Want gun control? Fight smart.

[Eaglewings]

WRONG! The FBI does not legislate.....welfare workers do not legislate....it takes the gov't to legislate mental illness as a reason to deny their gun purchase.

Jesus.. my point was, he was evaluated and he was deemed perfectly fine and not a danger to the public.
Some Mental illness IS a reason.. WTF are you talking about?

He was cleared by a Social worker Harley.. who probably has 0 training with someone who has schizophrenia ..

Another slip through the cracks.. He should have been forced to see a physiatrist.

.

Who should have forced him? The FBI?
Your entire post is based on assumption. If you want to have a real discussion with me about guns, try to stick to reality.
People want the federal authorities to have unlimited power even though they FAIL EVERY DAMN DAY
Remember the texas shooting a year or so back? Whos fault was he was able to buy a gun? The Fucking Federal Govt.

Yes, the laws already inplace should be mandatory for the law makers.. they let so many things slide.

This shooter was already forced to see a Social Worker, he was cutting himself on social media he should have been forced to see someone who understands mental illness.

.

How do you know that person wasnt? AGAIN, if you want a real discussion, stick to reality.
I am sure the FBI dont know how to do their jobs either..
Someone cutting themselves shouldnt be able to buy a gun because they are nuts.
Our govt FAILS CONSTANTLY and retards want to give them unlimited power. The ignorance is appalling and embarrassing

Obviously you do not understand mental illness ..I have been trained in it..so stop with your knowing so much..I am done after this post with you..

Cutting yourself is an addiction, people cut themselves continuously to relieve pain much like drugs and drinking..

He was cutting himself on social media, and a social worker was sent out..who had little training in mental illness.

If she/he saw the signs the authorities would have been alerted..the FBI was alerted and he feel through the cracks there too.

 

[Compost]

Which AR-15 Can You Hunt With?

You realize, of course, that hunting has frak all to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Try reading all of the remarks. I'm responding to OP's assertion that nobody hunts with an AR15.

The general response is, yes, you can hunt with an AR15, but as we get talking, no one I've talked to actually uses one for hunting. That is all I'm saying.

Yes. A tiny number of hunters you spoke with don't happen to choose an AR15 to hunt with means pretty much nothing.

 

[TNHarley]

They are rifles. Maybe what you should have said was "ban the ar15"
He would have just used another gun. SO, what law would have stopped him from shooting up the school?

What law prevents you from beating up someone?

No law prevents that. Im not in to hurting people.

Exactly.

We need a culture shift so that this kid

a. wasn’t in to hurting people in the first place
b. was recognized as someone who wanted to hurt people, and given psychiatric help
c. was deprived of the tools to hurt the most people in the least amount of time

I agree we need a culture shift.
He was recognized but the state and federal authorities said he was fine. So how do you go beyond that?
C is just a big ball of ignorance. What about a hand gun? Know how long it takes to change a magazine? About 3 seconds if you are slow. So you want to ban hand guns too? What about shotguns? You can blow away 5 people with one shell. Ban them too?
The only way banning guns would help curb shootings is to ban all of them. Good luck with that!

So you throw up your hands and say, “there’s nothing we can do! It’s all hopeless!” But at the same time, blame the liberals somehow.

I got it.

Thats not what i did at all, actually.
I didnt blame "liberals" hell woman, there are like 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would i blame them?

 

[TNHarley]

Jesus.. my point was, he was evaluated and he was deemed perfectly fine and not a danger to the public.
Some Mental illness IS a reason.. WTF are you talking about?

He was cleared by a Social worker Harley.. who probably has 0 training with someone who has schizophrenia ..

Another slip through the cracks.. He should have been forced to see a physiatrist.

.

Who should have forced him? The FBI?
Your entire post is based on assumption. If you want to have a real discussion with me about guns, try to stick to reality.
People want the federal authorities to have unlimited power even though they FAIL EVERY DAMN DAY
Remember the texas shooting a year or so back? Whos fault was he was able to buy a gun? The Fucking Federal Govt.

