Nashville School Shooting

[John Smith]

The best time to plant a tree is yesterday. The second best time is today. Unfortunately it is hard to implement 20 year solution plans when we operate on a 4 year election cycle.

"Hard" is an understatement.

[Ralphie Boy]

I'm not sure there is a solution. It would have to include a SERIOUS buy back program. If no new guns were sold beginning tomorrow, what would change?

I don’t think an absolute ban on gun sales would ever pass, but I would support it if it were proposed. I think a better (more achievable) solution would be a tiered Licensing system, where more deadly weapons would require greater training/insurance/inspection, etc. That being said, I always despair when someone asks your question, it is such a talking point for the pro-gun lobby: “There are so many guns out there, what can we do?” The answer to your question is that if we were to stop selling guns today, it will remove the guns from many future shooters! It won’t stop all shootings of course, but does that mean we shouldn’t do anything?

[John Meachen]

Rep. Andy Ogles, a first-term Republican who represents the Nashville districtOgles said he was "devastated" by the shooting.

"We are sending our thoughts and prayers to the families of those lost," Ogles said. "As a father of three, I am utterly heartbroken by this senseless act of violence."

Has he noticed how effective all the thinking and praying since Sandy Hook has been?

[George Jung]

guns are the rips 'dog whistle'. we, and everyone else, have the same discussion, the same arguments, the same 'recommendations' after every shooting - with yet no recourse in sight.

'We' let 'perfect' be the enemy of 'it's a good start'. Alan, Bob and others echo that, as well.

And 'we' will get meaningful change only when 'we' decide we really want it. We're not there.

[Peerie Maa]

I don’t think an absolute ban on gun sales would ever pass, but I would support it if it were proposed. I think a better (more achievable) solution would be a tiered Licensing system, where more deadly weapons would require greater training/insurance/inspection, etc. That being said, I always despair when someone asks your question, it is such a talking point for the pro-gun lobby: “There are so many guns out there, what can we do?” The answer to your question is that if we were to stop selling guns today, it will remove the guns from many future shooters! It won’t stop all shootings of course, but does that mean we shouldn’t do anything?

You do not need an absolute ban. It is about licencing those with a justifiable need and managing the gun ownership. That and the US of A deciding on mass that the killing must stop.

[skuthorp]

When enough of your elected 'representatives' are mercenaries in the employ of the gun lobby it's not likely to happen. The death toll is acceptable to them.
Follow the money

[George Jung]

Yep. *If only* we had a mechanism.... I dunno, voting responsibly or something.... to hold them accountable. If only.

I'm seeing a weak link in the chain.

[Bob Adams]

So give us an alternative, Bob. You want a whisper campaign? I got flooded with texts and emails from friends who are angry and writing their politicians. Would that happen without the news sources? If we are losing the fight, then we aren't fighting hard enough. It isn't the news that's doing it to us. We have a radicalized minority that vote on single issues and one of those issues is guns. That's why we are losing.

I did, something relatively painless. I didn't say eliminate the news, just make the name of these perps illegal to publicize. Take the "fame" out of it. Face it, the guns are not going to disappear. Very simple, you shoot up a school, a night club, a church, etc. you will not become famous.

[Ralphie Boy]

You do not need an absolute ban. It is about licencing those with a justifiable need and managing the gun ownership. That and the US of A deciding on mass that the killing must stop.

I think that’s what I said.

[CWSmith]

'We' let 'perfect' be the enemy of 'it's a good start'.

I absolutely agree with this.

I did, something relatively painless. I didn't say eliminate the news, just make the name of these perps illegal to publicize. Take the "fame" out of it. Face it, the guns are not going to disappear. Very simple, you shoot up a school, a night club, a church, etc. you will not become famous.

I missed this statement. Sorry. Yes, I do agree with this. I want them to be forgotten by humanity, their name never to be mentioned again.

[John Smith]

I don’t think an absolute ban on gun sales would ever pass, but I would support it if it were proposed. I think a better (more achievable) solution would be a tiered Licensing system, where more deadly weapons would require greater training/insurance/inspection, etc. That being said, I always despair when someone asks your question, it is such a talking point for the pro-gun lobby: “There are so many guns out there, what can we do?” The answer to your question is that if we were to stop selling guns today, it will remove the guns from many future shooters! It won’t stop all shootings of course, but does that mean we shouldn’t do anything?

