Right-wing conspiracy theorists claim the kids who speak up for gun control after the Florida school massacre aren't surviving pupils from the school, but actors hired by the anti-gun lobby. The claim has of course been debunked by the school head master and others, but Donald Trump jr has "liked" Facebook messages supporting this theory. Some have no shame.
The idea of arming teachers or having more armed personnel in schools is just crazy.
Imagine a teacher firing into a group of kids just to eliminate the shooter.
All proposed „solutions“ just try to get around the real issue*: there are too many firearms in the US.
*which no-one in the US wants to hear.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
While deniers often mock on Global Warming when temperatures are usually low - I want to point out, that there is a difference between Weather and Climate.
So NYC's record temperatures are - Weather and no evidence for Global Warming
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think it is foolish to say just one type of rifle is to blame. If this rifle was banned it would make no difference. The person with the deranged mind would use something else. A pistol with a lot of spare magazines or a shotgun would be just as deadly in the close ranges of a building.
To ban someone under a certain age from buying guns would be no good too. They would have them already in the home or be able to steal from family homes.
If guns were banned then there are just too many already and people would not hand them in in big numbers. They would bury them and ammunition.
As well as trying to stop access to guns, which I think would be impossible, I think the Americans need to look very carefully at the other facts also. What makes somebody want to do this? Could these signs be spotted by the teachers? Could they report and try to give help to the people they think are maybe wishing to do this? Could the pupils also be taught to look for signs then report if they are concerned?
This is a very difficult subject and just only to tackle one area is I think not the way. Yes try Stop the shooter by keeping them from guns but also try to stop them by other ways also.
I do not think this is the last time. Nothing will change. People will not give up guns in America or even accept control so perhaps education and help to those people who need help may stop more attacks than trying to do what many Americans will not allow to do and ban the guns?
I think it is foolish to say just one type of rifle is to blame. If this rifle was banned it would make no difference. The person with the deranged mind would use something else. A pistol with a lot of spare magazines or a shotgun would be just as deadly in the close ranges of a building.
To ban someone under a certain age from buying guns would be no good too. They would have them already in the home or be able to steal from family homes.
If guns were banned then there are just too many already and people would not hand them in in big numbers. They would bury them and ammunition.
As well trying to stop access to guns, which I think would be impossible, I think the Americans need to look very carefully at the other facts also. What makes somebody want to do this? Could these signs be spotted by the teachers? Could they report and try to give help to the people they think are maybe wishing to do this? Could the pupils also be taught to look for signs then report if they are concerned?
This is a very difficult subject and just only to tackle one area is I think not the way. Yes try Stop the shooter by keeping them from guns but also try to stop them by other ways also.
I do not think this is the last time. Nothing will change. People will not give up guns in America or even accept control so perhaps education and help to those people who need help may stop more attacks than trying to do what many Americans will not allow to do and ban the guns?
I totally agree
I totally disagree.
So:
- Banning only AR 15s won't work because there are so many firearms around in the US that the next shooting will move to another firearm
- Banning a certain age won't work because there are already so many firearms around in the US that the next attacker already has one - or 10.
- Banning firearms won't work because people would hamster them even more before the ban happens
While you are right on all points, the real issue is, THAT THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY GUNS OUT IN THE USA!!
None of the future actions will 100% prevent these shootings for the future.
They will still happen, because - you may have guessed it - there are too many firearms around there!
But we must start somewhere - by reducing the number of firearms in the US.
If the number of firearms will be reduced, there will be slowly but surely less shootings like we still see now on a weekly basis.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think there is no need for people to own guns but the people of America will never let their guns be taken away? To control guns will still not work. Yes as we agree there are too many guns in America. I do not know this but I think there will be many guns that are not even known about by the police? Old guns or guns bought before checks. You will never stop the Americans love of guns and that is why you will never stop guns being bought. Even a small pistol like a 22 pistol can kill so without taking all guns away then it will still happen. Perhaps it should be against the law to let anyone use or have control of your gun? If someone took your gun then perhaps you could be prosecuted for being negligent? Perhaps that might make people store their guns in locked places?
