3 children dead in private Christian elementary school shooting in TN

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily Mail says this was a targeted attack. The parents, who claimed their child was “emotionally unstable”, rejected their child because they were gay. They were also leaders in the church that ran this school.

I don’t think the shooter was mentally ill at all, just fed up. At any rate, I’m not taking the word of the bigoted parents as truth. People can do irrational things for rational reasons. I think that is an uncomfortable truth we need to grapple with. This one doesn’t fit the usual mentally ill/hate crime narrative.

Where are you hearing this?
You think you know more about the mental health of this girl than the parents?

Very little is known about the shooter's gender identity (beyond changing pronouns to be/him, and identifying as male),such as how far down that path the individual had progressed, what, if any, type of care had been provided, or even how long the shooter had identified as trans. I feel everyone should slow down a bit and try not to get ahead of the facts.

It's great that you are quoting me, but how about some attribution?

Yes, sorry. I should have attributed to you; but point is I agree with you.

Yes, the fact that he’s trans matters, but it’s too early to say how much.

For instance, we do not know if he was taking testosterone supplements. That could matter.

Was he under the care of a professional psychologist? If so, how much did the psychologist know ? Were there warning signs? Clear warning signs??

You are right; and I think you might agree: too many people on this forum race to unfounded conclusions and judgments in sensational events like this. Sadly, people resort to tribalism instead of rational debate, and just use the opportunity to bash their enemy.

For example, pundits in this thread have already, alternately, trashed trans people, republicans, christians, white people, gun owners, the police, etc.

It’s all just sad in the end, and the lack of civility and decorum does not portend well for our democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This bickering is disrespectful And insensitive to the middle TN community.

Let’s have a moment here to reflect on what happened, and envelop these families in love and support.

? This isn’t a site they are reading and we are not close by. Where we are close by is the federal government. What is so insensitive?

Being respectful of families who lost loved ones in a mass shooting this week is something we should all do, regardless of what state we live in. Living in a different state than someone doesn't negate the expectation of basic human decency towards them online.

Basic human decency is we can't discuss what happened AGAIN? Respectful is ensuring that this doesn't happen to another person/child/family/teacher. Disrespectful is saying "thoughts and prayers" and "let's not get emotional now". I find your post horrifically disrespectful, like shrugging your shoulders at babies being slaughtered.

Stop with the faux outrage and political vomit. This can be politicized both ways easily, but I don't want to stoop to such a low.

Verily, families of Covenant Prebyterian would appreciate thoughts and prayers and support right now.

No. I am the OP. I have previously posted that I have:

1) Comforted a close friend who knew a child from Sandy Hook and attended their funeral
2) Hid under my desk at work due to an active shooter scare
3) A close family member happened not to shop at the Buffalo grocery store the day of that shooting.

I could go on about more issues. Heard gunshots from my house and called police (I live in a city). Have close family members who are teachers AND who are law enforcement.

It's REAL outrage and it's personal. Maybe it's not personal for you yet, but it will be because it's not ending. I literally do not understand your lack of empathy for why people are so upset, why they want (yes) political action, because yes, that is the only solution, the only way forward is to DO SOMETHING. Thoughts and prayers and nothing else is shameful. If it were my child, I'd want CHANGE, to ensure it never happened to another person.

From what I have read here, the "do something" people want to do something that will not be effective.
You talk about taking away all guns. That is just NOT going to happen. So, what do you recommend?

I've followed this entire thread and there are very few posts about taking all guns. Do not lie.

Some ideas for sensible gun ownership:

-Red flag laws at the federal level with drastic education about how and when to use them
-Mental health assessment for owning a gun
-Gun education class and test required to pass to own a gun like the Swiss do
-Raise minimum age to 21 to own a gun (yes in this case, it wouldn't help, but plenty of cases where it would)
-Anyone suddenly buying lots of guns all of a sudden triggers scrutiny, additional review. This woman was able to purchase 7 guns LEGALLY. That's ridiculous! It's also why democratic cities are overwhelmed with gun violence - majority of guns in crime are trafficked in from permissive gun law states statistically
-Anmunition cap

For starters.

