The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting

[Oniya]

I think that might have been Switzerland - however every man in the country is required to do military service, where they are trained in weapons safety, and their service rifles are left on base, properly secured.  Compare that to Joe Militia, who hasn't served a day, keeps a loaded .22 in his waistband (inviting Darwin Awards) and had a couple hours of shooting practice.

[ReijiTabibito]

Some of this, I think I may have said before, but bear with me.  I'd like to chime in on a few things here.

First, part of our problem is that while Too Soon is a thing - talking about how to fix the problem should not be the immediate topic of discussion - that comes after, IMO - we live in such a fast-paced newsworld that we never get around to stage 2, which is Talking About It.  Maybe give the day of, and the day after.   But by Day + 4 or 5, you have to be talking about long-term solutions.  This is partly because, as Frum pointed out, the media has moved on to whatever the next topic of the day is by that point.  In one ear, out the other.  If you want real change on this, that needs to  be a step.  The news has to stop being less like a checklist ("Did we cover all the news items today?  Okay, good day then.") and more of a discussion.

Second, whenever I talk to someone pro-gun about something like this, their reasons boil down to one of two things.

A: We need the guns to protect us from the government if the government goes full Empire on us.
B: The Constitution says that we should be allowed to have guns, period, and we're just exercising that right.

To A, I usually respond: have you seen the government?  Maybe 250 years ago, when the local militia and the national army were more or less equipped with the same stuff...heck, even going up to roughly the end of the 19th century, it made sense.  There was an equilibrium there that existed.

Today?  They have tanks.  They have body armor and high explosives.  They have airplanes that can blow up your car (and JUST your car) from 30,000 feet without breaking a sweat.  If the government decided to go full Empire on us today, there would absolutely no stopping them, not from any force armed with semi-auto rifles and handguns.  You would be essentially forced into fighting a guerilla war with the government, if you even could fight.

To B, I usually say, okay.  The Constitution does say that.  The Constitution also says that soldiers aren't to be quartered in your house.  America hasn't seen a war on its own soil since 1865, so...yay?  (And if they're still obstinate about it, I point out the 18th.)

On the militia thing.  It's hard to quantify what a militia can actually mean in this day and age - at the time of writing, militias were often necessary to defend towns and villages, particularly those that lived on the frontier, and kind of SORT of served as a HIGHLY ROUGH analogue to a police force.  That said, as Glyph and LB were talking about, a private militia usually gets a bad reputation (though history has demonstrated that it's not unwarranted).  Though...it really pains me to say I know someone who believes this, but said someone thinks that the reason for that is basically to de-legitimize anyone not associated with 'the government.'


I may have also read the most facepalming statement of all time about the attack, regarding the ongoing Mueller investigation and...I'll just say words about Putin.

[Lustful Bride]

On the militia thing.  It's hard to quantify what a militia can actually mean in this day and age - at the time of writing, militias were often necessary to defend towns and villages, particularly those that lived on the frontier, and kind of SORT of served as a HIGHLY ROUGH analogue to a police force.  That said, as Glyph and LB were talking about, a private militia usually gets a bad reputation (though history has demonstrated that it's not unwarranted).  Though...it really pains me to say I know someone who believes this, but said someone thinks that the reason for that is basically to de-legitimize anyone not associated with 'the government.'

Personally I kind of like the idea of people getting handguns and hunting rifles as per their right (as I mentioned before) but that if they want to get bigger/more advanced guns they have to be part of either National Guard or the State Militia or other federally sanctioned groups which have to be held up to certain standards and regulations +Training and etc.

But that will likely never happen. I cant see either side agreeing to that. :/

I may have also read the most facepalming statement of all time about the attack, regarding the ongoing Mueller investigation and...I'll just say words about Putin.

Ugh I know exactly which statement you are referring to. *facedesking* I wish I could forget it.