Gun owners may die of old age; their guns won't.

I've gotten very little support for a simple bullet tax to pay for medical/funeral costs for gunshot victims. That seems a very minimal thing to do. Maybe if gun owners got tired of the tax they'd help do something to cut down on gunshot victims.

[John Smith]

You do not need an absolute ban. It is about licencing those with a justifiable need and managing the gun ownership. That and the US of A deciding on mass that the killing must stop.

The present level of violence is being done with guns already sold. Unless we address that, nothing will do much good.

[Peerie Maa]

The present level of violence is being done with guns already sold. Unless we address that, nothing will do much good.

What part of

It is about licencing those with a justifiable need and managing the gun ownership.

flew right past you?

[TerryLL]

It is about licencing those with a justifiable need and managing the gun ownership.

There is an obstacle to any sort of management of gun ownership.

18 U.S.C § 926 prohibits the ATF from creating and/or maintaining a firearm registry.

[LeeG]

How has that worked out? The guns are not going away, what's wrong with trying another approach? Won't do anything about the drug and gang related shootings but it might help kids be safer in school.

Alcohol and alcoholics didn’t go away but somehow drunk driving declined. Maybe there’s a middle ground between zero and 400 million firearms that reflects a change in gun use.

[McMike]

just treat the mentally ill and quit pretending they're fine.

Who's going to pay for that?

[Peerie Maa]

just treat the mentally ill and quit pretending they're fine.

So you want to screen every US citizen for mental health and anger management issues.

What is the current population of the US?

How does that sit with FREEDOM?

[CWSmith]

Alcohol and alcoholics didn’t go away but somehow drunk driving declined. Maybe there’s a middle ground between zero and 400 million firearms that reflects a change in gun use.

I agree with you, but the people who go into schools and such to kill expect to die. Drunks don't. I'm not sure that punishment works on those intending suicide. Still, you point is good and it may help to reduce the number of "routine" crimes with guns like robberies, breaking & entering, etc.

[McMike]

SO, this is the frustrating thing, as is all the useless BS in this thread that has absolutely no chance of happening. If Biden found this topic to be the utmost of priority, and he should, he would take the time to speak accurately about it, or he'd have an advisor who could. Nether "long gun" was an AK47, a well known "assault rifle". One was a pistol caliber carbine of some kind, a Kel-Tec like gun, and the other was an AR style rifle, and there was a S&W Shield, a pistol.

Also, Since 1982, barely 30% of the mass shootings were committed with rifles, rifles in the broad definition and not "assault rifles".

An assault rifle ban would do nothing to curb these incidence. Not a fu34ing thing.

So, ask yourself why Biden and the Democrats at large are so grossly ill-informed. I can think of one reason; they don't really care about this issue, other than for the reason that this fires up the base. If they cared, it would be all about handguns and they would be laser sharp about the facts. He lost all credibility with me on this issue.

But hey, since the Republicans are traitors, we get to vote for incompitence yet again. And kids will continue to die.

Oh, we had a violent insurrection more than two years ago, and the ring leaders are still walking free. Big fail, when we have a major national election in less than two years. We voted for Biden to buy time for the legal process to work . . . it's not working. If these terrorists were brown skinned, they'd be sitting in GITMO right now or dead.

[John Smith]

What part of flew right past you?

I think it's you something flew past. All these shootings are being done with guns already sold. Nothing involving new gun purchases will impact this.

If we don't do something about guns already in the hands of the public, we've already lost this war. All these guns, already sold, will be operational for a very long time. They can be passed on to people not yet born.

Unless we address this, we're wasting our energy.

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...to-human-body/

If you can't read this article because of a paywall....well I guess count yourself lucky it's a grizzly article.

THE BLAST EFFECT

This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart

[L.A Marche]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...to-human-body/

If you can't read this article because of a paywall....well I guess count yourself lucky it's a grizzly article.

THE BLAST EFFECT

This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart

Every voter should have to watch that before the next election.