What have you got other than thoughts and prayers and shrugging shoulders?

Just a few thoughts.....

I am all for red flag laws. As long as they are not abused.
Mental health screening for owning a gun? That is not going to happen. And, in the end... it would not be effective. Better for mental health professionals to report those who should not have access to firearms.
I'm good with a gun education class. Most firearms users do that. I did. Many gun shops will give free courses when a firearm is purchased. That is a good thing. The more education, the better.
How do we know this person "suddenly" purchased 7 guns. I have seen no reports of the time period in which she purchased them.
An ammunition cap would be crazy. It would mean that gun owners would spend less time practicing. You don't want that. Legal gun owners go to the range to practice so they can be responsible owners. A cap on ammunition would be defeating.

Why wouldn't mental health screenings be effective? Dozens of pages at the beginning of this thread were devoted to how the TN shooter had mental health issues. As did many other mass shooters. Likewise, thousands of people due from guns in acts of suicide, typically a function of diagnosable depression. Those thousands are all lives that could have been saved by diverting them to treatment instead of buying a gun and eating the bullet.

Each gun purchase *through a licensed seller goes with paperwork. But as I understand it, the paperwork cannot be retained by ATF, so they have no way of seeing or detecting bizarre or dangerous patterns of gun purchases. I think that needs to change.

Also, there are millions of guns that change hands via private sales or "gifts" and that also needs to change. I believe EVERY gun transfer needs to be documented and databased, because currntly we have absolutely zero insight into the mental state, or even the criminal records of those receiving the guns. There needs to be very serious felony-jailtime-steep-fine level penalties for any gun transfer that isn't documented.

I am in favor of caps on ammunition purchases for a given time period. Practice is fine but you don't need thousands of rounds a month to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This bickering is disrespectful And insensitive to the middle TN community.

Let’s have a moment here to reflect on what happened, and envelop these families in love and support.

? This isn’t a site they are reading and we are not close by. Where we are close by is the federal government. What is so insensitive?

Being respectful of families who lost loved ones in a mass shooting this week is something we should all do, regardless of what state we live in. Living in a different state than someone doesn't negate the expectation of basic human decency towards them online.

Basic human decency is we can't discuss what happened AGAIN? Respectful is ensuring that this doesn't happen to another person/child/family/teacher. Disrespectful is saying "thoughts and prayers" and "let's not get emotional now". I find your post horrifically disrespectful, like shrugging your shoulders at babies being slaughtered.

Stop with the faux outrage and political vomit. This can be politicized both ways easily, but I don't want to stoop to such a low.

Verily, families of Covenant Prebyterian would appreciate thoughts and prayers and support right now.

No. I am the OP. I have previously posted that I have:

1) Comforted a close friend who knew a child from Sandy Hook and attended their funeral
2) Hid under my desk at work due to an active shooter scare
3) A close family member happened not to shop at the Buffalo grocery store the day of that shooting.

I could go on about more issues. Heard gunshots from my house and called police (I live in a city). Have close family members who are teachers AND who are law enforcement.

It's REAL outrage and it's personal. Maybe it's not personal for you yet, but it will be because it's not ending. I literally do not understand your lack of empathy for why people are so upset, why they want (yes) political action, because yes, that is the only solution, the only way forward is to DO SOMETHING. Thoughts and prayers and nothing else is shameful. If it were my child, I'd want CHANGE, to ensure it never happened to another person.

From what I have read here, the "do something" people want to do something that will not be effective.
You talk about taking away all guns. That is just NOT going to happen. So, what do you recommend?

I've followed this entire thread and there are very few posts about taking all guns. Do not lie.

