I didn’t claim the number could be 0, I claimed the acceptable number is 0.
Following every one of those shootings you linked, people demanded to know how it happened. Why did they have a gun? Was there warning signs that were missed? Was anybody negligent? How can we stop it from happening again and limiting the damage if it does?
That is the reaction of a society that finds any number above 0 unacceptable. They treat mass shootings as a failure of the system.
Meanwhile in America, they don’t bother to ask those questions.
They had a gun because it’s trivial to get your hands on semi-automatic rifles and handguns, even if you can’t pass a background check, because there are millions of unsecured weapons and no universal background checks.
The police and politicians are deliberately negligent, staunchly opposing red flag laws despite most mass shooters having multiple red flags.
No effort is made to prevent it happening again, because the murder of 20 children is shrugged off as some kind of inevitability, no more preventable than an earthquake or tornado – much the same as you’re doing right now.
Limiting the damage isn’t just staunchly opposed by the pro-gun community, many of them fully support making more dangerous weaponry available.
These are not the actions of people who find all gun violence unacceptable and the only reason the Ulvade police are criticized and the Newtown police are given a pass is because the Ulvade police didn’t bother to pretend they cared.
To be clear, I’m not arguing against sensible legislation, there are many things that can and should be done starting with an actual analysis if what could or should have prevented any specific shooting, once you realize that “banning guns” is off the table thanks to the second amendment.
An example I like to cite is the guy who shot up Michigan State. He had previously been arrested on a felony gun charge, was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, had a clean background check, bought guns and shot up the school.
Now, we already prevent felons from owning guns. Maybe, just maybe, if someone is arrested on a felony gun charge, that is something that should not be allowed to be pled down to a misdemeanor? Ya think?
Alternately, since we block felons from owning guns, as well as domestic abusers, and people charged with crimes that can land them in prison for more than a year, how about we block people with ANY gun charge from owning a gun? Felony OR misdemeanor? They’ve already proven they can’t be trusted with a gun.
These are the sorts of conversations we need to have but aren’t having because people get so caught up in knee jerk actions that can’t be taken.
I remember years ago the call was for “common sense gun reform!” and the action was “Did you know, people on the no-fly list can buy guns? How is that common sense??!??” Obama was making that call.
To which my reaction was “How many of these shooters were on the no-fly list? Oh, right, NONE of them? Good jorb!”
And there’s no set process for adding or removing people from the no fly list and it, itself, appears to be non-sensical:
I didn’t claim the number could be 0, I claimed the acceptable number is 0.
Following every one of those shootings you linked, people demanded to know how it happened. Why did they have a gun? Was there warning signs that were missed? Was anybody negligent? How can we stop it from happening again and limiting the damage if it does?
That is the reaction of a society that finds any number above 0 unacceptable. They treat mass shootings as a failure of the system.
Meanwhile in America, they don’t bother to ask those questions.
They had a gun because it’s trivial to get your hands on semi-automatic rifles and handguns, even if you can’t pass a background check, because there are millions of unsecured weapons and no universal background checks.
The police and politicians are deliberately negligent, staunchly opposing red flag laws despite most mass shooters having multiple red flags.
No effort is made to prevent it happening again, because the murder of 20 children is shrugged off as some kind of inevitability, no more preventable than an earthquake or tornado – much the same as you’re doing right now.
Limiting the damage isn’t just staunchly opposed by the pro-gun community, many of them fully support making more dangerous weaponry available.
These are not the actions of people who find all gun violence unacceptable and the only reason the Ulvade police are criticized and the Newtown police are given a pass is because the Ulvade police didn’t bother to pretend they cared.
To be clear, I’m not arguing against sensible legislation, there are many things that can and should be done starting with an actual analysis if what could or should have prevented any specific shooting, once you realize that “banning guns” is off the table thanks to the second amendment.
An example I like to cite is the guy who shot up Michigan State. He had previously been arrested on a felony gun charge, was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, had a clean background check, bought guns and shot up the school.
Now, we already prevent felons from owning guns. Maybe, just maybe, if someone is arrested on a felony gun charge, that is something that should not be allowed to be pled down to a misdemeanor? Ya think?
Alternately, since we block felons from owning guns, as well as domestic abusers, and people charged with crimes that can land them in prison for more than a year, how about we block people with ANY gun charge from owning a gun? Felony OR misdemeanor? They’ve already proven they can’t be trusted with a gun.
These are the sorts of conversations we need to have but aren’t having because people get so caught up in knee jerk actions that can’t be taken.
I remember years ago the call was for “common sense gun reform!” and the action was “Did you know, people on the no-fly list can buy guns? How is that common sense??!??” Obama was making that call.
To which my reaction was “How many of these shooters were on the no-fly list? Oh, right, NONE of them? Good jorb!”
And there’s no set process for adding or removing people from the no fly list and it, itself, appears to be non-sensical:
https://www.aclu.org/documents/statement-david-c-nelson
I’m sure that reply was fascinating but you’ve already revealed that you’re full of shit, so I’m not going to read it.
Proving, yet again, why you lose the debate.
Whatever helps you self soothe.