[Hallam]

[CWSmith]

Most gun deaths are caused by handguns. So, you are right. We should eliminate all hand guns and all guns with a magazine since it's too easy to get a bigger magazine. If we only have long rifles with single-shot bolt action, or two-shot shotguns, that cannot be made to fire more shots without reloading, we could make some progress.

SO, this is the frustrating thing, as is all the useless BS in this thread that has absolutely no chance of happening. If Biden found this topic to be the utmost of priority, and he should, he would take the time to speak accurately about it, or he'd have an advisor who could. Nether "long gun" was an AK47, a well known "assault rifle". One was a pistol caliber carbine of some kind, a Kel-Tec like gun, and the other was an AR style rifle, and there was a S&W Shield, a pistol.

Also, Since 1982, barely 30% of the mass shootings were committed with rifles, rifles in the broad definition and not "assault rifles".

An assault rifle ban would do nothing to curb these incidence. Not a fu34ing thing.

So, ask yourself why Biden and the Democrats at large are so grossly ill-informed. I can think of one reason; they don't really care about this issue, other than for the reason that this fires up the base. If they cared, it would be all about handguns and they would be laser sharp about the facts. He lost all credibility with me on this issue.

But hey, since the Republicans are traitors, we get to vote for incompitence yet again. And kids will continue to die.

Oh, we had a violent insurrection more than two years ago, and the ring leaders are still walking free. Big fail, when we have a major national election in less than two years. We voted for Biden to buy time for the legal process to work . . . it's not working. If these terrorists were brown skinned, they'd be sitting in GITMO right now or dead.

[AndyG]

Washington Post article.

^ Excellent. Not excellent.

[McMike]

Most gun deaths are caused by handguns. So, you are right. We should eliminate all hand guns and all guns with a magazine since it's too easy to get a bigger magazine. If we only have long rifles with single-shot bolt action, or two-shot shotguns, that cannot be made to fire more shots without reloading, we could make some progress.

I'm sorry, but gun bans are far past the point of being a reality any time soon. Even if Biden did an EO, it would never go further than banning new production and "pre-bans" will still be in circulation. My point was simple. If the Dems wanted to make a compelling argument they would. . . They don't want to, or recognize they can't, change gun law. Again, if they did, they'd focus on the mass shootings that happen in the inner cities every day that kill brown people. They'd focus on handguns.

[McMike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...to-human-body/

If you can't read this article because of a paywall....well I guess count yourself lucky it's a grizzly article.

THE BLAST EFFECT

This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart

I had a hard time watching that.

However, what do you thin firearms were designed to do? Now do a shotgun blast, a class of firearm that is not on the chopping block. Or a 9mm. . . This focus on ARs is ignorant crap. Guns, all guns, are designed to destroy flesh, bone, and organ. Now, find me the possible in solving this.

[CWSmith]

I'm sorry, but gun bans are far past the point of being a reality any time soon. Even if Biden did an EO, it would never go further than banning new production and "pre-bans" will still be in circulation. My point was simple. If the Dems wanted to make a compelling argument they would. . . They don't want to, or recognize they can't, change gun law. Again, if they did, they'd focus on the mass shootings that happen in the inner cities every day that kill brown people. They'd focus on handguns.

"Anytime soon" is an excuse to do nothing. It took time to build up this arsenal we now have and it will take longer to get rid of it. The only guarantee is that if we do nothing, nothing will change.

If Biden can't do more with an EO, then we need to do more with an act of Congress. That means getting out the vote. It will be hard, but we have to do it.

Democrats are making the argument, but they are not willing because red states keep believing the lies they are told.

I am 100% certain that Democrats would vote to outlaw handguns if they could get the votes.

You are making excuses and putting the blame on the group that is trying to do something.

[skuthorp]

The country is stuffed, but its the adults who vote these mercenaries in. Sad about the dead kids but that is obviously an acceptable price fr those legislators and their supporters. And of course the gun makers and sellers have no qualms at all.

[Paul Pless]

I'm sorry, but gun bans are far past the point of being a reality any time soon. Even if Biden did an EO, it would never go further than banning new production and "pre-bans" will still be in circulation. My point was simple. If the Dems wanted to make a compelling argument they would. . . They don't want to, or recognize they can't, change gun law.

liberals suck

[McMike]

"Anytime soon" is an excuse to do nothing. It took time to build up this arsenal we now have and it will take longer to get rid of it. The only guarantee is that if we do nothing, nothing will change.

