Yet another school shooting

[Pop23]

The takeaway from these 115 pages is clear, those so intensely opposed to even talking about means to end this American Horror seek to blame everyone and everything but the gun.

In fact they truly believe guns are benevolent and the NRA exists to promote gun safety, when it is clear profit and power is its real purpose.

There is no point in seeking to debate them, for they will never compromise no matter how much more carnage and grief occurs. It is their supposed right, which supersedes the life of others, even those who had only been on the earth for less than two decades or even one.

Why would anyone compromise when they are in the right? A firearm is not intelligent and does not have free will. It is merely an object. The ONLY way to deal with this problem is to change the behavior of the humans who are committing these acts.

Good grief, what is right about guns being in the hands of someone irresponsible? Since science cannot predict future behavior, which is more right, gun control or people control?

Gun control requires a modicum of infringement on the person, the latter an extreme amount of infringement on their liberty.

You are partially correct, but not guns being in the hands of the irresponsible, but it’s antidepressants being in those hands causing the body count.

End the use of these in or youth, you end the killings and put a substantial dent in teen suicide.

Guess we just don’t care when it’s far easier to blame guns.

If you are not a psychologist, psychiatrist or a parent of a child who is clinically depressed, or simply one who is sad most of the time and not diagnosed, why do you want others to believe you have any insight into this issue?

No one knows what motivated these mass killers of their peers, even those who commit such horrific acts and survive are not likely aware of the "why".

We actually do know what motivates them. Rage caused by these medications

 

[Wry Catcher]

The takeaway from these 115 pages is clear, those so intensely opposed to even talking about means to end this American Horror seek to blame everyone and everything but the gun.

In fact they truly believe guns are benevolent and the NRA exists to promote gun safety, when it is clear profit and power is its real purpose.

There is no point in seeking to debate them, for they will never compromise no matter how much more carnage and grief occurs. It is their supposed right, which supersedes the life of others, even those who had only been on the earth for less than two decades or even one.

Why would anyone compromise when they are in the right? A firearm is not intelligent and does not have free will. It is merely an object. The ONLY way to deal with this problem is to change the behavior of the humans who are committing these acts.

Good grief, what is right about guns being in the hands of someone irresponsible? Since science cannot predict future behavior, which is more right, gun control or people control?

Gun control requires a modicum of infringement on the person, the latter an extreme amount of infringement on their liberty.

You are partially correct, but not guns being in the hands of the irresponsible, but it’s antidepressants being in those hands causing the body count.

End the use of these in or youth, you end the killings and put a substantial dent in teen suicide.

Guess we just don’t care when it’s far easier to blame guns.

If you are not a psychologist, psychiatrist or a parent of a child who is clinically depressed, or simply one who is sad most of the time and not diagnosed, why do you want others to believe you have any insight into this issue?

No one knows what motivated these mass killers of their peers, even those who commit such horrific acts and survive are not likely aware of the "why".

I don’t. The links I’ve provided however are the experts.

You ignore not just me, but experts as well.

There are "experts" and "experts" and that is not a tautology, as anyone who has observed two experts, one a witness for the prosecution, and one a witness for the defense, understands.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The takeaway from these 115 pages is clear, those so intensely opposed to even talking about means to end this American Horror seek to blame everyone and everything but the gun.

In fact they truly believe guns are benevolent and the NRA exists to promote gun safety, when it is clear profit and power is its real purpose.

There is no point in seeking to debate them, for they will never compromise no matter how much more carnage and grief occurs. It is their supposed right, which supersedes the life of others, even those who had only been on the earth for less than two decades or even one.

Why would anyone compromise when they are in the right? A firearm is not intelligent and does not have free will. It is merely an object. The ONLY way to deal with this problem is to change the behavior of the humans who are committing these acts.

Good grief, what is right about guns being in the hands of someone irresponsible? Since science cannot predict future behavior, which is more right, gun control or people control?

Gun control requires a modicum of infringement on the person, the latter an extreme amount of infringement on their liberty.

You are partially correct, but not guns being in the hands of the irresponsible, but it’s antidepressants being in those hands causing the body count.

End the use of these in or youth, you end the killings and put a substantial dent in teen suicide.

Guess we just don’t care when it’s far easier to blame guns.