Yes, the laws already inplace should be mandatory for the law makers.. they let so many things slide.

This shooter was already forced to see a Social Worker, he was cutting himself on social media he should have been forced to see someone who understands mental illness.

.

How do you know that person wasnt? AGAIN, if you want a real discussion, stick to reality.
I am sure the FBI dont know how to do their jobs either..
Someone cutting themselves shouldnt be able to buy a gun because they are nuts.
Our govt FAILS CONSTANTLY and retards want to give them unlimited power. The ignorance is appalling and embarrassing

Obviously you do not understand mental illness ..I have been trained in it..so stop with your knowing so much..I am done after this post with you..

Cutting yourself is an addiction, people cut themselves continuously to relieve pain much like drugs and drinking..

He was cutting himself on social media, and a social worker was sent out..who had little training in mental illness.

If she/he saw the signs the authorities would have been alerted..the FBI was alerted and he feel through the cracks there too.

Please link to how you know she wasnt trained properly to notice mental illness.
Or be quit.

 

[TNHarley]

Which AR-15 Can You Hunt With?

You realize, of course, that hunting has frak all to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Try reading all of the remarks. I'm responding to OP's assertion that nobody hunts with an AR15.

The general response is, yes, you can hunt with an AR15, but as we get talking, no one I've talked to actually uses one for hunting. That is all I'm saying.

Yes. A tiny number of hunters you spoke with don't happen to choose an AR15 to hunt with means pretty much nothing.

To be fair, there isnt much logic at all being applied to the gun debate.

 

[ricechickie]

What law prevents you from beating up someone?

No law prevents that. Im not in to hurting people.

Exactly.

We need a culture shift so that this kid

a. wasn’t in to hurting people in the first place
b. was recognized as someone who wanted to hurt people, and given psychiatric help
c. was deprived of the tools to hurt the most people in the least amount of time

I agree we need a culture shift.
He was recognized but the state and federal authorities said he was fine. So how do you go beyond that?
C is just a big ball of ignorance. What about a hand gun? Know how long it takes to change a magazine? About 3 seconds if you are slow. So you want to ban hand guns too? What about shotguns? You can blow away 5 people with one shell. Ban them too?
The only way banning guns would help curb shootings is to ban all of them. Good luck with that!

So you throw up your hands and say, “there’s nothing we can do! It’s all hopeless!” But at the same time, blame the liberals somehow.

I got it.

Thats not what i did at all, actually.
I didnt blame "liberals" hell woman, there are like 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would i blame them?

You throw up your hands and claim there’s nothing.

You don’t find a way to blame liberals.

You leave that to others.

 

[Compost]

Which AR-15 Can You Hunt With?

You realize, of course, that hunting has frak all to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Try reading all of the remarks. I'm responding to OP's assertion that nobody hunts with an AR15.

The general response is, yes, you can hunt with an AR15, but as we get talking, no one I've talked to actually uses one for hunting. That is all I'm saying.

Yes. A tiny number of hunters you spoke with don't happen to choose an AR15 to hunt with means pretty much nothing.

To be fair, there isnt much logic at all being applied to the gun debate.

That's why we need Old Lady's smart fighting workshops!

 

[TNHarley]

No law prevents that. Im not in to hurting people.

Exactly.

We need a culture shift so that this kid

a. wasn’t in to hurting people in the first place
b. was recognized as someone who wanted to hurt people, and given psychiatric help
c. was deprived of the tools to hurt the most people in the least amount of time

I agree we need a culture shift.
He was recognized but the state and federal authorities said he was fine. So how do you go beyond that?
C is just a big ball of ignorance. What about a hand gun? Know how long it takes to change a magazine? About 3 seconds if you are slow. So you want to ban hand guns too? What about shotguns? You can blow away 5 people with one shell. Ban them too?
The only way banning guns would help curb shootings is to ban all of them. Good luck with that!

