School Shooting in Connecticut

[Black Eye Guy]

In order to enact a plan such as you suggest, the United States Constitution and Bill Of Rights, and the Constitutions of every state in the United States would have to be rewritten. Then the importation of foreign made firearms, which make up probably 40% of all the new guns being sold in the United States would somehow need to be stopped, a much simpler thing said than done. Then there is the problem of the domestic manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and countless accessories. Put them out of business, and you put thousands more workers in the unemployment lists, and all of the stockholders in all of those businesses lose their investment.

All of that has to be done in order to fulfill just the first step of your "solution." Just that first step alone would take years, if not decades to enact. Implementation of the entire thing would take the greater part of a lifetime.

That doesn't sound very simple to me.

See I think one of the things mentioned in this thread earlier that people took offensively, that allowing guns allows this to happen, is partially true.

To the rest of us, who don't have anywhere near the gun crime you do, we connect that to not having guns. It's as simply as getting rid of the guns to get rid of the problem, obviously there are allot of issues within that, like you said with jobs (although I don't see your point on foreign guns - if their legally imported they should be easy to control as any other country does, or for investors - they know how investing works, sometimes you get money, sometimes you loose money)

But a consequence of having guns available is the possibility of something like a shooting happening.

What I struggle to understand is to me the risk of a shooting is to high to allow guns, if you are in favour of guns you you are partially accepting the fact that this will continue to happen.


I think anyone thats suggested in training and arming teachers, is just a little crazy, and shows very little understanding of the issue outside of gun control. What were to happen if one of the teachers were to snap, or if the teacher was over powered by a student, literately putting guns into the class room is such a bad idea.

Having security teams and unmarked vans, seems like a horrible school environment, and wouldn't situations just turn into hostage situations rather than killing sprees, or become more localised, done at a time you'd know people are all together like in a cafeteria, by the time a team could get there the damage is done.

I just don't see how the answer to gun violence is more guns.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about this too heavily. Honestly I haven't read through majority of the discussion because I know that shootings are something that are quite close to me at the moment.

I just wanted to share my perspective.

On August the 29th my boyfriend that I loved deeply was shot and killed by someone in the Afghan army that he was mentoring while serving in Afghanistan. Most of the people I am close with from here already know about this. It was the most horrible time of my entire life. I was shocked and grief stricken and honestly unless you have been through something this brutal and senseless you really can not understand it.

You know what really hurt though? People turning the death of my boyfriend, the worst time of my entire life into a political discussion. It was sitting on a bus, fighting back tears for weeks on end, and overhearing someone say that we are only over there to suck up to USA. It was sitting at the pub, trying to forget about things for just a couple of moments, and hearing someone say 'well we shouldn't have been there in the first place'.

I know that these kind of events make people want to talk about it but really it should be something done in private. Not on a public forum, not sat on a bus, not sat on a high horse.

Guns laws are incredibly complex. Lets all just shut the hell up about it for 5 minutes and use the passion that we have to stand behind the hundreds of people around the world that are suffering the deepest feelings of grief you can possibly imagine.

I understand that the issue is difficult for you to hear people talking about, but I think thats what people are doing by openly discussing the issue. Trying to discuss something and understand it, and trying to make sure it can't happen again.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Well, the simplest solution would be to use the money saved by bringing our military forces home from the Middle East (which Obama said was his goal during his first term) to finance a new, more extensive security system for our schools and other prime target areas. In addition, partial funding could be cut from foreign aid programs, on the grounds that, as dire as their situations might be, the security of American citizens has to come first. Simply being more careful in the management of other programs and expenditures (like the infamous $500 toilet seat) could make funds available. And those troops from the Middle East mentioned above, transferred to some agency like Homeland Security, would provide the needed manpower, with only a minimum of additional training required.

And as far as raising taxes goes, when has Congress NOT been willing to do that? Or, as an alternative, Obama's infamous plan to "make the upper class pay their fair share" would, in theory, provide at least some funding.

Of course, all of this is just speculation on my part, as rhetorical as anything else, but it seems to me that, if the ultimate goal is to make people more secure in their schools and places of employment, maybe it would be better to make it our primary objective as well, It has as much of a chance of working as anything else that has been tried so far.