[Serephino]

I too don't have a problem with hunting rifles and pistols and the like.  While it doesn't personally interest me, my dad was an avid hunter.  I grew up with one of those tall gun cabinets full of rifles in their bedroom.  It made my mom mad, but he had this sweet customized 30-yacht-6 with a scope and everything.  There were fights about the money spent on it, and my mother was concerned it was too powerful for deer hunting.  One thing my parents did right was teach me to respect guns and handle them safely.  When I was really little it was just those are adult things, don't touch.  When I was old enough they thought I was taught safety.  Those times my dad took me bird hunting with him the rule was to always stay behind him.  He taught me to always keep a gun pointed at the ground or up in the sky when not actively shooting at something.  Never under any circumstances was I to ever assume a gun wasn't loaded and point it at anything I would regret accidentally shooting.  Because you may think you emptied them all out, but sometimes a bullet will hide from you in the chamber.  A good example of that was when one of his friends almost shot his wife.  He assumed his rifle was empty and he was cleaning it.  The safety wasn't on either, so when he accidentally pulled the trigger the bullet hiding in the chamber fired and went right through the chair his wife usually sat in to watch tv.  Lucky for them she wasn't sitting there at that moment. 

Point being there's nothing wrong with a gun if it is properly respected as the dangerous weapon that it is, and handled properly.  I think what people are lacking in this country is that respect.

[Leki]

Not American, so don't know what it's like on the ground over there...
But aren't most of these incidents caused by inexperienced angry people?
Most times I hear about a shooting in the US, it's usually not the gun toting addict that's killing people.
But some anti-social, mentally ill, scum of character that's decided he wants to go out with his guns blazing.

Considering how common they are, the only way to recall them is probably a well-funded buyback scheme.
And while the argument that there's just as many guns as people may or may not be true.
We all need to start somewhere. Saying it's too hard and dismissing counter-actions isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
Just like Climate change

Personally I think it should be reversed.
You don't need a register of people who can't have guns.
You need a register of people who do have guns.
In fact make the NRA stronger. (Or some other regulated group)
If you want to own a gun you need to be a registered member of theirs.
Charge small annual fee's to be a member, increasing the membership based on the number of guns people have.
Cause lets face it, you don't need a stash room full of guns to protect your family.
Tax it. Tax the hell out of it, and more money for the government to use on important things.

Make more money and jobs by implementing a training period.
If people need qualifications to get a bloody job, needing a qualification to hold a gun is probably not a bad idea.
Assuming that protecting their family matters to people, and that they believe guns are the right way to go about it.
Surely they'll be willing to invest the time, effort and money into it.
It's a bit like an insurance policy I guess. Might never need it, but just in case.

Personally I'm against guns.
I can understand some minorities needing them (like farmers).
Whether it be a hunting rifle, or an automatic military-grade weapon, I see no need for it.
But guns are a reality and the attitude of "Get rid of them all now" vs "Lets keep things unchanged" is the biggest issue.
Steps to progress, not completion in one swift swoop.
It'd be nice to get it done all in one go.... but it's not going to happen.
If children dying hasn't changed anything so far, nothing will.

[Oniya]

A gun registry has been proposed and - erm - shot down in the past.  At one point there was even a penalty put in place for trying to create one - but some states have registries at the local level that they share to the feds.

The usual argument put forward by the NRA is that a national gun registry would make it easier for 'the government' to come and 'get our guns' if it ever went 'Empire mode'.

[Lustful Bride]

A gun registry has been proposed and - erm - shot down in the past.  At one point there was even a penalty put in place for trying to create one - but some states have registries at the local level that they share to the feds.

The usual argument put forward by the NRA is that a national gun registry would make it easier for 'the government' to come and 'get our guns' if it ever went 'Empire mode'.

The problem is a registry can have a risk to it. There was a story a while back of multiple Prison guards who signed up for a weapon registry. And then a while later, they were being threatened by the inmates, because the inmates were giving them scraps of paper, that all had the names of their children and what schools their children went to because the registry had very lax security or something. But they did state that the connection was the gun registry.

I am looking for it but having difficulty. This was a few years ago but I remember seeing it on CNBC when it happened. I want to say it was in New York but I am not sure

[Leki]

The usual argument put forward by the NRA is that a national gun registry would make it easier for 'the government' to come and 'get our guns' if it ever went 'Empire mode'.