I think education for everyone and to see the warning signs of somebody who might be dangerous. Then that person could be helped and made not to have access to guns? I think that the FBI was warned here about this killer?
It is a subject which is too complicated for me and many. Something has to change. While ordinary people have guns there will always be this problem. But there are just too many guns to even ban then people would not hand them in but they would keep them.
I have had a gun on my lands in my country and I carried it all times on my land to protect against the predator animals. It was no danger to anybody from me unless they tried to harm my family but it could kill somebody if somebody else got it and used it. I buried that gun safe. It is still there. I think that is what Americans would do and not hand in their guns.
I think the best way is to educate and to make guns unacceptable to people just like drinking and driving. Of course also try to make guns owned less in number but do it in a way where the people do not feel threatened or are having their rights taken away. Educate the young people to all be against guns and over time that I think would make gun owners in America into a minority of people.
This of course is only my opinion.
Did this kid who shot the Florida school up with an AR-15 get it from his parents? No. He went into a shop and bought it. If there were adequate restrictions and limits on firearms then I don't know, perhaps he may have had a much harder time getting his hands on one, and maybe he wouldn't have done it. Or maybe if he could only buy a semi automatic, the fatalities would have been much lower. The equation is pretty simple. Every country in the West has similar mental health issues, similar family troubles, and access to the same media and entertainment. So maybe why other Western nations don't have the mass shooter epidemic that the States does is because those other countries (like mine) don't have free and unfettered access to guns of every description. It really is the common denominator here. Sorry if I sound hostile but these mass shootings really rustle my jimmies
I accept there are many responsible gun owners but
Laws have to be in place for the most stupid in society.
To drive a car. You have to pass a test that you are competent,
So why not with GUNS?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
He asks, why jewellery stores are stronger protected than schoolkids.
What a ridiculous stance!
In my country, most of the jewellery stores are protected by guards, too but no school has to be guarded - the last shooting in a school is 9 years ago.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Germany's had a school shooting? That's news to me. It was back in '09, Higgins.
I thought the laws were strict there unless you had a hunting licence or something, seeing as it's Germany and not Switzerland. I
will have to look into that further.
Speaking of, how come they've never had a school shooting, it being the nation with most guns per capita and Germany of all places has had one?
Germany's had a school shooting? That's news to me. It was back in '09, Higgins.
I thought the laws were strict there unless you had a hunting licence or something, seeing as it's Germany and not Switzerland. I
will have to look into that further.
Speaking of, how come they've never had a school shooting, it being the nation with most guns per capita and Germany of all places has had one?
You correctly say, that the last school shooting happened in 2009 here.
The shooter took the gun from his father, a hobby-hunter who left the rifles unlocked in the bedroom.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The legal age to buy firearms needs to be raised to 21 across the states.
Full background checks need to be implemented for all firearms sales, including at gun shows and pawn shops.
Military assault rifles need to be restricted or banned.
All firearms must be registered.
For anyone who wants to own a gun for home protection, hunting, or general sporting activities, NONE of the above restrictions should make a difference.
I can't see why any of the above is even controversial and should be the implemented immediately.
As you say anyone who genuinely wants a weapon for home protection or hunting will still be able to get one.
My father in law owned guns but the second Dunblane happened and guns were made illegal here he handed them over quite happily. People who need guns here like pest control or farmers can still get them. It's all about the control.
The legal age to buy firearms needs to be raised to 21 across the states.
Full background checks need to be implemented for all firearms sales, including at gun shows and pawn shops.
Military assault rifles need to be restricted or banned.
All firearms must be registered.
For anyone who wants to own a gun for home protection, hunting, or general sporting activities, NONE of the above restrictions should make a difference.