If you are not a psychologist, psychiatrist or a parent of a child who is clinically depressed, or simply one who is sad most of the time and not diagnosed, why do you want others to believe you have any insight into this issue?

No one knows what motivated these mass killers of their peers, even those who commit such horrific acts and survive are not likely aware of the "why".

We actually do know what motivates them. Rage caused by these medications

You believe you know, yet you cannot. Don't pretend otherwise, you have too little credibility now,and a comment like this won't help improve how you are perceived.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

THAT...

Is the root of the cause.

(Looking at you, Wry Catcher)

Had he not had access to guns, ..., The fact is, if he was the target of bullies, he had alternatives. We know he had access to guns, do we know if he had access to counselors, parents he could talk to, or a favorite teacher? There is no singular explanation for his motivation. What we know is he had means and an opportunity.

Parents should share the blame in this, even charged for neglect big time if find out huge mistakes were made. If Dad or mom exposed their son to deadly weapons without regard, then he or she should share a cell next to their son for his actions.

A common sense gun law, requiring trigger locks and secure storage of firearms have been opposed by the NRA and its supporters. One more reason that the NRA is an irresponsible organization which enables the horrific use of firearms, such as we have seen too often in our country.

How do you enforce a law like that?

Do you just let the cops enter any home at any time to check?

IMO the father of this kid should be charged with negligence at the least and serve at least 5 years the kid should be tries as an adult and serve the rest of his life

Guns needed to be safely secured, and that is what the rightwing once supported in terms of making all of us to practice personal responsibility. We pass a law not as a panacea, but as a warning (much like a Red Light at an intersection, if you run the Red Light and cause an accident you will be punished, by fines and/or a loss of liberty).

You continue to make remarks which question enforcement codes, and the answer is always the same. Such laws are not able or conceived to prevent law breakers, but to punish them when they are discovered.

Of course if one understands how MADD evolved and its impact on drunk driving, they would understand that as penalties increased infractions reduced (and deaths too), but were never eliminated.

You have two arguments:

1. Shall not infringe
2. Laws don't work

Both have been rebutted over and over and by stating them over and over and expecting a different response is not an effective argument.

Also correct.

“Shall not infringe” means that government shall not enact measures inconsistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

As the Heller Court reaffirmed:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Shall not infringe does not mean government is prohibited from regulating firearms altogether.

Any conservative who takes issue with this settled, accepted fact of law – beyond dispute – is at liberty to take it up with the Heller Court majority, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents.

“Laws don't work” – this conservative ‘argument’ fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.

Laws in fact do work; thousands of prohibited persons are denied access to firearms the benefit of background checks, for example.

No single firearm regulatory measure is enacted as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence; opposing necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures by claiming they ‘don’t work’ is a ridiculous rightwing lie.

 

[Pop23]

Why would anyone compromise when they are in the right? A firearm is not intelligent and does not have free will. It is merely an object. The ONLY way to deal with this problem is to change the behavior of the humans who are committing these acts.

Good grief, what is right about guns being in the hands of someone irresponsible? Since science cannot predict future behavior, which is more right, gun control or people control?

Gun control requires a modicum of infringement on the person, the latter an extreme amount of infringement on their liberty.

You are partially correct, but not guns being in the hands of the irresponsible, but it’s antidepressants being in those hands causing the body count.

End the use of these in or youth, you end the killings and put a substantial dent in teen suicide.

Guess we just don’t care when it’s far easier to blame guns.

If you are not a psychologist, psychiatrist or a parent of a child who is clinically depressed, or simply one who is sad most of the time and not diagnosed, why do you want others to believe you have any insight into this issue?

No one knows what motivated these mass killers of their peers, even those who commit such horrific acts and survive are not likely aware of the "why".

I don’t. The links I’ve provided however are the experts.

You ignore not just me, but experts as well.

There are "experts" and "experts" and that is not a tautology, as anyone who has observed two experts, one a witness for the prosecution, and one a witness for the defense, understands.

One of my links were to the study by Oxford University.

I want THAT expert in my side.

Also, the FDA

And the entire country of England that banned them for use with young people.

Bring on your expert witnesses.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good grief, what is right about guns being in the hands of someone irresponsible? Since science cannot predict future behavior, which is more right, gun control or people control?