The upper (middle) class already pays much more than their fair share, and are about to pay much MORE because our government would rather point fingers than make real, meaningful cuts to their budget. What you suggest as far as school security is a good one, BUT it's unlikely to happen under the current leadership. Though at some point, we have to ask ourselves if we want to live with armed guards all around us at all times, and whether that would really make us safer?

Though, as I said before, I am for gun control, I don't think that simply taking away the guns will take away the violence. That won't affect the illegal gun problem, or the root of the violence in the first place. If this kid hadn't had a gun, he probably would have got a bomb recipe off the internet and blown himself up in the middle of the school. There are no simple answers, but I do think the reason behind the violence is more important than the gun itself.

 

[white avenger]

I think anyone thats suggested in training and arming teachers, is just a little crazy, and shows very little understanding of the issue outside of gun control. What were to happen if one of the teachers were to snap, or if the teacher was over powered by a student, literately putting guns into the class room is such a bad idea.

Working on the assumption that you somehow think that from this remark:


"Also, school personnel would have to be trained and multiple "panic rooms" installed in all schools to provide proper shelter in the case of an actual incident."

that I am suggesting arming the teachers, or any other school personnel, let me elaborate on something that I originally thought needed no such elaboration.

Teachers and other school personnel in Georgia are trained in the Heimlich maneuver in order to assist a choking child. They are trained on what to do in the event of a fire, violent storm, and many other emergencies. What I was suggesting is that the teachers have, and are trained in, a procedure for either evacuating the students as quickly as possible in the event of this or any other terrorist-like situation, or getting them as quickly as possible into the nearest "safe room," which wouldn't have to be anything more, in most cases, than an ordinary classroom with a reenforced dor and the capability of locking those doors from the inside.

Gun laws have been enacted many times in the United States, all with the intent of either reducing crime, lowering the incidence of gun violence, or both, and there has never been a single one that could be shown to conclusively do what it was intended to do. There are always too many other factors involved to make the study accurate.In view of that fact, it has been suggested by myself and others, that increasing the security on school campuses, shopping malls, public buildings, and other such places, which seem to be the shooters' target of choice, might be a more effective solution, as in the analogy of putting a guard rail on the cliff side might be more effective than building a larger emergency room to take care of fall victims. It might or might not be the right solution, but it has at least as good a chance of success as banning extended magazines on rifles and handguns, which DIDN'T work, and it has the advantage of being something that both sides of the issue can agree on and support.

 

[Buffy Summers]

What I was suggesting is that the teachers have, and are trained in, a procedure for either evacuating the students as quickly as possible in the event of this or any other terrorist-like situation, or getting them as quickly as possible into the nearest "safe room," which wouldn't have to be anything more, in most cases, than an ordinary classroom with a reenforced dor and the capability of locking those doors from the inside.

A woman I work with was just telling me today, that at her grandson's school (I think he's about 6 or 7) they have drills where they practice what to do if there's an attack in the building (similar to a fire drill). And she also said that in the Connecticut school, some of the teachers told the kids it was a drill.

 

[white avenger]

Regarding the proposed increased security measures as a method of keeping schools and other public locations safe from attack, as opposed to further gun control legislation, it was just pointed out to me on another forum that this is exactly what was done after 9/11 (strangely, no one even suggested box opener or knife bans in the aftermath) and, while the result is an inconvenience, it is an ACCEPTABLE inconvenience, one that everyone, even those who travel by air extensively, has managed to tolerate, if not enjoy, and apparently it has been quite affective up to this point.

I see no reason why similar measures wouldn't work elsewhere.

 

[whitewolf]

In order to enact a plan such as you suggest, the United States Constitution and Bill Of Rights, and the Constitutions of every state in the United States would have to be rewritten. Then the importation of foreign made firearms, which make up probably 40% of all the new guns being sold in the United States would somehow need to be stopped, a much simpler thing said than done. Then there is the problem of the domestic manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and countless accessories. Put them out of business, and you put thousands more workers in the unemployment lists, and all of the stockholders in all of those businesses lose their investment.