2/3 of Americans agree stricter gun laws are needed.
Listening to the NRA spokesman's speech today. It seems
anyone who disagrees with them is a Communist ! It's also
everyone elses Fault FBI etc, seems everyone is responsable
for the shootings, except the Gun
I'm sure responsible gun owners can see some restrictions
are needed.
or.....
Given the United States Constitution was Created: September 1787
then gun ownership should be restricted to the guns available at that
time ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
And do not the people who own guns should be responsible if anyone takes their guns? If they were laws of 'irresponsible owners' then a lot of guns would be locked away from people who might get to them if the owner knew they might get sent to prison for not making their guns secure?
All guns have parts which can be taken to make the gun safe. If the moving parts are to be kept locked away in another safe from the guns it would also not help?
Nothing anyone here will make any difference any way. There will be more killing. The right to own guns is more worth than life.
What about owners of guns have to keep them away from their home in storage in lock and key very secure? A special licence would be needed to keep a gun at home and only if the gun was secure from being stolen or used not by the owner?
I engaged with a very irate US man on Instagram about this subject, just last week. He was typical of those who will defend their right to have guns at all costs - blaming everyone and everything but ignoring that making such weapons generally available means there’s a far greater risk of them being used by lunatics. I’m not sure how many more children have to die before they come to their senses. No on needs an assault rifle at home, if you want to shoot one go to a shooting range and pay to use one for an hour, but just leave it there safe when you finish.
It's also
everyone elses Fault FBI etc, seems everyone is responsable
for the shootings, except the Gun
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then the gun is responsible for the shooting and not the shooter?
Or do you mean that he got access to it in the first place. Because if you think a gun, an inanimate object, chose fatally would those students then that's a terribly childish way of thinking, if you don't mind me saying. It's a tool, made to kill. Where it's pointed at and who's firing it is the only difference between life and death.
I remember In The Line Of Fire with Clint Eastwood where the secret service investigated every claim against the president's life (impossible to do these days but I digress). Even on this day and age of technology, several red flags from the soon to be killer were there. It's just that nobody looked out for them enough to launch an investigation. While there is a right to free speech and whatnot and he acquired the rifle in a lawful manner, he was talking about a shooting. If he has a rifle and covering his face, I wouldn't think he would be bullshitting. Why was no-one there to go so far as to check him out or have an automatic reporting system in place?
It's all about context. When the Constitution was written, we were still a frontier and people still had to protect themselves in a way that isn't necessarily relevant today.
Exactly. And back then there were only muskets, not AR-15s and other high powered weapons!
It's also
everyone elses Fault FBI etc, seems everyone is responsable
for the shootings, except the Gun
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then the gun is responsible for the shooting and not the shooter?
Or do you mean that he got access to it in the first place. Because if you think a gun, an inanimate object, chose fatally would those students then that's a terribly childish way of thinking, if you don't mind me saying. It's a tool, made to kill. Where it's pointed at and who's firing it is the only difference between life and death.
I remember In The Line Of Fire with Clint Eastwood where the secret service investigated every claim against the president's life (impossible to do these days but I digress). Even on this day and age of technology, several red flags from the soon to be killer were there. It's just that nobody looked out for them enough to launch an investigation. While there is a right to free speech and whatnot and he acquired the rifle in a lawful manner, he was talking about a shooting. If he has a rifle and covering his face, I wouldn't think he would be bullshitting. Why was no-one there to go so far as to check him out or have an automatic reporting system in place?
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people", right?
But if that's so, you must remember that defibrillators don't save people, people save people.
In other words: guns make killing other people much easier and efficient, just like defibrillators make saving people much easier and efficient.
We have frustrated, ill-adjusted and mentally ill pupils in Norwegian schools too, but unlike in the US these pupils don't have any access to guns. Here we've had no school shootings, in the US it happens on average once a week.