Gun control requires a modicum of infringement on the person, the latter an extreme amount of infringement on their liberty.

You are partially correct, but not guns being in the hands of the irresponsible, but it’s antidepressants being in those hands causing the body count.

End the use of these in or youth, you end the killings and put a substantial dent in teen suicide.

Guess we just don’t care when it’s far easier to blame guns.

If you are not a psychologist, psychiatrist or a parent of a child who is clinically depressed, or simply one who is sad most of the time and not diagnosed, why do you want others to believe you have any insight into this issue?

No one knows what motivated these mass killers of their peers, even those who commit such horrific acts and survive are not likely aware of the "why".

I don’t. The links I’ve provided however are the experts.

You ignore not just me, but experts as well.

There are "experts" and "experts" and that is not a tautology, as anyone who has observed two experts, one a witness for the prosecution, and one a witness for the defense, understands.

One of my links were to the study by Oxford University.

I want THAT expert in my side.

Also, the FDA

And the entire country of England that banned them for use with young people.

Bring on your expert witnesses.

Really? Then you should watch Rachael Maddow on MSNBC every evening, since her Ph.D was awarded her by Oxford:

" In 1995 she attended the University of Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. She received a doctorate (D.Phil.) in politics in 2001; her dissertation was titled “HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons.”
Rachel Maddow | American political commentator

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Pop23]

You are partially correct, but not guns being in the hands of the irresponsible, but it’s antidepressants being in those hands causing the body count.

End the use of these in or youth, you end the killings and put a substantial dent in teen suicide.

Guess we just don’t care when it’s far easier to blame guns.

If you are not a psychologist, psychiatrist or a parent of a child who is clinically depressed, or simply one who is sad most of the time and not diagnosed, why do you want others to believe you have any insight into this issue?

No one knows what motivated these mass killers of their peers, even those who commit such horrific acts and survive are not likely aware of the "why".

I don’t. The links I’ve provided however are the experts.

You ignore not just me, but experts as well.

There are "experts" and "experts" and that is not a tautology, as anyone who has observed two experts, one a witness for the prosecution, and one a witness for the defense, understands.

One of my links were to the study by Oxford University.

I want THAT expert in my side.

Also, the FDA

And the entire country of England that banned them for use with young people.

Bring on your expert witnesses.

Really? Then you should watch Rachael Maddow on MSNBC every evening, since her Ph.D was awarded her by Oxford:

" In 1995 she attended the University of Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. She received a doctorate (D.Phil.) in politics in 2001; her dissertation was titled “HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons.”
Rachel Maddow | American political commentator

Cool, but what does that have to do with SSRIs link to a 50% increase in violence by those in them or the 1000 to 1500 additional teen suicides associate with their use?

Answer: Nothing.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I shutter at the thought of school districts arming my 10th grade math teacher. He bumped in to a coat rack, tipped his hat, and apologized to it.

But, hey! Teachers are grossly underpaid as it is, and now the Trumpets want them to start packing heat? Good luck with that....

There are only a handful of schools in the country that have mass shootings. This is an unusually high year with 7 so far. The average is about 5 a year. I know, 1 is too many. However, it makes sense to look at the probability of a mass school when we are talking about rather controversy solutions.

Since there are approximately 150,000 private and public schools in the country, the odds of a given school being hit by a mass shooters is about 1 in 30,000 in any given year. That means the average school would be visited by a mass shooter about once every 30,000 years.

If the government actively promoted teachers and staff to carry guns in school we would be putting guns in thousands of schools that will never have a mass shooting. In most of those schools, the only guns will be that of teachers. We would have guns being stolen by kids, teachers accidentally shooting kids, and themselves. If a kid decides to kill classmates he will surely know which teachers are armed and avoid them or kill them. In some schools teachers with guns would actually encourage some kids to bring guns to school. Lastly, given the sizes up our schools and number of classrooms, there would need to be a lot of armed teachers to effectively protect the school.

It is really a bad idea.

In addition to that, There are probably just as likely that some teacher is off his rocker, just like some kid is. I had a teacher in high school who had a nervous breakdown in the middle of a class in hysterics, left the building and never returned.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What evidence do you have to offer, to prove gun control law and gun free zones contribute to for more and more slaughters of innocent school children?

