNerd*]

The bottom line.... Shotgun, Assault Rifle....... People killed.

 

[declansdad]

That was my point..one of the guns used in the Texas shooting was a shotgun.

Correct and countries like Canada have found a way of putting reasonable restrictions on guns without taking them away from everyone. There seems to be many who feel that this can't happen in the USA.

 

[Domo]

Well.......
Since I've lived that life, and you apparently haven't, I'll just have to trust my personal experiences and not follow your advice to "Trust me".
BTW.
During my career I suffered broken bones, back injuries, dislocated joints, and was stabbed once, all in hand to hand altercations with individuals in varying states of intoxication and mental impairment from illicit drugs.
No one ever tried to shoot me.
However I still go about armed because there are a couple of nut cases locally who stated that they would kill me one day.
I spoke with one of those people in Epcot at the outdoor China pavilion some years ago.
He still doesn't like me.............

Don't worry, as someone pointed out, you are more likely to get run over in a car than you are to get shot... except, that's what a pro-gun individual once said

 

[Domo]

It was put in place to ensure that Americans would always be able to defend themselves from "All enemies Foreign and Domestic." (The quote is from my Oath Of Office that I swore to uphold.)

So the Queen of England?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Correct and countries like Canada have found a way of putting reasonable restrictions on guns without taking them away from everyone. There seems to be many who feel that this can't happen in the USA.

Other countries and the US are fundamentally different. It would be in people's best interests to stop comparing country to country. It's also a vicious circle and is tiresome.

What's the point in your argument in this case since the suspect used a shotgun and a .38 revolver? I already know now a shotgun is legal in Canada is a .38 revolver legal too?

 

[UncleMike101]

Canada has no restrictions on Hunting rifles, that will comply with our constitution

Your knowledge of the reasoning for our Second Amendment s totally non existent if you believe that Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and the other Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that Americans could hunt rabbits and squirrels under the auspices of the Constitution.
The Second Amendment was specifically put in place to keep future "leaders" from disarming the Populace and to allow private Citizens, (The Militia), to have the ability to defend the nation in times of strife.
They knew, because they were well read and learned men, that an unarmed Citizenry was open to exploitation by corrupt officials, (See my post on Stalin el al) and subject to hostile takeover by foreign entities.

So the Queen of England?

Not the current Monarch, but at least one in the 1700's and early 1800's.

 

[longboard55]

Other countries and the US are fundamentally different. It would be in people's best interests to stop comparing country to country. It's also a vicious circle and is tiresome.

What's the point in your argument in this case since the suspect used a shotgun and a .38 revolver? I already know now a shotgun is legal in Canada is a .38 revolver legal too?

Hand guns have more restrictions than long rifles because they are more dangerous, so they would require more training and back ground checks. Oh what a concept. Its called being smart. I can guarantee you a sawed offf shot gun would be illegal because their laws do not treat guns like toys.

 

[declansdad]

Other countries and the US are fundamentally different. It would be in people's best interests to stop comparing country to country. It's also a vicious circle and is tiresome.

What's the point in your argument in this case since the suspect used a shotgun and a .38 revolver? I already know now a shotgun is legal in Canada is a .38 revolver legal too?

Comparisons between countries is perfectly fine; there is no reason one country cannot learn from others. To say otherwise simply means you are not open to having a discussion about the use of firearms in the USA.

Handguns are restricted weapons in Canada. Not just anyone can buy a handgun.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Hand guns have more restrictions than long rifles because they are more dangerous, so they would require more training and back ground checks. Oh what a concept. Its called being smart. I can guarantee you a sawed offf shot gun would be illegal because their laws do not treat guns like toys.

My point..was if both are legal why call for more restrictions in this particular case. The suspect got the guns from his father, he wasn't legally allowed to purchase it at age 17 anyways.

 

[declansdad]

The Second Amendment was specifically put in place to keep future "leaders" from disarming the Populace and to allow private Citizens, (The Militia), to have the ability to defend the nation in times of strife.
They knew, because they were well read and learned men, that an unarmed Citizenry was open to exploitation by corrupt officials, (See my post on Stalin el al) and subject to hostile takeover by foreign entities.

When was the last time private citizens legally had to rise up defend the USA in times of strife?