Yes, I was talking about the guns themselves being considered a problem and my view on that.
The real problem lies in the access (and I concur with your sentiment) but since he was at the right age, it was lawfully bought (unlike the famous 1999 one where their mother "gifted" them the guns), there was no way to stop him lest the laws changed overnight.
What I'm trying to say is that he was breaking no law in acquiring them and that's a very disturbing thought.
"Any thug can kill..." with enough will and determination. He could use another, slower less practical method to achieve the same effect.
For all we know he could've even used a pocket knife if he couldn't get a gun.
Side note: were guns banned in the UK because of that school shooting with the maniac that killed very young schoolchildren or were there other factors in that?
If you had to chose: would you rather a school was attacked by thug with a pocket knife or an AR-15?
I discovered some interesting facts today..... well, it was on TV News. The population of the USA make up 4.4 % of the earth's total population. But these 4.4% own 40% of the privately owned guns in the world.
Is that really necessary or logical? Perhaps if Americans were ten times as free as we are....
Yes, I was talking about the guns themselves being considered a problem and my view on that.
The real problem lies in the access (and I concur with your sentiment) but since he was at the right age, it was lawfully bought (unlike the famous 1999 one where their mother "gifted" them the guns), there was no way to stop him lest the laws changed overnight.
What I'm trying to say is that he was breaking no law in acquiring them and that's a very disturbing thought.
"Any thug can kill..." with enough will and determination. He could use another, slower less practical method to achieve the same effect.
For all we know he could've even used a pocket knife if he couldn't get a gun.
Side note: were guns banned in the UK because of that school shooting with the maniac that killed very young schoolchildren or were there other factors in that?
Yep. Dunblane was the absolute turning point and met with virtually no resistance.
We had had an incident in 1987 in Hungerford which started to raise the issue but Dunblane made it an absolute.
Australia were pretty similar.
Anyone with criminal intent who wants a gun will always find a way to get their hands on them. We still have gun crime but it is generally gang related/robberies/criminal fraternity etc etc ... the same as anywhere else in the world.
What we don't have is the random mass shootings that occur in the US from people who are too young to buy alcohol and can literally buy ammunition from a supermarket.
Yes, I was talking about the guns themselves being considered a problem and my view on that.
The real problem lies in the access (and I concur with your sentiment) but since he was at the right age, it was lawfully bought (unlike the famous 1999 one where their mother "gifted" them the guns), there was no way to stop him lest the laws changed overnight.
What I'm trying to say is that he was breaking no law in acquiring them and that's a very disturbing thought.
"Any thug can kill..." with enough will and determination. He could use another, slower less practical method to achieve the same effect.
For all we know he could've even used a pocket knife if he couldn't get a gun.
Side note: were guns banned in the UK because of that school shooting with the maniac that killed very young schoolchildren or were there other factors in that?
Yep. Dunblane was the absolute turning point and met with virtually no resistance.
We had had an incident in 1987 in Hungerford which started to raise the issue but Dunblane made it an absolute.
Australia were pretty similar.
Anyone with criminal intent who wants a gun will always find a way to get their hands on them. We still have gun crime but it is generally gang related/robberies/criminal fraternity etc etc ... the same as anywhere else in the world.
What we don't have is the random mass shootings that occur in the US from people who are too young to buy alcohol and can literally buy ammunition from a supermarket.
It started with the Hungerford massacre really, when a man named Michael Ryan shot 16 people using semi automatic rifles and a couple of pistols, the firearms law was amended shortly after this.
Dunblane saw further amendments as Lady Rose says.
Comments
Imagine a teacher firing into a group of kids just to eliminate the shooter.
All proposed „solutions“ just try to get around the real issue*: there are too many firearms in the US.
*which no-one in the US wants to hear.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
A. MORE GUNS !
Fueled by the NRA
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
While deniers often mock on Global Warming when temperatures are usually low - I want to point out, that there is a difference between Weather and Climate.