How bad does a government need to be, for regular people to be worried it'll go Empire mode? xD
Think someone argued against how stupid the Empire argument was, based on what the military is equipped with nowadays.
Essentially how a rifle won't do anything against tanks and bombs.
But yeah, from overseas it really does look like a problem with the culture there.

As for registries being abused....
That's really really sad xD
Think there's a difference with a prison's weapon registry and a civil citizens registry.
But I suppose it could be used to track down people with guns?....
Not sure why they'd do that, or what benefit they'd get.

[Leki]

How bad does a government need to be, for regular people to be worried it'll go Empire mode? xD
Think someone argued against how stupid the Empire argument was, based on what the military is equipped with nowadays.
Essentially how a rifle won't do anything against tanks and bombs.
But yeah, from overseas it really does look like a problem with the culture there.

As for registries being abused....
That's really really sad xD
Think there's a difference with a prison's weapon registry and a civil citizens registry.
But I suppose it could be used to track down people with guns?....
Not sure why they'd do that, or what benefit they'd get though.

[Lustful Bride]

As for registries being abused....
That's really really sad xD
Think there's a difference with a prison's weapon registry and a civil citizens registry.
But I suppose it could be used to track down people with guns?....
Not sure why they'd do that, or what benefit they'd get.

Corrections officers having their children threatened by convicted murderers and rapists isn't funny. I don't see why it warranted that emoji.

And I am fairly sure it wasn't the weapons of the prison that were being used to track them, but their home, personal weapons.

[Oniya]

The problem is a registry can have a risk to it. There was a story a while back of multiple Prison guards who signed up for a weapon registry. And then a while later, they were being threatened by the inmates, because the inmates were giving them scraps of paper, that all had the names of their children and what schools their children went to because the registry had very lax security or something. But they did state that the connection was the gun registry.

I am looking for it but having difficulty. This was a few years ago but I remember seeing it on CNBC when it happened. I want to say it was in New York but I am not sure

This?  I might have found the wrong thing, but it's referring to officers getting exempted from the Concealed Carry permit requirement for that sort of thing.

[Oniya]

Think someone argued against how stupid the Empire argument was, based on what the military is equipped with nowadays.

I never said it was a valid argument - just that it was the argument that usually gets put out there.

[Lustful Bride]

This?  I might have found the wrong thing, but it's referring to officers getting exempted from the Concealed Carry permit requirement for that sort of thing.

Hmm...this might be the one but I'm not sure. I could swear the one I heard of was in New York but I am not finding anything. As I said it was years ago, and the threats came after several of the guards signed up for some type of registry. I don't live in New York so I don't know.

[Blythe]

http://www.newsweek.com/man-gives-ar-15-police-doesnt-need-810102

(Ignoring the President's words in that video, because ugh. I am starting to feel that people saying 'too soon' after these tragedies don't actually have a single damn to give about the feelings of the survivors or the aggrieved but just use phrases like that as excuses to block a much-needed dialogue)

Anyways, Good for Ben Dickmann for being the change he wants to see.

[Lustful Bride]

http://www.newsweek.com/man-gives-ar-15-police-doesnt-need-810102

(Ignoring the President's words in that video, because ugh. I am starting to feel that people saying 'too soon' after these tragedies don't actually have a single damn to give about the feelings of the survivors or the aggrieved but just use phrases like that as excuses to block a much-needed dialogue)

Anyways, Good for Ben Dickmann for being the change he wants to see.

He is the type of gun owner many of us should strive to be.

[Lustful Bride]

Seemed the right place to post this

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prominent-republican-donor-issues-ultimatum-on-assault-weapons/ar-BBJg5E7?ocid=spartandhp

The only thing is that I hope their description for Assault Weapons is properly researched and not flimsy or lazy.

[TheHighwayHitman]

There is a lot of mythology going on in this thread, from what I've seen. And I've seen comments from a full ban on the AR-15 (which is absurd) to statements of how if the government went full evil empire there is nothing anyone could do (equally absurd).

I'm not going to call anyone out, but I am going to set some facts straight.