All of that has to be done in order to fulfill just the first step of your "solution." Just that first step alone would take years, if not decades to enact. Implementation of the entire thing would take the greater part of a lifetime.

That doesn't sound very simple to me.

Actually you wouldn't have to rewrite state constitutions. If you amended the federal to outlaw the private ownership of guns then the state constitution clauses would be useless. If a state law conflicts with federal law or the federal constitution than the state law is void. It still would be very very hard, but not quite as hard as you say. Now, personally I'm not in favor of total gun bans, but we do need stricter laws. No one should be allowed to own an assualt rifle. They were meant for war and have no place in civilian hands. I also think we should ban extended magazines for pistols. For purely home defense purposes 6 shots is going to be enough. If you go to a range then you can reload. I'm sorry, but I do think we need to strengthen our gun laws to reduce the damage of events like this. Could some nutjob still find a way to hurt people? Sure, but guns make it much easier. 22 people were wounded in China by a guy with a knife, but none were killed. Guns may not kill people, but they make it much easier.

 

[white avenger]

No one should be allowed to own an assualt rifle. They were meant for war and have no place in civilian hands.

No one IS allowed to own an assault weapon without first undergoing a very detailed investigation by BATF and paying for a very expensive, non transferable, license. It's been that way since 1928. What Obama, Biden, Shumer, and the rest are trying to call assault weapons are simply perfectly legal semiautomatic rifles with a few cosmetic changes designed to make them look like military issue. By the definition used in the Brady Act, ANY semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine,in other words, virtually ALL semiautomatic rifles and all semiautomatic handguns, can b defined as "assault" weapons, That's one of the main reasons that almost all law abiding gun owners oppose it. It's virtually a blanket definition that can be reinterpreted at any time without Congressional approval, to include whatever the administrating agency, probably the BATF, to mean whatever they want it to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8
,

 

[SinisterPledge]

I haven't read all the responses to this thread but it seems like it's focused on gun politics.

I just wanted to say that I feed absolutely nothing. I don't feel sad, I don't think about it, I'm not angry or upset. I just don't care. This incident isn't the first one, and to be completely honest, it doesn't surprise me at all. I've lost hope in mankind, and there are faaar worse things happening every week (no this is not one of those "omg thousands of people are dying in Africa every day" arguments). I've found that I lack empathy to mankind as a whole. It's just not worth the trouble, in my opinion.

With that said, I do not mean that I approve of what happened or that I do not understand the deep and heartbreaking sadness of the parents. It was a horrible thing, it just doesn't bother me because I expected nothing else. This was bound to happen and it will happen again and again and again and again (regardless of gun politics).

Now to comment on the gun control debate:

Yes the liberal gun laws of the united states is partially to blame because it makes it EASIER for people like him to accuire a firearm. A strict gun control might have stopped many of these cases, but not ALL OF THEM. It is the person that kills the people, with the gun. So, harder to get guns = harder to kill loads of people. I doubt he'd take down that many people with a knife... Ofc he could mix his own bomb dough but chances are he'd blow himself up instead.

Gun control laws need to change, but it's gonna take a lot of time and effort. But to think that will solve the problem is to be completely naà¯ve. We need to look at the psychological area, and most importantly, the social structures that made this man do this. All these massacres have been made by men in small towns. Just saying.

 

[whitewolf]

No one IS allowed to own an assault weapon without first undergoing a very detailed investigation by BATF and paying for a very expensive, non transferable, license. It's been that way since 1928. What Obama, Biden, Shumer, and the rest are trying to call assault weapons are simply perfectly legal semiautomatic rifles with a few cosmetic changes designed to make them look like military issue. By the definition used in the Brady Act, ANY semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine,in other words, virtually ALL semiautomatic rifles and all semiautomatic handguns, can b defined as "assault" weapons, That's one of the main reasons that almost all law abiding gun owners oppose it. It's virtually a blanket definition that can be reinterpreted at any time without Congressional approval, to include whatever the administrating agency, probably the BATF, to mean whatever they want it to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8
,

I'm sorry, but you don't need a semiautomatic rifle. If you want something for home defense buy a pistol or a shotgun. If you want to go hunting you can use a bolt action rifle. There is no need for anything else in civilian hands. Just my opinion, of course and I know I'm probably the minority on this.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Every country has its own archetype. In France, it would be the conoisseur, the man of exquisite taste. In England, it would be the world traveller to the far-flung colonies. In the Middle East, it would be the Bedouin, the traveller who could cross the most inhospitable desert via planning and self-discipline. In America, it is the gunslinger.