So you throw up your hands and say, “there’s nothing we can do! It’s all hopeless!” But at the same time, blame the liberals somehow.

I got it.

Thats not what i did at all, actually.
I didnt blame "liberals" hell woman, there are like 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would i blame them?

You throw up your hands and claim there’s nothing.

You don’t find a way to blame liberals.

You leave that to others.

I clearly stated we need a cultural shift. I think the problem must be dealt with by the citizens not our failure of a federal govt. Those fucks are why this happened. They are why that church got shot up in texas. They fucking suck. Legislation wouldnt have stopped this guy.
Sorry if i have no faith in known, constant failure :/
Of course i dont. There are 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would they get blame for what ONE PERSON did?

 

[ricechickie]

Exactly.

We need a culture shift so that this kid

a. wasn’t in to hurting people in the first place
b. was recognized as someone who wanted to hurt people, and given psychiatric help
c. was deprived of the tools to hurt the most people in the least amount of time

I agree we need a culture shift.
He was recognized but the state and federal authorities said he was fine. So how do you go beyond that?
C is just a big ball of ignorance. What about a hand gun? Know how long it takes to change a magazine? About 3 seconds if you are slow. So you want to ban hand guns too? What about shotguns? You can blow away 5 people with one shell. Ban them too?
The only way banning guns would help curb shootings is to ban all of them. Good luck with that!

So you throw up your hands and say, “there’s nothing we can do! It’s all hopeless!” But at the same time, blame the liberals somehow.

I got it.

Thats not what i did at all, actually.
I didnt blame "liberals" hell woman, there are like 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would i blame them?

You throw up your hands and claim there’s nothing.

You don’t find a way to blame liberals.

You leave that to others.

I clearly stated we need a cultural shift. I think the problem must be dealt with by the citizens not our failure of a federal govt. Those fucks are why this happened. They are why that church got shot up in texas. They fucking suck. Legislation wouldnt have stopped this guy.
Sorry if i have no faith in known, constant failure :/
Of course i dont. There are 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would they get blame for what ONE PERSON did?

You really create your own reality, don’t you?

20 liberals in the country?

 

[Defiant1]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

Well there was one law back during Jimmy Carters regime, and that was to allow insane people back into society. That right there started the closing of asylums that would of kept people who want to hurt themselves and others.

Jimmy Carter: Mental Health Systems Legislation Message to the Congress Transmitting the Proposed Legislation.

I am today submitting to Congress the Mental Health Systems Act. This proposed legislation establishes a new partnership between the federal government and the states in the planning 'and provision of mental health services. It seeks to assure that the chronically mentally ill no longer face the cruel alternative of unnecessary institutionalization or inadequate care in the community.

When these sick people were allowed out of the institution, soon there were razor blades in apples and needles in candy bars at Halloween. And the rest is history....Liberal compassion ends up killing people...

Mental health laws wouldnt have stopped this guy either. He was apparently OKd by the FBI (or did they just forget?) AND the state welfare office. The childrens office deemed him perfectly sane.

What I heard over the weekend was about a kid who had explosive moments. He was always calm enough when the police or social workers arrived to be deemed "not a threat." He lived with the new family for over three months and was quiet, polite and followed all their rules. He was loving to their animals. What was happening in his mind, he kept to himself all too well.
The FBI did "forget," but he may well have bullshitted his way out of that interview, too.
He had ten guns. Why did he choose the AR-15? We all know why.

Because its awesome, thats why. But banning that gun probably wouldnt have stopped him, would it?

No, he would have used another gun but not been able to mow down as many as fast. Banning AR-15's is not about total gun peace. It's about harm reduction.

Do you think an AR-15 shoots "faster" than a hunting rifle?