If you are trying to infer that more guns in more public arenas are a means to prevent such horrific crimes, the evidence in this weeks attack show an armed and presumably well trained armed security guard was shot and critically wounded.

More guns by trained but not professional security personnel would, IMO, create a fire fight with each gun being trained on other guns and contribute to friendly fire casualties.

 

[Flopper]

I shutter at the thought of school districts arming my 10th grade math teacher. He bumped in to a coat rack, tipped his hat, and apologized to it.

But, hey! Teachers are grossly underpaid as it is, and now the Trumpets want them to start packing heat? Good luck with that....

There are only a handful of schools in the country that have mass shootings. This is an unusually high year with 7 so far. The average is about 5 a year. I know, 1 is too many. However, it makes sense to look at the probability of a mass school when we are talking about rather controversy solutions.

Since there are approximately 150,000 private and public schools in the country, the odds of a given school being hit by a mass shooters is about 1 in 30,000 in any given year. That means the average school would be visited by a mass shooter about once every 30,000 years.

If the government actively promoted teachers and staff to carry guns in school we would be putting guns in thousands of schools that will never have a mass shooting. In most of those schools, the only guns will be that of teachers. We would have guns being stolen by kids, teachers accidentally shooting kids, and themselves. If a kid decides to kill classmates he will surely know which teachers are armed and avoid them or kill them. In some schools teachers with guns would actually encourage some kids to bring guns to school. Lastly, given the sizes up our schools and number of classrooms, there would need to be a lot of armed teachers to effectively protect the school.

It is really a bad idea.

Yeah....except in the schools that already have armed and trained staff....that ain't happening....but thanks for making it up.....

It isn't happening because of our 150,000 schools in the US only a tiny sliver have armed their staff. Mass shooting in schools are rare. Most of these armed teachers will never encounter a mad gunman in their school and if they do, they will probable end up shooting themselves in foot or do nothing.

What so many people don't understand is arming teachers is just a means of distracting the public from the real problem of violence in schools, students carrying weapons to the school, drugs, bullying, suicides, attacks on students and staff, etc. The solution to these problems are not simple and will be costly so republicans are endorsing arming the teachers and letting the schools figure out how to deal with the violence. They are woefully unprepared now and a bunch cowboys running around the school will guns will just make the situation worse.

 

[hunarcy]

The takeaway from these 115 pages is clear, those so intensely opposed to even talking about means to end this American Horror seek to blame everyone and everything but the gun.

In fact they truly believe guns are benevolent and the NRA exists to promote gun safety, when it is clear profit and power is its real purpose.

There is no point in seeking to debate them, for they will never compromise no matter how much more carnage and grief occurs. It is their supposed right, which supersedes the life of others, even those who had only been on the earth for less than two decades or even one.

Why would anyone compromise when they are in the right? A firearm is not intelligent and does not have free will. It is merely an object. The ONLY way to deal with this problem is to change the behavior of the humans who are committing these acts.

Good grief, what is right about guns being in the hands of someone irresponsible? Since science cannot predict future behavior, which is more right, gun control or people control?

Gun control requires a modicum of infringement on the person, the latter an extreme amount of infringement on their liberty.

People control is the ONLY way to stop these shootings. People control is the only way to stop any crime. NO one who has not committed a crime should be infringed upon...people who do commit crimes should suffer extreme amounts of infringement on their liberty.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What evidence do you have to offer, to prove gun control law and gun free zones contribute to for more and more slaughters of innocent school children?

An easier question to ask would be:

What evidence do YOU have to offer to prove gun control law and gun free zones DON'T contribute to the slaughter of innocent children?

Furthermore, another question would be:

Do you think this kid was in any way deterred by the fact that it was illegal to posses firearms under 18 or the fact that it was illegal to have a sawed off shotgun? If that didn't stop him, do you really think a "gun free zone" was going to stop him from murdering 10 people?

He committed himself to this barbarous act, and no law on Earth, much less Texas, was going to stop him.

It is a pity you are too dense to understand that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I shutter at the thought of school districts arming my 10th grade math teacher. He bumped in to a coat rack, tipped his hat, and apologized to it.

But, hey! Teachers are grossly underpaid as it is, and now the Trumpets want them to start packing heat? Good luck with that....