America was the home of the gunslinger, the mercenary hired gun, and one American contibution to the English language was the term "troubleshooter", meaning someone who solves a problem with a gun. Almost any profession that has a diagnostic function has people called "troubleshooters", whether it is an electronics technician, a software programmer, a consultant or any of a number of professions that confront problems that other people cannot solve. When Barry Goldwater made his bid for the presidency in 1964, one of the things he was most proud of was that he had met Wyatt Earp in person. Guns have been part of the American psyche since before television, radio or the movies.

At the time the Constitution was written, let's see how a mass shooting would occur:

1. Take musket or blunderbuss, bag or horn of black powder, musket balls, wadding and ramrod to the location in question.

2. Load the charge of powder from the powder horn to the musket.

3. Add wadding.

4. Tamp it all down with the ramrod.

5. Load musket ball.

6. Aim and fire.

7. Repeat starting at step 2.

Obviously, during this time, it would be possible for other intended victims to flee or overpower the shooter. The Constitution had no realization that there would be readily available cartridges which combined a percussion cap, the powder charge and the bullet in one assembly and semi-automatic (fires once for each trigger pull) or automatic (fires as long as the trigger is held down) weapons. The Constitution has been amended 27 times in the past - it is not nor ever was Holy Writ. The Second Amendment is overdue for an additional modification.

 

[white avenger]

America was the home of the gunslinger, the mercenary hired gun, and one American contibution to the English language was the term "troubleshooter", meaning someone who solves a problem with a gun. Almost any profession that has a diagnostic function has people called "troubleshooters", whether it is an electronics technician, a software programmer, a consultant or any of a number of professions that confront problems that other people cannot solve. When Barry Goldwater made his bid for the presidency in 1964, one of the things he was most proud of was that he had met Wyatt Earp in person. Guns have been part of the American psyche since before television, radio or the movies.

.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term trouble-shooter
was preceded by the earlier term trouble-hunter. Both terms were
used in reference to telephone lines in the late 19th/early 20th
centuries.

The trouble-hunters found and then repaired telephone line problems.
It seems a natural progression from "hunter" to "shooter", though this
isn't explicitly stated in the OED.

Apparently your information concerning the origin of the term "trouble shooter" is somewhat flawed, which leads me to question the remainder of your statement. But I would really be interested in your slant on a program called "Send A Rifle To England" during World War 2.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term trouble-shooter
was preceded by the earlier term trouble-hunter. Both terms were
used in reference to telephone lines in the late 19th/early 20th
centuries.

The trouble-hunters found and then repaired telephone line problems.
It seems a natural progression from "hunter" to "shooter", though this
isn't explicitly stated in the OED.

Apparently your information concerning the origin of the term "trouble shooter" is somewhat flawed, which leads me to question the remainder of your statement. But I would really be interested in your slant on a program called "Send A Rifle To England" during World War 2.

Just because that word might have some other origins, it is no reason to discart the rest of the post. It more looks like a flimsy excuse to evade a valid point that doesn't go down well with your personal view.


It is a FACT that weapons back in the days were a lot less powerful, and thus also less potent in a potential scenario of mass killing such as the one discussed at present. The founding fathers had no idea what kind of killing machines would spring to being over the next few centuries.