 

[TNHarley]

I agree we need a culture shift.
He was recognized but the state and federal authorities said he was fine. So how do you go beyond that?
C is just a big ball of ignorance. What about a hand gun? Know how long it takes to change a magazine? About 3 seconds if you are slow. So you want to ban hand guns too? What about shotguns? You can blow away 5 people with one shell. Ban them too?
The only way banning guns would help curb shootings is to ban all of them. Good luck with that!

So you throw up your hands and say, “there’s nothing we can do! It’s all hopeless!” But at the same time, blame the liberals somehow.

I got it.

Thats not what i did at all, actually.
I didnt blame "liberals" hell woman, there are like 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would i blame them?

You throw up your hands and claim there’s nothing.

You don’t find a way to blame liberals.

You leave that to others.

I clearly stated we need a cultural shift. I think the problem must be dealt with by the citizens not our failure of a federal govt. Those fucks are why this happened. They are why that church got shot up in texas. They fucking suck. Legislation wouldnt have stopped this guy.
Sorry if i have no faith in known, constant failure :/
Of course i dont. There are 20 liberals in this whole country. Why would they get blame for what ONE PERSON did?

You really create your own reality, don’t you?

20 liberals in the country?

regressives that depend on the state to wipe their ass arent liberals, rice. That concept got raped decades ago.

 

[Auld Phart]

I was going to compose a letter to these young whippersnappers today, telling them that they are the voice of hope, but only if they refrain from the usual screeching and name calling and hyperbolic empty rhetoric that passes for political "debate" these days. I didn't have to write it--David Brooks already did.
I wanted to share it with all of you, and hope/wish you will all read it and think about it.

DAVID BROOKS

Respect First, Then Gun Control
Image

Students and family members gathered at a makeshift memorial for the victims of last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla.CreditMark Wilson/Getty Images North America
Image

By David Brooks

Feb. 19, 2018
This has been an emotional week. We greet tragedies like the school shooting in Florida with shock, sadness, mourning and grief that turns into indignation and rage. The anger inevitably gets directed at the N.R.A., those who support gun rights, and the politicians who refuse to do anything while children die.

Many of us walked this emotional path. But we may end up doing more harm than good. If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it is that guns have become a cultural flash point in a nation that is unequal and divided. The people who defend gun rights believe that snobbish elites look down on their morals and want to destroy their culture. If we end up telling such people that they and their guns are despicable, they will just despise us back and dig in their heels.

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough just to vent and march. It’s necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points. There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war.

So I’ve been thinking about a group that’s in the trust and respect business. Better Angels is a nonprofit led by David Lapp, David Blankenhorn and a prominent family therapist, Bill Doherty. The team members travel from town to town finding members of the Red and Blue Tribes and bringing them together for long, humbling conversations.

My Times colleague April Lawson has gotten involved with Better Angels and has been reporting back on its techniques.

One of the most successful parts of the structured conversations is built around stereotypes. Doherty, the head moderator, asks the people at each gathering to name five major stereotypes that the other side throws at them. The Republicans invariably list “racist” first, followed by, say, “uncaring,” “uneducated,” “misogynistic” and “science deniers.”


You have 2 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times


In a session Lawson attended, a Trump supporter acknowledged that the G.O.P. has had a spotty record on racial matters, but it’s important to him that Blues know that’s not why he holds his opinions.

Doherty says that the Reds feel shamed by the Blues to a much greater degree than the Blues realize. Reds are very reluctant to enter into a conversation with Blues, for fear of further shaming, but they often come to the table when they are told that this will be a chance to “de-monsterize” themselves.

At that session one Blue said she was really grateful to hear a Red acknowledge the Republican history on race. When Blues are asked about the stereotypes thrown at them, they tend to list “against religion and morality,” “unpatriotic” and “against personal responsibility” among their responses. They, too, relish the chance to clear the air.