There are only a handful of schools in the country that have mass shootings. This is an unusually high year with 7 so far. The average is about 5 a year. I know, 1 is too many. However, it makes sense to look at the probability of a mass school when we are talking about rather controversy solutions.

Since there are approximately 150,000 private and public schools in the country, the odds of a given school being hit by a mass shooters is about 1 in 30,000 in any given year. That means the average school would be visited by a mass shooter about once every 30,000 years.

If the government actively promoted teachers and staff to carry guns in school we would be putting guns in thousands of schools that will never have a mass shooting. In most of those schools, the only guns will be that of teachers. We would have guns being stolen by kids, teachers accidentally shooting kids, and themselves. If a kid decides to kill classmates he will surely know which teachers are armed and avoid them or kill them. In some schools teachers with guns would actually encourage some kids to bring guns to school. Lastly, given the sizes up our schools and number of classrooms, there would need to be a lot of armed teachers to effectively protect the school.

It is really a bad idea.

Yeah....except in the schools that already have armed and trained staff....that ain't happening....but thanks for making it up.....

It isn't happening because of our 150,000 schools in the US only a tiny sliver have armed their staff. Mass shooting in schools are rare. Most of these armed teachers will never encounter a mad gunman in their school and if they do, they will probable end up shooting themselves in foot or do nothing.

What so many people don't understand is arming teachers is just a means of distracting the public from the real problem of violence in schools, students carrying weapons to the school, drugs, bullying, suicides, attacks on students and staff, etc. The solution to these problems are not simple and will be costly so republicans are endorsing arming the teachers and letting the schools figure out how to deal with the violence. They are woefully unprepared now and a bunch cowboys running around the school will guns will just make the situation worse.

A curriculum on all aspect of Health & personal responsibility for their own health and safety should begin at age appropriate levels, and repeated every couple of years in every public school in America.

Children and young adults should be assured if they see or hear something disturbing to them, to report it to a favorite teacher or administrator as well as their parent and they will not be identified as the source.

Of course included in such a discussion should be that a false report will be punished internally and the victim of such behavior and others will be notified that the person was punished for Her/His Lie.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The takeaway from these 115 pages is clear, those so intensely opposed to even talking about means to end this American Horror seek to blame everyone and everything but the gun.

In fact they truly believe guns are benevolent and the NRA exists to promote gun safety, when it is clear profit and power is its real purpose.

There is no point in seeking to debate them, for they will never compromise no matter how much more carnage and grief occurs. It is their supposed right, which supersedes the life of others, even those who had only been on the earth for less than two decades or even one.

Why would anyone compromise when they are in the right? A firearm is not intelligent and does not have free will. It is merely an object. The ONLY way to deal with this problem is to change the behavior of the humans who are committing these acts.

Good grief, what is right about guns being in the hands of someone irresponsible? Since science cannot predict future behavior, which is more right, gun control or people control?

Gun control requires a modicum of infringement on the person, the latter an extreme amount of infringement on their liberty.

People control is the ONLY way to stop these shootings. People control is the only way to stop any crime. NO one who has not committed a crime should be infringed upon...people who do commit crimes should suffer extreme amounts of infringement on their liberty.

...and, yet, neither the kid, nor his father who owned the guns, to my knowledge, had ever committed a crime. Nether had the Las Vegas shooter. In fact, I am not aware of any mass murderer having a criminal history. Also, I have never heard of a mass killer being freed from prison. So, you might as well say it. Dead kids are acceptable to you. No changes need to be made.

As for me, I would consider that the law be changed so that anyone who failed to keep his weapons properly stored and locked, and those weapons where then used in a killing (Sandy Hook, fort example), then the owner of the weapons should be guilty of contributing to the killing, not only in a civil court, but also a criminal court.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you are trying to infer that more guns in more public arenas are a means to prevent such horrific crimes, the evidence in this weeks attack show an armed and presumably well trained armed security guard was shot and critically wounded.

First, I never made such an inference. Second, there were other factors involved that contributed to the injury of that security guard. One mainly being that the killer showed no signs of wanting to kill anyone. He was quiet and kept mainly to himself. What furthered his positive image was the fact that up until he snapped, he never retaliated against those who bullied him.