It is also a FACT that the Constitution isn't set in stone, and there have been changes to it. Granted, mostly this included additions rather than cancelling something out, but at least to me this does not mean this should never happen. Certain things just become outdated. It's certainly not the fault of any of the people who wrote it, they can't predict the future and just take into account what seems best and most reasonable at the time, but if you refuse progress like that, solely based on "it's in the Constitution" the human race would be headed for disaster. Back then the rights given in the Constitution only applied to white males, imagine what it would be like if people had been fighting against that too. (well they did, but in the end they didn't get their will)


What is also a fact is that the world back then was just different. Here's actually some pretty interesting bits from wikipedia:

There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled ostensibly for the common good. The Bill of Rights of 1689 undid the disarming of Protestants which had occurred in the aftermath of the Civil War but did not create any new rights. The right to regulate arms was clarified, making it certain to be the prerogative of Parliament and not the Monarch. The first serious control on firearms after this was not made until the passing of the Pistols Act 1903 more than 200 years later

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689, which restricted the right of the English Crown to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights restricted the right of the monarch to have a standing army and to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. It did not create a new right to have arms, but instead rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II which extended the right to Catholics and Protestant dissenters in addition to upholding prior legislation that limited the ownership of arms to certain social classes. The English Bill of Rights firmly established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

(both from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms)

So basically, what you can learn from these is the reasoning behind the right to bear arms. Back then there was a definite necessity to bear arms. The police as we know it now didn't exist, and bearing arms also gave your rights protection from the state.
Also, back then practices such as duelling were not illegal. Of course you needed weapons for that stuff too, but these days no one would insist on needed to own a weapon for duelling.


These things do not really apply anymore nowadays. These days the right to bear arms has pretty much turned around to mean pointless violence among citizens that could have been prevented.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if they knew what their amendment had become to be. Considering how they were the progressive, righteous types, I'm even pretty sure that if they were contemporary fellows, they'd be among the first to put a stop to this pointless violence.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Just because that word might have some other origins, it is no reason to discart the rest of the post. It more looks like a flimsy excuse to evade a valid point that doesn't go down well with your personal view.

A stereotype is not a valid basis for judging another country on. I think YOU are missing the reality of our country today because your ideas are not based on actually living here but by making inaccurate assumptions about what Americans think. Which people have been trying to explain in this thread, though you seem unwilling to listen to because it doesn't go down well with YOUR personal view.

I think we're getting away from the issue again here - there's no reason for this to get nasty again, please. Gun control is an issue easily debated without insulting a country or its history.

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

A stereotype is not a valid basis for judging another country on. I think YOU are missing the reality of our country today because your ideas are not based on actually living here but by making inaccurate assumptions about what Americans think. Which people have been trying to explain in this thread, though you seem unwilling to listen to because it doesn't go down well with YOUR personal view.

I think we're getting away from the issue again here - there's no reason for this to get nasty again, please. Gun control is an issue easily debated without insulting a country or its history.

Okay, first of all, I have lived in the U.S. for a while, have heard what people's thoughts on issues were and seen wht life was like. Coinidentally also the only place where I've actually ever seen anyone fire a gun. Also, the only place where any of my friends' ex-boyfriends got shot in the neck. But that's not the point, I'm sure states and cities differ. The point is, don't draw your conclusions on me before you even got all the facts.

The reason I called white avenger out on his post was because he dismissed part of someone else's post as incorrect and based the rest of the post on that one false detail. Which is a logical fallacy, and I didn't think pointing that out in a discussion is a bad thing.


You might call me unwilling to listen, and maybe I am. After all, this is a complex, yet very important topic. But if I can say anything about this, it's that in that case, both sides aren't listening. I've been in this thread from the beginning, and I think some Americans have been responding very selectively to our arguments. I'm sure you feel the same about the ones among us who opposed your views. You can't expect anyone to change their entire beliefs system about what's right or wrong over night. Obviously I think I'm right, as much as anyone else thinks the same about themselves.
But saying we're (or I'm) basing things on stereotypes and ignoring what others try to tell us isn't really fair. It kinda reads more like a personal attack.

 

[white avenger]

Just because that word might have some other origins, it is no reason to discart the rest of the post. It more looks like a flimsy excuse to evade a valid point that doesn't go down well with your personal view.




.

I have no problem at all with you stating your personal views, observations, and opinions here or anywhere else. That's another one of those personal freedoms granted to us by our Bill Of Rights. I would just prefer that you state them as such rather than trying to pass them off as facts.