1) The United States has a serious mental health problem. We can blame whatever we want, but ultimately, at the core, people who should be institutionalized walk the streets in record numbers. Statistics do not lie. The majority of these people come from broken, low income homes.

2) There are hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of out of work veterans and retired police officers who would love nothing more than to make 15.00 bucks an hour protecting children...be the kindergarteners or high school seniors. The fact we are not doing this is insulting.

3) Safe, Gun Free zones do not work with a significant population. If say, just 1 in 10 is a bad apple, then 10 in 100 is logical. Now raise that population to 274,812. Do some math. How many bad apples do you have?

4) The idea that other countries are doing something right and the United States is doing something wrong because "gun crime" is also a myth. It isn't a lack of crime these places have. It is a lack of population and different definitions of what constitutes crime. The U.K. for example, has far more deaths by baseball bat and stabbing.

5) Gun violence statistics in the United States are inflated by leftist sleight of hand. The defender shooting the attacker is added to that list, but the situation needs to be detailed. It isn't all or nothing. Context and circumstance matters.

6) Tragedies happen. Yes. They are terrible. But they've also been happening since the dawn of time. Why is one tragedy any worse than another?

7) I know it's been said before, and it sounds like a broken record, but it is no less true and no amount of grandstanding will change it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. This is important because it is a lead in for what follows.

As we can see, I have not said anything one way or another about anyone else or their statements. I have not said what I think is appropriate or not. I have only stated actual facts. Some of my points might be a little colored by personal opinion, but I would like to think most of us can find some common ground there regardless of our personal beliefs. It is important, because I am about to ruffle a few feathers, I think.

A) The term semi-automatic sounds dangerous because people use it when talking about the AR-15. They alao use it when trying to seperate fully automatic military weapons from civilian models. *Le Sigh* Here is some insight. Semi-automatic means, you pull the trigger, a bullet fires. With a few noteworthy exceptions...That IS EVERY GUN PRODUCED SINCE THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. I know, shouting is a bit rude, but sometimes you have to shout to get a point across. If a gun were more or less dangerous because it was semi-automatic, we'd still be in the dark ages as far as firearms are concerned. By throwing the term around, you're only revealing you know nothing about guns, and thus, need to do some research, and in my opinion, hands on research.

B) The AR-15 is not a machine gun! Suggesting, let alone saying it is, is factually incorrect. Machine guns are fully automatic. You press and hold the trigger, and a lot of bullets come out. Please get this information correct if you are hoping to get somebody who is pro-gun to take you seriously. It is one of the biggest hurdles anti-gun people have. They come to the table and open up all wrong.

C) Here is some insight on the AR-15. It's what the media won't tell you. It is what people on both sides of the gun argument won't tell you. But I will, because I believe in the distribution of correct information. The AR-15 is a civilian variant of the M4, which is the M-16A2's kid sister. Yes. But the M4 was designed from the ground up to replace the AK-47 as the best rifle in the world. It's designed, on purpose, so anybody can pick it up and use it. It doesn't matter if you are tall, short, skinny, fat, strong, weak, left or right handed, out of shape, athletic, a good or bad shot. It has all of those bases covered. It can also cheaply and easily be modified to a specific shooter's tastes. Think about that. It is the perfect tool. It is "the best." I put put it in quotations because I personally prefer the AK-47, but that is just me. The gun has no recoil to speak of. It is highly accurate, easy to use and easy to modify. Knowing that, my question is this. Why would you want to deny someone access to best just because you don't like it? Would you deny a patient the best medicine? A painter the best paint? A farmer the best plow? A kid the best education? Of course not. You want people to have access to the best tools available. Yes, that includes AR-15s to gun owners. So long as guns are legal, so too shall remain the AR-15.

D) The vast majority of gun crime is committed with a handgun. Let's also get that fact straight. I really get annoyed when people want to clump the AR-15 into the group most responsible. The AR-15 is not the big bad wolf.

Taking a break, I'm switching gears. I know I've lost some of the audience already. And honestly, it's kind of sad. I am quite reasonable and do not mind intelligent discussions on this topic.

