www.npr.org
we do not.....what are you talking about? The republicans have been sitting on a gun control bill for 2 years.
NK.....that whole situation is just unimaginable. Is it like Mayberry out there or what? Geeze. And they were holding the parents back while the killer was still shooting. smfhTexas Gov. Greg Abbott says he was 'misled' about the Uvalde shooting police response
Abbott says the information that he provided at a press conference two days ago was a recitation of what law enforcement had told him in a room beforehand.
19 police offers were in the building starting minutes after the terrorist entered.
bUt wE nEEd mOrE pOliCe.
Just amazing how there are so many stupid Americans that think more guns are the answer. And, that doing nothing is the best thing. Even a 30% reduction in mass killings is better than doing nothing. Did you see the article in yahoo news on Switzerland.?...How their gun control in a gun loving society is working.
Can't reconcile them being in the hallway and hearing shots and not trying to breach the door. If the guy's not shooting, staging for Tac is understandable. But once he starts shooting again, it's all hands rush the shooter.
I don't disagree. But we don't need to be selling assault rifles / weapons of war to any Joe Blow who wants one.
The government is involved if your father wants to gift you a motor vehicle or a house -- but hands off when it's a f*king GUN???!?
Now THAT is a compelling argument for allowing AR-15s if ever I heard one. Let me guess, she needs an AR-15 to protect herself from a "psychotic ex" with an AR-15!
It's no coincidence that a lot of the "Second Amendment" crowd live in rural America where they rarely, if ever, have to confront real gun violence.
100% this
I know many successful engineers who are avid hunters, participate in shooting sports, collect unique weapons, have them for home and self defense, or combinations of the above. All of whom are model citizens and successful by most measures. Most of them would turn their weapons over but some would resist. Even if it’s limited to the nuts, do you want to be the one that has to go to their property and force them to turn over their weapons? Or are we going to put that on police too?
So run for office. Propose some policies on this board. You’re long on complaints and short on solutions.
You listed universal background checks and banning assault weapons. That still leaves a shit ton of firepower. So how are you going to curb that?
Ok. But the most devastating single shooter incidents (prior to Vegas) were the Luby’s restaurant massacre in Texas and the Virginia Tech shootings. Both used pistols. Simply taking some ARs off the streets isn’t going to do it. Ramos could’ve walked into that store, bought 2 Glock 19s and cheaper ammunition, and wreaked just as much havoc. The gun just wouldn’t look as scary.
You forgot pulse. The San Diego McDonald’s guy used an Uzi which was subsequently banned. But what’s the point? That not every event can be prevented so why do anything? People can kill with hand guns. But the vast majority of these mass casualty events use weapons that fell under the assault weapons ban.
The only mass shooting of significance during the ban was Columbine. It’s funny that you have to resort to the Virginia tech incident where they guy was killing people for like 5 hours on campus with a pistol as evidence that we shouldn’t worry about weapons that kill 20 people in 20 seconds.
On May 21, 2008, (before Columbine) an expelled high school student killed four and injured 25 others in a school schooling in Springfield, Oregon.
3 or 4 killed in a mass shooting would be barely a blip on the radar in this day and age.
I hear you on the 30 day waiting period. What about the abused woman who needs a gun for protection against her ex and is told that she has to wait 30 days?
Unfortunately true. But just because they weren’t as good at killing people and injured a bunch rather than killing them, does that really invalidate them as data points?
It doesn’t invalidate them as data points. In fact those data points make the point for me. If the goal is limiting how many people a lone gunman can kill in a short period of time, showing a time period where shootings killed 3 or 4 people (or at most 13 with 2 gunmen at Columbine) and contrasting with present day where we frequently see a lone gunman killing 10+ people in a matter of seconds is the entire point. That’s it.
Correlation does not imply causation. 25 people getting wounded by gunfire could’ve easily been 25 people killed but for luck and aim.
There are plenty of data points to use over the decade ban and the 17 years since. “Could have easily been” never was, until now.
Ok, I’ll leave it at that. So besides guns, is there nothing else we can do? Nothing else to talk about?