After the stereotypes are discussed, the room feels different. As one Red in Ohio told Lawson, “I think we are all pretty clear on one thing: Don’t tell us who we are and what we think.” Another Red was moved almost to tears by the damage categories do. “We’re not just cookie-cutter people; we’re individuals. Just because you don’t like something, you don’t have to ridicule it — you probably don’t understand it,” she said. “When someone’s heart is full up with something, and then you demean it without even listening to them — I hate that.”

The discussions reveal other sensitivities. Some Blues didn’t want to enter a venue that had a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on the wall. To Reds that was a neutral flag from American history, but to Blues it carried all sorts of nasty associations. Reds were offended by the lawn signs that said, “Hate Has No Home Here.” The implication: Hate has no home in my house, but it does in yours.

In another exercise, Reds and Blues ask each other honest, nonleading questions. Blues may ask Reds, “Name a safety-net program you can support.” Reds may ask Blues, “How do you balance having a heart with keeping health care costs under control?”

By the end of the conversations, the atmosphere has changed. Nearly always somebody will say that the discussion was easy because only moderates were in the room, not the people who post crazy stuff on Facebook. The staff tries not to smile, knowing that some of the people were selected precisely because of the intense stuff they posted on Facebook.

“This is not a civility organization,” Blankenhorn told Lawson. Better Angels is aiming to build a group of people whose personal bonds with their fellow citizens redefine how they engage in the political system.

We don’t really have policy debates anymore. We have one big tribal conflict, and policy fights are just proxy battles as each side tries to establish moral superiority. But just as the tribal mentality has been turned on, it can be turned off. Then and only then can we go back to normal politics and take reasonable measures to keep our children safe.


Michelle Goldberg is off today.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on February 20, 2018, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Respect First, Then Gun Control. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

I think that emotions and anger are running high with these kids.

.I do hope that a paid person is not put in to cause havoc to discredit the cause like they always have.

.

.I do hope that a paid person is not put in to cause havoc to discredit the cause like they always have.

from either side

 

[Auld Phart]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

18 year olds love to hunt. I am sure they appreciate you stripping their freedoms for being COMPLETELY innocent.
Even if, he would have just used something else. So, what kind of law would have stopped him from shooting up that school?

Well a 18 year old can go to war and risk his life so I agree with you there..but a 18 year old who's brain isn't developed yet ( the part where we weigh in consequence) is not developed yet..

Why does he need an assault rifle at 18 ?

.

Who are you to decide what someone else needs?

Why do you think that you can not drink until 21 ? Same area of the brain..

.

people that enlist at the age of 18 have different brains?

They can carry an automatic, or a semiautomatic, firearm,..

but still can't drink.

How are they different than the 18 year old civilian?

 

[OldLady]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

Well there was one law back during Jimmy Carters regime, and that was to allow insane people back into society. That right there started the closing of asylums that would of kept people who want to hurt themselves and others.

Jimmy Carter: Mental Health Systems Legislation Message to the Congress Transmitting the Proposed Legislation.

I am today submitting to Congress the Mental Health Systems Act. This proposed legislation establishes a new partnership between the federal government and the states in the planning 'and provision of mental health services. It seeks to assure that the chronically mentally ill no longer face the cruel alternative of unnecessary institutionalization or inadequate care in the community.

When these sick people were allowed out of the institution, soon there were razor blades in apples and needles in candy bars at Halloween. And the rest is history....Liberal compassion ends up killing people...

Mental health laws wouldnt have stopped this guy either. He was apparently OKd by the FBI (or did they just forget?) AND the state welfare office. The childrens office deemed him perfectly sane.

WRONG! The FBI does not legislate.....welfare workers do not legislate....it takes the gov't to legislate mental illness as a reason to deny their gun purchase.

ERPO's would help.
Extreme Risk Protection Order - Wikipedia

 

[Marion Morrison]

I was going to compose a letter to these young whippersnappers today, telling them that they are the voice of hope, but only if they refrain from the usual screeching and name calling and hyperbolic empty rhetoric that passes for political "debate" these days. I didn't have to write it--David Brooks already did.
I wanted to share it with all of you, and hope/wish you will all read it and think about it.

