Guns: how much longer will it take ....

In my view, arguing for freedom from regulation (and virtually every 'right' is regulated) is akin to saying 'school shootings are a price worth paying for the freedom from gun regulation'

Of course it is, some sad loser's need to strut around with a gun trying to feel big.

The opposite in fact, just like at Sandy Hook he seem to take vicarious sexual pleasure in the killing of children.

If that's not bad enough he also mocks the victims and their loved ones.

I somehow think that even with effective safe storage laws across the nation there would still be a supply of illegal stolen guns

oralloy wrote:

Really good rock concert venue right next to that town. I have a lot of good memories there (meaning the concerts, never been to the town).

Wow, a person mentions four kids shot up at school by another kid and you talk about your good times at a rock concert venue. If that doesn't show your disconnect, I don't know what does.

He’s a psychopath. The anonymity of the internet removes the need for the mask he wears in society.

Every country has a supply of illegal guns. They can never be completely eliminated. That said, the lower the supply of illicit guns, the more difficult they are to get a hold of for the average person as they tend to centralise into the hands of hardened criminals. The more difficult they are to get a hold of (as mentioned previously):

- the more time is needed to get a hold of them (rather than being freely available in the home), giving time to either change their mind, or be discovered. Both outcomes leading to a lower rate of school shootings

- having to go through criminal lines (with many of them having no ties to such), leading to them either changing their mind for being too difficult, or trying to source them - meaning they have to multiple searches or ask multiple questions, or both... increasing the likelihood they will be identified as a true threat, or plain caught doing something illegal (while sourcing a gun from home does not create such waves, and is easy if not stored in a safe)

I think the entire USA has to do a re-think of what "the right to bear arms" means.

Did they mean it's okay to bear arms to protect your family and property?

Or that anyone can walk freely among people while carrying

and that anyone can bear arms for any reason whatsoever?

What was the intent of that language? The intent is extremely important and if arms-bearers are going to quote it ad nauseam, we need to know what the initial intent was.

there were neither machine guns nor hand grenades in existence when the 2nd amend was passed.,

it was for them to being muskets if they had to go to war. even scalia knew that.

your interpretation is pure fantasy.

However, I am not sure I like this as a solution for the problem of deeply troubled kids killing people. If a kid is deeply troubled, I think the better solution is to get them the help they need.

Simply preventing them from harming others without bothering to help them seems cruel and callous. It's the sort of solution that progressives would come up with. But I think we should all strive to be better than that.