I am not for more gun legislation. I think it's stupid and a waste of time. We haven't seen anywhere that laws stop criminals from doing what they are going to do anyway. I also am against the thing in Australia about buying back guns and what have you. The reason for this, to be perfectly honest is as follows. "Who are you to tell me I can't have, and subsequently, should sell my gun?" It is not my fault you don't like them. Your personal tragedy has nothing to do with me either. Add to it, I'm not breaking any laws, or causing some sort of fuss that gives you any reason to force me into that position.

What I am for is this.

Unless you have a specific occupation that could require it, such as a bodyguard, or the demolitions expert in a rock quarry, you don't need a machine gun. Ironically, to get one, it's already ridiculously difficult. So what more legislation can you really present that will keep them out of the hands of people already breaking the law? Tell me. I'll entertain it.

I am also for psyche evaluations in addition to the already required background check.

In places where they are not required already, I'm down with fingerprinting / DNA testing.

I'm down with drug testing too. I have to be able to pass a drug test to keep working. I have no problem having to pass drug tests to own and keep a gun.

I also think there should be mandatory training and safety courses. Proper education and all. When I was a kid, I had to pass a hunter's safety course and demonstrate proper knowledge and handling techniques.

And perhaps most importantly, I think... anti-gun, or even, concerned citizens should go get a gun, learn to use it, and become properly educated on the topic at hand so when this sort of debate comes up, it can be done intelligently and reasonably.

I do not think that a shooting, regardless of where and when or how tragic, is ever a time to step up on a soal box and start a gun debate or belittle the people who say something like, "In my prayers." How bad of a person are you for trying to take a tragedy and turn it to your own agenda, or worse, faulting someone not even related to the situation or persons involved for trying to be nice, or at least sympathetic, and barring that, civil and empathetic?

[TheGlyphstone]

While you make cogent arguments...you probably want to define your boundaries of 'gun legislation' better. There's no way to implement any of the solutions you do support without legislation, and the current political climate defines literally any law related to guns as 'gun legislation'.

[Lustful Bride]

There is a lot of mythology going on in this thread, from what I've seen. And I've seen comments from a full ban on the AR-15 (which is absurd) to statements of how if the government went full evil empire there is nothing anyone could do (equally absurd).

I'm not going to call anyone out, but I am going to set some facts straight.

1) The United States has a serious mental health problem. We can blame whatever we want, but ultimately, at the core, people who should be institutionalized walk the streets in record numbers. Statistics do not lie. The majority of these people come from broken, low income homes.

2) There are hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of out of work veterans and retired police officers who would love nothing more than to make 15.00 bucks an hour protecting children...be the kindergarteners or high school seniors. The fact we are not doing this is insulting.

3) Safe, Gun Free zones do not work with a significant population. If say, just 1 in 10 is a bad apple, then 10 in 100 is logical. Now raise that population to 274,812. Do some math. How many bad apples do you have?

4) The idea that other countries are doing something right and the United States is doing something wrong because "gun crime" is also a myth. It isn't a lack of crime these places have. It is a lack of population and different definitions of what constitutes crime. The U.K. for example, has far more deaths by baseball bat and stabbing.

5) Gun violence statistics in the United States are inflated by leftist sleight of hand. The defender shooting the attacker is added to that list, but the situation needs to be detailed. It isn't all or nothing. Context and circumstance matters.

6) Tragedies happen. Yes. They are terrible. But they've also been happening since the dawn of time. Why is one tragedy any worse than another?

7) I know it's been said before, and it sounds like a broken record, but it is no less true and no amount of grandstanding will change it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. This is important because it is a lead in for what follows.

As we can see, I have not said anything one way or another about anyone else or their statements. I have not said what I think is appropriate or not. I have only stated actual facts. Some of my points might be a little colored by personal opinion, but I would like to think most of us can find some common ground there regardless of our personal beliefs. It is important, because I am about to ruffle a few feathers, I think.