DAVID BROOKS

Respect First, Then Gun Control
Image

Students and family members gathered at a makeshift memorial for the victims of last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla.CreditMark Wilson/Getty Images North America
Image

By David Brooks

Feb. 19, 2018
This has been an emotional week. We greet tragedies like the school shooting in Florida with shock, sadness, mourning and grief that turns into indignation and rage. The anger inevitably gets directed at the N.R.A., those who support gun rights, and the politicians who refuse to do anything while children die.

Many of us walked this emotional path. But we may end up doing more harm than good. If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it is that guns have become a cultural flash point in a nation that is unequal and divided. The people who defend gun rights believe that snobbish elites look down on their morals and want to destroy their culture. If we end up telling such people that they and their guns are despicable, they will just despise us back and dig in their heels.

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough just to vent and march. It’s necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points. There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war.

So I’ve been thinking about a group that’s in the trust and respect business. Better Angels is a nonprofit led by David Lapp, David Blankenhorn and a prominent family therapist, Bill Doherty. The team members travel from town to town finding members of the Red and Blue Tribes and bringing them together for long, humbling conversations.

My Times colleague April Lawson has gotten involved with Better Angels and has been reporting back on its techniques.

One of the most successful parts of the structured conversations is built around stereotypes. Doherty, the head moderator, asks the people at each gathering to name five major stereotypes that the other side throws at them. The Republicans invariably list “racist” first, followed by, say, “uncaring,” “uneducated,” “misogynistic” and “science deniers.”


You have 2 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times


In a session Lawson attended, a Trump supporter acknowledged that the G.O.P. has had a spotty record on racial matters, but it’s important to him that Blues know that’s not why he holds his opinions.

Doherty says that the Reds feel shamed by the Blues to a much greater degree than the Blues realize. Reds are very reluctant to enter into a conversation with Blues, for fear of further shaming, but they often come to the table when they are told that this will be a chance to “de-monsterize” themselves.

At that session one Blue said she was really grateful to hear a Red acknowledge the Republican history on race. When Blues are asked about the stereotypes thrown at them, they tend to list “against religion and morality,” “unpatriotic” and “against personal responsibility” among their responses. They, too, relish the chance to clear the air.

After the stereotypes are discussed, the room feels different. As one Red in Ohio told Lawson, “I think we are all pretty clear on one thing: Don’t tell us who we are and what we think.” Another Red was moved almost to tears by the damage categories do. “We’re not just cookie-cutter people; we’re individuals. Just because you don’t like something, you don’t have to ridicule it — you probably don’t understand it,” she said. “When someone’s heart is full up with something, and then you demean it without even listening to them — I hate that.”

The discussions reveal other sensitivities. Some Blues didn’t want to enter a venue that had a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on the wall. To Reds that was a neutral flag from American history, but to Blues it carried all sorts of nasty associations. Reds were offended by the lawn signs that said, “Hate Has No Home Here.” The implication: Hate has no home in my house, but it does in yours.

In another exercise, Reds and Blues ask each other honest, nonleading questions. Blues may ask Reds, “Name a safety-net program you can support.” Reds may ask Blues, “How do you balance having a heart with keeping health care costs under control?”

By the end of the conversations, the atmosphere has changed. Nearly always somebody will say that the discussion was easy because only moderates were in the room, not the people who post crazy stuff on Facebook. The staff tries not to smile, knowing that some of the people were selected precisely because of the intense stuff they posted on Facebook.

“This is not a civility organization,” Blankenhorn told Lawson. Better Angels is aiming to build a group of people whose personal bonds with their fellow citizens redefine how they engage in the political system.

We don’t really have policy debates anymore. We have one big tribal conflict, and policy fights are just proxy battles as each side tries to establish moral superiority. But just as the tribal mentality has been turned on, it can be turned off. Then and only then can we go back to normal politics and take reasonable measures to keep our children safe.