If Biden can't do more with an EO, then we need to do more with an act of Congress. That means getting out the vote. It will be hard, but we have to do it.

Democrats are making the argument, but they are not willing because red states keep believing the lies they are told.

I am 100% certain that Democrats would vote to outlaw handguns if they could get the votes.

You are making excuses and putting the blame on the group that is trying to do something.

Then give me a path smart man. All I see is a hyper conservative SCOTUS, an enshrined right, more than half the states that will never vote for a the 2nd to be stricken or amended, and more guns than people in a country that is more divided than it has been since the Civil war that saw 2.5% of the US population dead by its end. If that had been today, that would be over 7 million people dead. LOL, you tell me the means by which we as a nation do anything meaningful about guns.

If the Dems are trying to do anything, they suck giant moose wang at it. This should be their job, people are being killed daily, they treat it like a playground argument . . . that tells me all I need to know about how motivated they are.

[Paul Pless]

Again, if they did, they'd focus on the mass shootings that happen in the inner cities every day that kill brown people. They'd focus on handguns.

if you think gun control itself is untenable to republicans and half the white people in america, the fix for minority inner city violence is a pipe dream fantasy to end all pipe dreams

[McMike]

if you think gun control itself is untenable to republicans and half the white people in america, the fix for minority inner city violence is a pipe dream fantasy to end all pipe dreams

Paul, it's all a pipe dream. I'm only speaking to the intent of the Dems, which is blindingly bu77sh17.

[CWSmith]

Then give me a path smart man.

Wow. You turn snarky as soon as someone disagrees with you.

All I see is a hyper conservative SCOTUS, an enshrined right, more than half the states that will never vote for a the 2nd to be stricken or amended, and more guns than people in a country that is more divided than it has been since the Civil war that saw 2.5% of the US population dead by its end. If that had been today, that would be over 7 million people dead. LOL, you tell me the means by which we as a nation do anything meaningful about guns.

Who's talking civil war? I'm talking about meaningful legislation, recognizing that some types of guns do not need to exist, and creating the slow change necessary to enact and enforce those laws. This problem was created overnight and it won't be solved any faster.

If the Dems are trying to do anything, they suck giant moose wang at it. This should be their job, people are being killed daily, they treat it like a playground argument . . . that tells me all I need to know about how motivated they are.

Comments like "suck giant moose wang" is a very good indicator that a person doesn't have a valid argument.

People are getting killed daily because the politicians owned by the gun lobby (mostly Republican because they need BIG money donors to get elected) block every attempt at new legislation. Blaming the Democrats because they don't pass legislation that the Republicans block is not a very credible argument.

[McMike]

Wow. You turn snarky as soon as someone disagrees with you.



Who's talking civil war? I'm talking about meaningful legislation, recognizing that some types of guns do not need to exist, and creating the slow change necessary to enact and enforce those laws. This problem was created overnight and it won't be solved any faster.



Comments like "suck giant moose wang" is a very good indicator that a person doesn't have a valid argument.

People are getting killed daily because the politicians owned by the gun lobby (mostly Republican because they need BIG money donors to get elected) block every attempt at new legislation. Blaming the Democrats because they don't pass legislation that the Republicans block is not a very credible argument.

My point was to paint a straight and clear line to how divided we are and to emphasize the level of that division. Which has a direct correlation to anything getting done on a national level. I thought you were an educator, I don't understand why I have to set up a paint by numbers scenario for you to understand this.

As for my colorful language, grow up. That's exactly what the dems are doing in regard to this and many other subjects. If you knew anything about this subject, you'd agree, but sadly all you have to add about it is chastising my about my language . . . JFC . . . enter the real world at least once in your life, this isn't a classroom, it's a digital pub FFS.

So . . . give me the path to any sort of gun control . . . I doubt you can and it looks like you'll avoid the question like the plague. So, the real answer is there is no path . . . not for a long time and especially not when the party that's supposed to fight for it can't be bothered to educate themselves on the subject.