Some ideas for sensible gun ownership:

-Red flag laws at the federal level with drastic education about how and when to use them
-Mental health assessment for owning a gun
-Gun education class and test required to pass to own a gun like the Swiss do
-Raise minimum age to 21 to own a gun (yes in this case, it wouldn't help, but plenty of cases where it would)
-Anyone suddenly buying lots of guns all of a sudden triggers scrutiny, additional review. This woman was able to purchase 7 guns LEGALLY. That's ridiculous! It's also why democratic cities are overwhelmed with gun violence - majority of guns in crime are trafficked in from permissive gun law states statistically
-Anmunition cap

For starters.

What have you got other than thoughts and prayers and shrugging shoulders?

Just a few thoughts.....

I am all for red flag laws. As long as they are not abused.
Mental health screening for owning a gun? That is not going to happen. And, in the end... it would not be effective. Better for mental health professionals to report those who should not have access to firearms.
I'm good with a gun education class. Most firearms users do that. I did. Many gun shops will give free courses when a firearm is purchased. That is a good thing. The more education, the better.
How do we know this person "suddenly" purchased 7 guns. I have seen no reports of the time period in which she purchased them.
An ammunition cap would be crazy. It would mean that gun owners would spend less time practicing. You don't want that. Legal gun owners go to the range to practice so they can be responsible owners. A cap on ammunition would be defeating.

You and everyone like you is why we have mass shootings every few days. It’s you. You’re the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This bickering is disrespectful And insensitive to the middle TN community.

Let’s have a moment here to reflect on what happened, and envelop these families in love and support.

? This isn’t a site they are reading and we are not close by. Where we are close by is the federal government. What is so insensitive?

Being respectful of families who lost loved ones in a mass shooting this week is something we should all do, regardless of what state we live in. Living in a different state than someone doesn't negate the expectation of basic human decency towards them online.

Basic human decency is we can't discuss what happened AGAIN? Respectful is ensuring that this doesn't happen to another person/child/family/teacher. Disrespectful is saying "thoughts and prayers" and "let's not get emotional now". I find your post horrifically disrespectful, like shrugging your shoulders at babies being slaughtered.

Stop with the faux outrage and political vomit. This can be politicized both ways easily, but I don't want to stoop to such a low.

Verily, families of Covenant Prebyterian would appreciate thoughts and prayers and support right now.

No. I am the OP. I have previously posted that I have:

1) Comforted a close friend who knew a child from Sandy Hook and attended their funeral
2) Hid under my desk at work due to an active shooter scare
3) A close family member happened not to shop at the Buffalo grocery store the day of that shooting.

I could go on about more issues. Heard gunshots from my house and called police (I live in a city). Have close family members who are teachers AND who are law enforcement.

It's REAL outrage and it's personal. Maybe it's not personal for you yet, but it will be because it's not ending. I literally do not understand your lack of empathy for why people are so upset, why they want (yes) political action, because yes, that is the only solution, the only way forward is to DO SOMETHING. Thoughts and prayers and nothing else is shameful. If it were my child, I'd want CHANGE, to ensure it never happened to another person.

From what I have read here, the "do something" people want to do something that will not be effective.
You talk about taking away all guns. That is just NOT going to happen. So, what do you recommend?

I've followed this entire thread and there are very few posts about taking all guns. Do not lie.

Some ideas for sensible gun ownership:

-Red flag laws at the federal level with drastic education about how and when to use them
-Mental health assessment for owning a gun
-Gun education class and test required to pass to own a gun like the Swiss do
-Raise minimum age to 21 to own a gun (yes in this case, it wouldn't help, but plenty of cases where it would)
-Anyone suddenly buying lots of guns all of a sudden triggers scrutiny, additional review. This woman was able to purchase 7 guns LEGALLY. That's ridiculous! It's also why democratic cities are overwhelmed with gun violence - majority of guns in crime are trafficked in from permissive gun law states statistically
-Anmunition cap

For starters.

What have you got other than thoughts and prayers and shrugging shoulders?

Just a few thoughts.....

