Go

drwho, your lack of empathy is somewhat troubling. Of course they should be heard. That's the whole point, they should not only be heard, their wishes should be acted upon. The loss of your right to buy an assault rifle and even your outdated and needing to be amended 2nd amendment rights should pale into insignificance to the right of innocent teenagers to not lose their lives. It's time you all woke up to that fact. My thoughts will always be with them.

start

Done

ding

Done.

aka Sensible Phil

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Why are there no rallies to take away automobiles or other weapons after they are used to take lives? The reason is because it is not about gun control but just control. The useful idiots on the left are either scared of guns (most without ever having been near one) or believe they are morally superior and should get the right to dictate to others about guns.

Blame the person, not the tool. We don't blame pencils for bad grades in schools or shovels for not digging a hole autonomously...why blame the gun. It can do nothing but sit there and collect rust without a person to wield it.

done

Done

You seem to see the gun debate in such a binary perspective. It's not about 100% blaming guns and taking them all away (Seriously I understand why people like guns, I do too). We need to look at both mental health issues and where guns are going. The argument of gun control is about making sure guns are only in the right hands, which also means trying to figure out how we can detect troubled individuals, and how we can stop them from gaining access to guns. Your example of automobiles is actually perfect, since people need to get tested and licensed by the government in order to get permission to drive a car! In way that's automobile control. We just think it should be harder for bad people to acquire guns, just like we don't want terrible or completely inexperienced drivers on the road. And so yes, it is about control, and there does need to be authority over who can have guns. If you're a responsible gun owner, there's no reason to complain! Licensed drivers don't complain about getting their license. Now no one loves the DMV, but we I think we can appreciate that it is necessary. It's society sacrificing a bit of freedom for the safety of society. Government is about finding that perfect balance, which is never black and white, but always somewhere in the middle

Ya, right, Shibooya. Try and cloud the issue with common sense.

dr who - fyi, surviving a train wreck has indeed made me a bit more aware of the problems with trains. It was a horrific event. It has not made me a 'train wreck expert' by any means, but it has given me perspective in how to prioritize certain things. Amcrash has that nic for a reason - why would it take over 2 hours to get help, even by chopper help ought to have arrived sooner. Seatbelts - I don't take them so lightly anymore. So, yes, having been in a traumatic situation does give people better insights than those 'less fortunate.' Take my parents for example, who had to fight all through WWII - kill people, be tortured, the horrors are endless: any surprise I'm a huge dove? Nope. Trans-Generational PTSD Sufferer? Big time!

I'm gonna add my 2 bits to the gun thing. I used to shoot, targets, for fun. I was taught by my college boyfriend, who learned while he was in the army. So, I got the army training, which is how it ought to be: Learn the parts of the gun, take it apart, clean it, put it back together, do that blindfolded a hundred times, then & only then think about going to the range. The #1 Rule of Gun Safety is this: NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANY OBJECT YOU DO NOT FULLY INTEND TO SHOOT. Oh, that sounds so easy, and sure makes a lot of common sense. But even after shooting thousands of rounds, after months or even years, most people (because they're human, after all), full well knowing their gun is totally empty, they WILL point that gun at another person, in jest. Cause that's how some of us are. When I did that, about 6 months into my shooting days, I saw a side of my BF I never saw before or after - this man literally 'dressed me down.' And he did a great job. In the armed forces, they expect idiots like us to make mistakes like this, that's why they come down so very hard. In the regular world, there are no such people, to put you back in line. A gun is a useful tool, it has a purpose. At some point, people decided that purpose could include amusement - those people were stupid. As I said, my parents survived a huge war, guns were necessary. They are not now. I no longer shoot, but if I did, I would turn my gear in to help make the point. Life is sacred. Guns are just pieces of shit.

kaos you are right guns do not kill people. Bullets ripping through people kill people. So let's limit the number of bullets that can be fired before reloading. Simple.

Phil, your total lack of thought on this subject is disturbing. Like a lot of people you just emote about this subject. If a solution makes you feel good, great, never mind the results.

Helen, you did get my point that formulating a solution on the emotional responses of traumatized teenagers is stupid, right?

Not only stupid, but those insisting on it are cynical and dishonest.

Kaosangel is correct. According to the CDC "As a category of accidents, motor vehicle fatality is the leading cause of death to teenagers, representing over one-third of all deaths." So let's ban cars. Using Tuco's "logic" cars don't kill people but 3000 pounds of steel ramming their body does. So let's ban steel too.

And by the way, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right.

KnightTime my "logic" didn't include banning guns. Your "logic" falsely made that leap. We have made cars safer without banning steel. More plastic is used in cars today. My point was bullets kill people so lets reduce the number of bullets that can be shot from a gun before reloading.

The good news here is that KnightTime, drwho, and their ilk represent a shrinking minority in the U.S.

Unfortunately they are still in power. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/201\n6/08/11/travel-warnings-united-states/8845823\n8/

And they lie. https://psmag.com/news/assault-weapons-ban-de\ncreases-school-shooting-deaths

done

drwho - Clearly you didn't understand what I was talking about when I mentioned Trans-Generational PTSD. You are wrong. The (possible) victims are the ones who have the clearest and best vantage point. And yes, this is a hugely emotional issue on both sides, let's never ignore the emotion.

This is a cancer from within killing our country. Why even have all these troops stationed overseas? Our enemy is within. I know Poland sure doesn't need 4000 troops on it's eastern border - what the heck are they going to do if Russia decides to roll in again? What an enormous waste!

KnightTime you ought to research your rights a little better. From a summary of D.C. V. Heller In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.

According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

4 and 5 below is why the NRA never fought the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 in the courts. They knew they would lose and decided to wait it out. Also this is why the SAFE act in NY and other state gun control laws are not unconstitutional.

Lastly I am insulted that drwho would make the following statement. "Helen, you did get my point that formulating a solution on the emotional responses of traumatized teenagers is stupid, right?" So I guess MADD should never have been taken seriously because the mothers traumatized by the death of their child at the hands of a drunk call for tougher laws was stupid. "Helen, you did get my point that formulating a solution on the emotional responses of traumatized teenagers is stupid, right?" That sentence and sentiment is the reason why people feel the way they do about the NRA and the Right. Not why Dana Loesch, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News says. It is the Right who has lost their mind about guns. And as I said before. It will be the Right and the NRA's inability to compromise that will result in tighter gun control.