So NYC's record temperatures are - Weather and no evidence for Global Warming
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
To ban someone under a certain age from buying guns would be no good too. They would have them already in the home or be able to steal from family homes.
If guns were banned then there are just too many already and people would not hand them in in big numbers. They would bury them and ammunition.
As well as trying to stop access to guns, which I think would be impossible, I think the Americans need to look very carefully at the other facts also. What makes somebody want to do this? Could these signs be spotted by the teachers? Could they report and try to give help to the people they think are maybe wishing to do this? Could the pupils also be taught to look for signs then report if they are concerned?
This is a very difficult subject and just only to tackle one area is I think not the way. Yes try Stop the shooter by keeping them from guns but also try to stop them by other ways also.
I do not think this is the last time. Nothing will change. People will not give up guns in America or even accept control so perhaps education and help to those people who need help may stop more attacks than trying to do what many Americans will not allow to do and ban the guns?
The term now is " Climate change "
I totally agree
I totally disagree.
So:
- Banning only AR 15s won't work because there are so many firearms around in the US that the next shooting will move to another firearm
- Banning a certain age won't work because there are already so many firearms around in the US that the next attacker already has one - or 10.
- Banning firearms won't work because people would hamster them even more before the ban happens
While you are right on all points, the real issue is, THAT THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY GUNS OUT IN THE USA!!
None of the future actions will 100% prevent these shootings for the future.
They will still happen, because - you may have guessed it - there are too many firearms around there!
But we must start somewhere - by reducing the number of firearms in the US.
If the number of firearms will be reduced, there will be slowly but surely less shootings like we still see now on a weekly basis.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think there is no need for people to own guns but the people of America will never let their guns be taken away? To control guns will still not work. Yes as we agree there are too many guns in America. I do not know this but I think there will be many guns that are not even known about by the police? Old guns or guns bought before checks. You will never stop the Americans love of guns and that is why you will never stop guns being bought. Even a small pistol like a 22 pistol can kill so without taking all guns away then it will still happen. Perhaps it should be against the law to let anyone use or have control of your gun? If someone took your gun then perhaps you could be prosecuted for being negligent? Perhaps that might make people store their guns in locked places?
I think education for everyone and to see the warning signs of somebody who might be dangerous. Then that person could be helped and made not to have access to guns? I think that the FBI was warned here about this killer?
It is a subject which is too complicated for me and many. Something has to change. While ordinary people have guns there will always be this problem. But there are just too many guns to even ban then people would not hand them in but they would keep them.
I have had a gun on my lands in my country and I carried it all times on my land to protect against the predator animals. It was no danger to anybody from me unless they tried to harm my family but it could kill somebody if somebody else got it and used it. I buried that gun safe. It is still there. I think that is what Americans would do and not hand in their guns.
I think the best way is to educate and to make guns unacceptable to people just like drinking and driving. Of course also try to make guns owned less in number but do it in a way where the people do not feel threatened or are having their rights taken away. Educate the young people to all be against guns and over time that I think would make gun owners in America into a minority of people.
This of course is only my opinion.
Laws have to be in place for the most stupid in society.
To drive a car. You have to pass a test that you are competent,
So why not with GUNS?
If that was true, why are women driving cars here?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
.. " It's called the future, get used to it "
He asks, why jewellery stores are stronger protected than schoolkids.
What a ridiculous stance!
In my country, most of the jewellery stores are protected by guards, too but no school has to be guarded - the last shooting in a school is 9 years ago.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I thought the laws were strict there unless you had a hunting licence or something, seeing as it's Germany and not Switzerland. I
will have to look into that further.
Speaking of, how come they've never had a school shooting, it being the nation with most guns per capita and Germany of all places has had one?
You correctly say, that the last school shooting happened in 2009 here.
The shooter took the gun from his father, a hobby-hunter who left the rifles unlocked in the bedroom.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I can't see why any of the above is even controversial and should be the implemented immediately.