If I were a security guard, my first reaction would be "this child is not a threat". And interestingly enough, the security guard couldn't just go barging on to this kid's Facebook and Twitter page to find out that he was indeed a threat. That would have been a blatant invasion of his privacy.

The fact that the kid (to my knowledge) never sought out a counselor also contributed to the perception that he was psychologically stable. There were no warning signs.

So what do you suggest we do to protect our kids in response to events like these? Hmm? More gun laws? More gun free zones? Perhaps armed and professionally trained personnel are the only reasonable course of action.

It's funny too, we can protect movie stars, politicians, presidents, and money with armed personnel... but we seem to think that a building full of our own children attempting to gain an education don't deserve them. What does that say about our (your) priorities?

 

[TemplarKormac]

More guns by trained but not professional security personnel would, IMO, create a fire fight with each gun being trained on other guns and contribute to friendly fire casualties.

Interestingly enough, I never said anything like that. We need armed and professional security. I never once implied we should arm our teachers.

You should quit trying to read minds. You suck at it.

 

[Issa]

Grow up in a gun free country we had 0 mass shootings. Enjoy your gun and stay stuck in the 1800s...the world is laughing at your stupidity and I mean the whole world.

Who cares what the world thinks ?? This is America, and this is our problem to solve.

The world looks at you like we look at the Taliban. Still regressive when it comes to governance and guns. Pathetic...kids gets gunned down in schools.

Again, who cares what the world thinks of this nation, it is our problem to solve and it will be solved. The left might not like the fix, but who cares about that anymore ? No one cares but the left who still thinks that they will be fundementally changing this nation into their utopic leftist fantasy land.

Ever watch the Trueman story, it doesn't work (a perfect world), otherwise like you think. Freedom is in our DNA, and it ain't changing no time soon.

Freedom ? Hahaha the dumbest thing ever. Other nations are enslaved ? You pay taxes to the government you have shitty life style, shortest lifespan, highest murder and crime rate, least safe, the most obese, the most in debt compared most civilised countries and you talking about freedom ?

Uhh, aren't you from another country ? If so turn around and fix your own troubles. We don't need your advice if looking in from the outside.

Also from here. I know better simply because I lived in a gun free country and I live now in a society that's ravaged by gun violence.

 

[Issa]

The world looks at you like we look at the Taliban. Still regressive when it comes to governance and guns. Pathetic...kids gets gunned down in schools.

Again, who cares what the world thinks of this nation, it is our problem to solve and it will be solved. The left might not like the fix, but who cares about that anymore ? No one cares but the left who still thinks that they will be fundementally changing this nation into their utopic leftist fantasy land.

Ever watch the Trueman story, it doesn't work (a perfect world), otherwise like you think. Freedom is in our DNA, and it ain't changing no time soon.

Freedom ? Hahaha the dumbest thing ever. Other nations are enslaved ? You pay taxes to the government you have shitty life style, shortest lifespan, highest murder and crime rate, least safe, the most obese, the most in debt compared most civilised countries and you talking about freedom ?

Uhh, aren't you from another country ? If so turn around and fix your own troubles. We don't need your advice if looking in from the outside.

He is an American.

. So he's being unAmerican or anti-American ??

I'm being anti American because I hate to see lives lost due to gun violence?

 

[hunarcy]

Who cares what the world thinks ?? This is America, and this is our problem to solve.

The world looks at you like we look at the Taliban. Still regressive when it comes to governance and guns. Pathetic...kids gets gunned down in schools.

Again, who cares what the world thinks of this nation, it is our problem to solve and it will be solved. The left might not like the fix, but who cares about that anymore ? No one cares but the left who still thinks that they will be fundementally changing this nation into their utopic leftist fantasy land.

Ever watch the Trueman story, it doesn't work (a perfect world), otherwise like you think. Freedom is in our DNA, and it ain't changing no time soon.

Freedom ? Hahaha the dumbest thing ever. Other nations are enslaved ? You pay taxes to the government you have shitty life style, shortest lifespan, highest murder and crime rate, least safe, the most obese, the most in debt compared most civilised countries and you talking about freedom ?

Uhh, aren't you from another country ? If so turn around and fix your own troubles. We don't need your advice if looking in from the outside.

Also from here. I know better simply because I lived in a gun free country and I live now in a society that's ravaged by gun violence.

May I ask what "gun free country" did you live in?