 

[luvsJack]

Hand guns have more restrictions than long rifles because they are more dangerous, so they would require more training and back ground checks. Oh what a concept. Its called being smart. I can guarantee you a sawed offf shot gun would be illegal because their laws do not treat guns like toys.

Neither do we treat them like toys.

How exactly are they more dangerous? Is a person shot with a long gun less dead somehow? Because they are easier hidden?

Not many people have an issue with more background checks and training. Not everyone has an issue with having to have a permit to own a gun. But NONE of that would have stopped this shooting. His dad would have likely had the permit.

 

[luvsJack]

When was the last time private citizens legally had to rise up defend the USA in times of strife?

And you don’t think it’s at all possible to happen because it’s been awhile?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Comparisons between countries is perfectly fine; there is no reason one country cannot learn from others. To say otherwise simply means you are not open to having a discussion about the use of firearms in the USA.

Handguns are restricted weapons in Canada. Not just anyone can buy a handgun.

Thanks for the information about handguns.

You missed my point on the country talk. Our constitution is different than other countries, how we came to be and our history is different than other countries. If you say well X country can do it why can't the US it's simply futile to do that. It's different if you're discussing things like "is mental health resources suffering in the US" "are there enough community outreach programs to try and lesson gang violence in the US" "is domestic violence treated seriously enough and is there enough resources out there in the US" "do we have enough open talk about suicide and resources to try and help someone before it gets to that point in the US"

But to phrase the conversation of "well X country has restrictions on guns why can't the US" is by far missing the actual issues. That is a large reason conversations become circular because it's narrow focused on one thing without caring about the whys.

Silly example but it's like in my neighborhood by the pool there is a stretch of payment that kept getting ruined and potholes in a not too old road. The city kept patching it until homeowners from the neighborhood pushed our HOA to do a bit more investigation. Come to find out there is an underground water spring that kept causing the issues. The city could keep patching the road over and over and over again several times a year OR they could tear up the section and repave it entirely IF the HOA put forth the money to lesson the drainage issues caused by the underground spring. Well eventually the next spring our HOA paid the $2,500 for a french drain and the city tore up the section of road and repaved it. It's been 2 years and no issues so far. It still stands had homeowners not pushed for an investigation as to why the road behaved the way it did it would just be patching and patching with no actual fix done.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

When was the last time private citizens legally had to rise up defend the USA in times of strife?

Battle of Athens

 

[Domo]

Not the current Monarch, but at least one in the 1700's and early 1800's.

Makes sense. At that time there WOULD be a need for a well disciplined militia to guard and protect the USA from threats such as invading forces.

 

[declansdad]

And you don’t think it’s at all possible to happen because it’s been awhile?

I think the possibilitites are rather minuscule.

Thanks for the information about handguns.

You missed my point on the country talk. Our constitution is different than other countries, how we came to be and our history is different than other countries. If you say well X country can do it why can't the US it's simply futile to do that. It's different if you're discussing things like "is mental health resources suffering in the US" "are there enough community outreach programs to try and lesson gang violence in the US" "is domestic violence treated seriously enough and is there enough resources out there in the US" "do we have enough open talk about suicide and resources to try and help someone before it gets to that point in the US"

But to phrase the conversation of "well X country has restrictions on guns why can't the US" is by far missing the actual issues. That is a large reason conversations become circular because it's narrow focused on one thing without caring about the whys.

I never said you would need to change your constitution but to say discussions about gun control cannot be part of the overall discussion because of the constitution is simply a cop-out.

Battle of Athens
View attachment 323762

Interesting story, thanks.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I never said you would need to change your constitution but to say discussions about gun control cannot be part of the overall discussion because of the constitution is simply a cop-out.

I wasn't implying you were saying changing the consitution just stating a fact.

Your earlier statement of "found a way of putting reasonable restrictions on guns without taking them away from everyone." was what I was responding to. Tighter restrictions would have done what in this specific case? Both guns are legal in both countries, the suspect obtained the gun from his father (with or without his permission or knowledge was unknown the last time I looked at the details)

If you talk all day long about tighter restrictions but don't look at the whys it's just like the road issue in my neighborhood. People are very quick to jump up and say "well if you just had tighter restrictions like we do" rather than caring about why.