And you really should check out that "Send A Gun To England" thing. It's a perfect example of why someone in the world needs to retain the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/650257/posts

Incidentally, along with your other facts, you might keep in mind that, at the time that our Constitution was written, the muzzle loading rifle was the most technically advanced weapon of the day. Therefore, what the Second Amendment guarantees us is the right to use modern weapons, not antiquated ones.

And, before the argument about the term "militia" in the Second Amendment comes up. the U S Supreme Court, in 2009, ruled that the Second Amendment did, indeed refer to a personal freedom, not a collective one, and that firearms could be regulated, but not banned, thus overturning the decades old ordinance in Washington, D C banning the private possession of any handgun. Strangely enough, incidences both murder and rape have declined since then.

No, handguns aren't assault weapons, but they were the primary target of the anti gun organizations. After the Heller Decision, they coined the term "assault weapon" and applied it to a specific group of semiautomatic rifles, based almost exclusively on purely cosmetic features, and refocused their efforts in that direction.

And, just for the record, I personally have no real objection to the government making another attempt to reduce access to the specific weapons or features associated with what they arbitrarily, if inaccurately, term "assault weapons," as long as they are specifically limited to those firearms with those features only. I just happen to feel, along with quite a few other Americans, that this is the wrong approach, and will have no affect on the actual problem, which is increasing the security on our school campuses and the other targets of choice of this sort of predator.

 

[white avenger]

Reading back over this thread, I have to say that it has for the most part stopped being about the tragedy, and become more of a debate over two opposing views of a question that will never be properly settled to everyone's satisfaction. And it's also beginning to get nasty, in no small part of which I have to bear responsibility. So, rather than continue down this road, I'm getting out before someone really gets their feelings hurt. The rest of you can keep it up for as long as you want, say whatever you care to, until someone shuts it down or everyone loses interest. But as for me...

"Hasta la vista, baby."

My participation is terminated.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Reading back over this thread, I have to say that it has for the most part stopped being about the tragedy, and become more of a debate over two opposing views of a question that will never be properly settled to everyone's satisfaction. And it's also beginning to get nasty, in no small part of which I have to bear responsibility. So, rather than continue down this road, I'm getting out before someone really gets their feelings hurt. The rest of you can keep it up for as long as you want, say whatever you care to, until someone shuts it down or everyone loses interest. But as for me...

"Hasta la vista, baby."

My participation is terminated.

I had the same thought, which is why I stopped posting, you guys have a different culture then Europe, and we don't see eye to eye on this at all.
I'll personally never understand how every American isn't pleading for their guns to be taken away after this keeps happening, but instead saying it wont make a difference because it's been "attempted" before, even though it does work for other countries that do it properly.

I only just read that the NRA commented for the first time - Americas seem to get pissed off when non-Americans comment negatively on American matters, even if they agree with you, and if you want to know why its because these are the people we hear as the voices of the pro-gun people, and these people are morons.

They blamed violent video games and movies for the shooting, they said stupid things like "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
And their backing a campaign to have armed guards on all school campuses.

Seeing what a major player they have been in gun laws, that is beyond depressing, even if you are in favour of guns I hope your (general your not anyone in particular) not a member of them, letting them be the voice for your point of view. Their the reason the rest of the world rolls it's eyes at some of the things America does and why when we tell our friends news of a shooting they shrug and say "oh yeah, another one" (I told 3 friends all who had this reaction, one asked me which shooting I was talking about because there had been one in a mall earlier in the week)

 

[Tueuse de Vampires]

Gunman kills three in Pennsylvania rampage before dying in shootout with state police

There's not really much left to say, since everyone has laid out their views already and we've pretty much established this thread will not lead to any agreement.

Just one last thing. It's really sad to see a country an't seem to pass a week without a shooting (see article). It's even more depressing the willingness to bring some change seems to be so low...

 

[Black Eye Guy]

white avenger agrees: Legislation has been proposed in several states to provide armed security on school campuses, it's not just the NRA

Thats beyond depressing

Always Bangel disagrees: No matter which side you're on, change doesn't occur in a week. And to say there's a shooting every week is just sensationalistic stereotyping

That would be true if the first shooting was a week ago, this is going back years and is still a problem, and I believe TdV was making a point that there was a shooting early last week, the school shooting at the end of the week and then another today all within 2 weeks.