Michelle Goldberg is off today.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on February 20, 2018, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Respect First, Then Gun Control. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

I think that emotions and anger are running high with these kids.

.I do hope that a paid person is not put in to cause havoc to discredit the cause like they always have.

.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "paid person," but it sounds to me like a perfectly natural reaction by a lot of middle/upper middle class students with educated, liberal parents. They're saying what they've heard at home all their lives, adding some typical adolescent outrage. All we hear on the news is their three second sound bytes calling the NRA terrorists, but hopefully a lot more reasonable stuff is coming out of their mouths. If not, this has already gone to shit.

Newsflash: This already has gone that way.

 

[TNHarley]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

Well there was one law back during Jimmy Carters regime, and that was to allow insane people back into society. That right there started the closing of asylums that would of kept people who want to hurt themselves and others.

Jimmy Carter: Mental Health Systems Legislation Message to the Congress Transmitting the Proposed Legislation.

I am today submitting to Congress the Mental Health Systems Act. This proposed legislation establishes a new partnership between the federal government and the states in the planning 'and provision of mental health services. It seeks to assure that the chronically mentally ill no longer face the cruel alternative of unnecessary institutionalization or inadequate care in the community.

When these sick people were allowed out of the institution, soon there were razor blades in apples and needles in candy bars at Halloween. And the rest is history....Liberal compassion ends up killing people...

Mental health laws wouldnt have stopped this guy either. He was apparently OKd by the FBI (or did they just forget?) AND the state welfare office. The childrens office deemed him perfectly sane.

WRONG! The FBI does not legislate.....welfare workers do not legislate....it takes the gov't to legislate mental illness as a reason to deny their gun purchase.

ERPO's would help.
Extreme Risk Protection Order - Wikipedia

I actually like that law at face value. Then i remember that an accused person has to earn their rights back. That irks me. But it seems like it would help in some areas.

 

[Defiant1]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

Well there was one law back during Jimmy Carters regime, and that was to allow insane people back into society. That right there started the closing of asylums that would of kept people who want to hurt themselves and others.

Jimmy Carter: Mental Health Systems Legislation Message to the Congress Transmitting the Proposed Legislation.

I am today submitting to Congress the Mental Health Systems Act. This proposed legislation establishes a new partnership between the federal government and the states in the planning 'and provision of mental health services. It seeks to assure that the chronically mentally ill no longer face the cruel alternative of unnecessary institutionalization or inadequate care in the community.

When these sick people were allowed out of the institution, soon there were razor blades in apples and needles in candy bars at Halloween. And the rest is history....Liberal compassion ends up killing people...

Mental health laws wouldnt have stopped this guy either. He was apparently OKd by the FBI (or did they just forget?) AND the state welfare office. The childrens office deemed him perfectly sane.

WRONG! The FBI does not legislate.....welfare workers do not legislate....it takes the gov't to legislate mental illness as a reason to deny their gun purchase.

ERPO's would help.
Extreme Risk Protection Order - Wikipedia

That won't work on me.
No one, including my wife know's how many firearms I own.

 

[cnm]

.223 is an excellent hunting round.

Complete bullshit. It is adequate on small to medium animals in certain situations.

 

[OldLady]

Which AR-15 Can You Hunt With?

You realize, of course, that hunting has frak all to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Try reading all of the remarks. I'm responding to OP's assertion that nobody hunts with an AR15.

The general response is, yes, you can hunt with an AR15, but as we get talking, no one I've talked to actually uses one for hunting. That is all I'm saying.

Yes. A tiny number of hunters you spoke with don't happen to choose an AR15 to hunt with means pretty much nothing.

You are definitely missing the point of this thread.

 

[cnm]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

Am I to understand that because a law won't stop anyone running a red light there should not be such a law? That is an apparent logical implication of your request.