A) The term semi-automatic sounds dangerous because people use it when talking about the AR-15. They alao use it when trying to seperate fully automatic military weapons from civilian models. *Le Sigh* Here is some insight. Semi-automatic means, you pull the trigger, a bullet fires. With a few noteworthy exceptions...That IS EVERY GUN PRODUCED SINCE THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. I know, shouting is a bit rude, but sometimes you have to shout to get a point across. If a gun were more or less dangerous because it was semi-automatic, we'd still be in the dark ages as far as firearms are concerned. By throwing the term around, you're only revealing you know nothing about guns, and thus, need to do some research, and in my opinion, hands on research.

B) The AR-15 is not a machine gun! Suggesting, let alone saying it is, is factually incorrect. Machine guns are fully automatic. You press and hold the trigger, and a lot of bullets come out. Please get this information correct if you are hoping to get somebody who is pro-gun to take you seriously. It is one of the biggest hurdles anti-gun people have. They come to the table and open up all wrong.

C) Here is some insight on the AR-15. It's what the media won't tell you. It is what people on both sides of the gun argument won't tell you. But I will, because I believe in the distribution of correct information. The AR-15 is a civilian variant of the M4, which is the M-16A2's kid sister. Yes. But the M4 was designed from the ground up to replace the AK-47 as the best rifle in the world. It's designed, on purpose, so anybody can pick it up and use it. It doesn't matter if you are tall, short, skinny, fat, strong, weak, left or right handed, out of shape, athletic, a good or bad shot. It has all of those bases covered. It can also cheaply and easily be modified to a specific shooter's tastes. Think about that. It is the perfect tool. It is "the best." I put put it in quotations because I personally prefer the AK-47, but that is just me. The gun has no recoil to speak of. It is highly accurate, easy to use and easy to modify. Knowing that, my question is this. Why would you want to deny someone access to best just because you don't like it? Would you deny a patient the best medicine? A painter the best paint? A farmer the best plow? A kid the best education? Of course not. You want people to have access to the best tools available. Yes, that includes AR-15s to gun owners. So long as guns are legal, so too shall remain the AR-15.

D) The vast majority of gun crime is committed with a handgun. Let's also get that fact straight. I really get annoyed when people want to clump the AR-15 into the group most responsible. The AR-15 is not the big bad wolf.

Taking a break, I'm switching gears. I know I've lost some of the audience already. And honestly, it's kind of sad. I am quite reasonable and do not mind intelligent discussions on this topic.

I am not for more gun legislation. I think it's stupid and a waste of time. We haven't seen anywhere that laws stop criminals from doing what they are going to do anyway. I also am against the thing in Australia about buying back guns and what have you. The reason for this, to be perfectly honest is as follows. "Who are you to tell me I can't have, and subsequently, should sell my gun?" It is not my fault you don't like them. Your personal tragedy has nothing to do with me either. Add to it, I'm not breaking any laws, or causing some sort of fuss that gives you any reason to force me into that position.

What I am for is this.

Unless you have a specific occupation that could require it, such as a bodyguard, or the demolitions expert in a rock quarry, you don't need a machine gun. Ironically, to get one, it's already ridiculously difficult. So what more legislation can you really present that will keep them out of the hands of people already breaking the law? Tell me. I'll entertain it.

I am also for psyche evaluations in addition to the already required background check.

In places where they are not required already, I'm down with fingerprinting / DNA testing.

I'm down with drug testing too. I have to be able to pass a drug test to keep working. I have no problem having to pass drug tests to own and keep a gun.

I also think there should be mandatory training and safety courses. Proper education and all. When I was a kid, I had to pass a hunter's safety course and demonstrate proper knowledge and handling techniques.

And perhaps most importantly, I think... anti-gun, or even, concerned citizens should go get a gun, learn to use it, and become properly educated on the topic at hand so when this sort of debate comes up, it can be done intelligently and reasonably.

I do not think that a shooting, regardless of where and when or how tragic, is ever a time to step up on a soal box and start a gun debate or belittle the people who say something like, "In my prayers." How bad of a person are you for trying to take a tragedy and turn it to your own agenda, or worse, faulting someone not even related to the situation or persons involved for trying to be nice, or at least sympathetic, and barring that, civil and empathetic?

WHile I can agree with some of the points made here, I also say that we should hit this problem with a one two punch. Try to fix Mental Health but also guns.