As you say anyone who genuinely wants a weapon for home protection or hunting will still be able to get one.
My father in law owned guns but the second Dunblane happened and guns were made illegal here he handed them over quite happily. People who need guns here like pest control or farmers can still get them. It's all about the control.
2/3 of Americans agree stricter gun laws are needed.
anyone who disagrees with them is a Communist ! It's also
everyone elses Fault FBI etc, seems everyone is responsable
for the shootings, except the Gun
I'm sure responsible gun owners can see some restrictions
are needed.
or.....
Given the United States Constitution was Created: September 1787
then gun ownership should be restricted to the guns available at that
time ?
All guns have parts which can be taken to make the gun safe. If the moving parts are to be kept locked away in another safe from the guns it would also not help?
Nothing anyone here will make any difference any way. There will be more killing. The right to own guns is more worth than life.
What about owners of guns have to keep them away from their home in storage in lock and key very secure? A special licence would be needed to keep a gun at home and only if the gun was secure from being stolen or used not by the owner?
That sums the mindset in the US up pretty well - sadly
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Or do you mean that he got access to it in the first place. Because if you think a gun, an inanimate object, chose fatally would those students then that's a terribly childish way of thinking, if you don't mind me saying. It's a tool, made to kill. Where it's pointed at and who's firing it is the only difference between life and death.
I remember In The Line Of Fire with Clint Eastwood where the secret service investigated every claim against the president's life (impossible to do these days but I digress). Even on this day and age of technology, several red flags from the soon to be killer were there. It's just that nobody looked out for them enough to launch an investigation. While there is a right to free speech and whatnot and he acquired the rifle in a lawful manner, he was talking about a shooting. If he has a rifle and covering his face, I wouldn't think he would be bullshitting. Why was no-one there to go so far as to check him out or have an automatic reporting system in place?
Exactly. And back then there were only muskets, not AR-15s and other high powered weapons!
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people", right?
But if that's so, you must remember that defibrillators don't save people, people save people.
In other words: guns make killing other people much easier and efficient, just like defibrillators make saving people much easier and efficient.
We have frustrated, ill-adjusted and mentally ill pupils in Norwegian schools too, but unlike in the US these pupils don't have any access to guns. Here we've had no school shootings, in the US it happens on average once a week.
The real problem lies in the access (and I concur with your sentiment) but since he was at the right age, it was lawfully bought (unlike the famous 1999 one where their mother "gifted" them the guns), there was no way to stop him lest the laws changed overnight.
What I'm trying to say is that he was breaking no law in acquiring them and that's a very disturbing thought.
"Any thug can kill..." with enough will and determination. He could use another, slower less practical method to achieve the same effect.
For all we know he could've even used a pocket knife if he couldn't get a gun.
Side note: were guns banned in the UK because of that school shooting with the maniac that killed very young schoolchildren or were there other factors in that?
I discovered some interesting facts today..... well, it was on TV News. The population of the USA make up 4.4 % of the earth's total population. But these 4.4% own 40% of the privately owned guns in the world.
Is that really necessary or logical? Perhaps if Americans were ten times as free as we are....
Yep. Dunblane was the absolute turning point and met with virtually no resistance.
We had had an incident in 1987 in Hungerford which started to raise the issue but Dunblane made it an absolute.
Australia were pretty similar.
Anyone with criminal intent who wants a gun will always find a way to get their hands on them. We still have gun crime but it is generally gang related/robberies/criminal fraternity etc etc ... the same as anywhere else in the world.
What we don't have is the random mass shootings that occur in the US from people who are too young to buy alcohol and can literally buy ammunition from a supermarket.
It started with the Hungerford massacre really, when a man named Michael Ryan shot 16 people using semi automatic rifles and a couple of pistols, the firearms law was amended shortly after this.
Dunblane saw further amendments as Lady Rose says.