- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
A number of things to consider. First, some rehashing. If you don't live in a high-crime inner city/ghetto area, your chances of being killed are pretty low. The definition of "mass shooting" is as low as two or three victims. Gun laws only affect the law-abiding. If you're a criminal, you don't care about any gun laws. And keep in mind that every shooter, not just a mass shooter, either got the gun legally or got it some other way. Gun control laws don't work.
Agree more mental health facilities are needed. Too many living on the streets and in jail who should really be hospitalized.
Some other thoughts. Believe there have always been mass shootings, to varying extents. But today's predatory 24/7/365 news cycle, needing content, provides a great deal of publicity of these shootings and very likely instigates some "me-too" shootings, such as in Dayton last night. Way back when coverage was limited and didn't last long. Now we'll have orgasms of coverage of the shootings, the grieving, the funerals, etc. There are people out there that get off on that stuff and figure they'll do the same. I advocate a limited amount of coverage and no naming of the shooter.
The USA is rather different than most, if not all other countries. We weren't granted our independence. We fought for it and with the help of the French defeated the British. It was the armed citizen who fought for freedom, along with the newborn Continental Army. And Americans as a group have a healthy skepticism about government, don't trust it that much.
Our Constitution consequently guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Have heard some say since people just had muskets then, that's all they should have now. Bullshit. By that standard of logic, the First Amendment would cover only things handwritten, printed on a hand printing press, or spoken aloud. These rights cover all applications, then, now, and in the future.
Also believe the national level of anger is pretty high. But the national level of anger has been high before without so many mass shootings. I also see many of those who use weapons in the commissions of crimes get nothing more than a slap on the wrist - IF they are caught, and IF they don't take a plea-bargain. So in the eyes of too many, there is little downside to using a gun to shoot someone, for whatever reason. Maybe strictly enforcing the punishments on the books for crimes where a gun is used would deter people from whipping out that weapon. And maybe people need to develop more self-control and remember that human lives are worth something. Don't know how to make that happen. Don't have all the answers. But if I can tell myself "no" to whatever, don't see why anyone else can't do the same.
Agree more mental health facilities are needed. Too many living on the streets and in jail who should really be hospitalized.
Some other thoughts. Believe there have always been mass shootings, to varying extents. But today's predatory 24/7/365 news cycle, needing content, provides a great deal of publicity of these shootings and very likely instigates some "me-too" shootings, such as in Dayton last night. Way back when coverage was limited and didn't last long. Now we'll have orgasms of coverage of the shootings, the grieving, the funerals, etc. There are people out there that get off on that stuff and figure they'll do the same. I advocate a limited amount of coverage and no naming of the shooter.
The USA is rather different than most, if not all other countries. We weren't granted our independence. We fought for it and with the help of the French defeated the British. It was the armed citizen who fought for freedom, along with the newborn Continental Army. And Americans as a group have a healthy skepticism about government, don't trust it that much.
Our Constitution consequently guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Have heard some say since people just had muskets then, that's all they should have now. Bullshit. By that standard of logic, the First Amendment would cover only things handwritten, printed on a hand printing press, or spoken aloud. These rights cover all applications, then, now, and in the future.
Also believe the national level of anger is pretty high. But the national level of anger has been high before without so many mass shootings. I also see many of those who use weapons in the commissions of crimes get nothing more than a slap on the wrist - IF they are caught, and IF they don't take a plea-bargain. So in the eyes of too many, there is little downside to using a gun to shoot someone, for whatever reason. Maybe strictly enforcing the punishments on the books for crimes where a gun is used would deter people from whipping out that weapon. And maybe people need to develop more self-control and remember that human lives are worth something. Don't know how to make that happen. Don't have all the answers. But if I can tell myself "no" to whatever, don't see why anyone else can't do the same.