I love guns, I love my Ruger mini 14 and Sig Sauer, but at what point do we become the problem? Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the greater good, and if it means giving up certain types of weapons then I am for it. We cant be sticks int he mood, refusing to change while bodies pile up.

[Deamonbane]

Yes there is a major issue with mental health in the US, but it is unrelated to the gun violence problem. Statistically speaking, the mentally ill tend to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators.

Source: https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Public-Policy/Violence-and-Gun-Reporting-Laws

That said, a lot of good can come from a better health care system with a focus on mental health. However, the current administration would disagree. I'd source that, but that's something you can do for yourself, I think.

Secondly, I find that the very common argument 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is flawed at best. For a simplistic analogy, let's say you want to travel from New York to Los Angeles. Sure, you can walk there, but wouldn't it be a lot easier if you had a car to drive there? Or maybe a plane? Yes, violence isn't exclusive to firearms, but I very much doubt that your average mass murderer would be able to go through 10+ people with a knife or a baseball bat.

Bonus point: Nobody with any idea about anything is saying that an AR-15 is a machine-gun. It's not even an assault rifle, at least in it's commercially available form. It's still a good deal more dangerous to handle than your average handgun or hunting rifle.

My closing argument has something to do that a friend of mine shared with me a while ago and still feels very relevant, and it's a question: What do you want a firearm for? If all you want one for is for hunting, or maybe taking it out onto the range, you shouldn't have any problem with tighter regulations since all you're going to go for is shotguns and hunting rifles. Having a handgun for self-defense is an acceptable response if a little dubious in terms of effectiveness. By the very same argument (guns don't kill people, people kill people) you can protect yourself in a much safer way with a knife or a baseball bat. What do you need an AR-15 for again?

I would like to point out as well, that while yes, tragedies have been happening since the dawn of time, but the fact that the same tragedy keeps happening over and over - with nothing but thoughts and prayers offered in response, while any attempt to address the issue is quickly shut down either over the budget (Hiring security for schools, mental health concerns) or second amendment rights - is incredibly disheartening. I mean... one shoe bombing attempt was enough to make sure that anyone boarding planes has to take their shoes off. Nobody had to die for us to not be able to take liquids onto planes. Both examples inconveniences, but are tolerated for the safety of the general populace.

Not only are your views on tragedies bordering on nihilistic, they are incredibly callous and unsympathetic. You do have to ask yourself if you would feel the same way if you or someone you loved were the ones being shot at in Vegas or Parkland?

[Lustful Bride]

Bonus point: Nobody with any idea about anything is saying that an AR-15 is a machine-gun. It's not even an assault rifle, at least in it's commercially available form. It's still a good deal more dangerous to handle than your average handgun or hunting rifle.

Actually the OP post in the beginning did confuse rifle for Machine gun :/

[Deamonbane]

Sorry for the double post, but there are a few edits that I'd like to make to the above post.

One in particular, in bold below

Yes there is a major issue with mental health in the US, but it is For the most part unrelated to the gun violence problem. Statistically speaking, the mentally ill tend to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators.

The original broad-strokes statement was inaccurate.

[Deamonbane]

Actually the OP post in the beginning did confuse rifle for Machine gun :/

Duly noted. Thanks for pointing that out. :)

[Iniquitous]

The only thing I am going to inject here is this...

Why is this - this gun discussion - boiling down to left or right?  What's more important is the fact that we have children that are dying while trying to get an education! We have children who are terrified to go to school because they might end up dead while there! I have a friend whose daughter is worried that there are too many windows in her school for crying out loud!

I support the second amendment, but I also believe there IS a very big problem that needs to be addressed. And for every person thinking the government is coming for your guns now... what the hell do you think is going to happen when this generation that has been raised with the terror of mass school shootings comes to power? Your guns? Bye bye.

[Oniya]

Frankly, I'd be quite down with the suggestions that THH makes at the end of his post - although as Glyph says, it would require legislation that seems to be difficult to get the legislators to even entertain. 

I would like to know how many mass killings have been committed with baseball bats and/or hand-held bladed weapons?  For sake of argument, defining 'mass killing' as a dozen or more victims in a single incident.