I am all for red flag laws. As long as they are not abused.
Mental health screening for owning a gun? That is not going to happen. And, in the end... it would not be effective. Better for mental health professionals to report those who should not have access to firearms.
I'm good with a gun education class. Most firearms users do that. I did. Many gun shops will give free courses when a firearm is purchased. That is a good thing. The more education, the better.
How do we know this person "suddenly" purchased 7 guns. I have seen no reports of the time period in which she purchased them.
An ammunition cap would be crazy. It would mean that gun owners would spend less time practicing. You don't want that. Legal gun owners go to the range to practice so they can be responsible owners. A cap on ammunition would be defeating.

You and everyone like you is why we have mass shootings every few days. It’s you. You’re the problem.

Constructive dialog: you really suck at that PP.

Try again. Or just go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This bickering is disrespectful And insensitive to the middle TN community.

Let’s have a moment here to reflect on what happened, and envelop these families in love and support.

? This isn’t a site they are reading and we are not close by. Where we are close by is the federal government. What is so insensitive?

Being respectful of families who lost loved ones in a mass shooting this week is something we should all do, regardless of what state we live in. Living in a different state than someone doesn't negate the expectation of basic human decency towards them online.

Basic human decency is we can't discuss what happened AGAIN? Respectful is ensuring that this doesn't happen to another person/child/family/teacher. Disrespectful is saying "thoughts and prayers" and "let's not get emotional now". I find your post horrifically disrespectful, like shrugging your shoulders at babies being slaughtered.

Stop with the faux outrage and political vomit. This can be politicized both ways easily, but I don't want to stoop to such a low.

Verily, families of Covenant Prebyterian would appreciate thoughts and prayers and support right now.

No. I am the OP. I have previously posted that I have:

1) Comforted a close friend who knew a child from Sandy Hook and attended their funeral
2) Hid under my desk at work due to an active shooter scare
3) A close family member happened not to shop at the Buffalo grocery store the day of that shooting.

I could go on about more issues. Heard gunshots from my house and called police (I live in a city). Have close family members who are teachers AND who are law enforcement.

It's REAL outrage and it's personal. Maybe it's not personal for you yet, but it will be because it's not ending. I literally do not understand your lack of empathy for why people are so upset, why they want (yes) political action, because yes, that is the only solution, the only way forward is to DO SOMETHING. Thoughts and prayers and nothing else is shameful. If it were my child, I'd want CHANGE, to ensure it never happened to another person.

From what I have read here, the "do something" people want to do something that will not be effective.
You talk about taking away all guns. That is just NOT going to happen. So, what do you recommend?

I've followed this entire thread and there are very few posts about taking all guns. Do not lie.

Some ideas for sensible gun ownership:

-Red flag laws at the federal level with drastic education about how and when to use them
-Mental health assessment for owning a gun
-Gun education class and test required to pass to own a gun like the Swiss do
-Raise minimum age to 21 to own a gun (yes in this case, it wouldn't help, but plenty of cases where it would)
-Anyone suddenly buying lots of guns all of a sudden triggers scrutiny, additional review. This woman was able to purchase 7 guns LEGALLY. That's ridiculous! It's also why democratic cities are overwhelmed with gun violence - majority of guns in crime are trafficked in from permissive gun law states statistically
-Anmunition cap

For starters.

What have you got other than thoughts and prayers and shrugging shoulders?

Just a few thoughts.....

I am all for red flag laws. As long as they are not abused.
Mental health screening for owning a gun? That is not going to happen. And, in the end... it would not be effective. Better for mental health professionals to report those who should not have access to firearms.
I'm good with a gun education class. Most firearms users do that. I did. Many gun shops will give free courses when a firearm is purchased. That is a good thing. The more education, the better.
How do we know this person "suddenly" purchased 7 guns. I have seen no reports of the time period in which she purchased them.
An ammunition cap would be crazy. It would mean that gun owners would spend less time practicing. You don't want that. Legal gun owners go to the range to practice so they can be responsible owners. A cap on ammunition would be defeating.

You and everyone like you is why we have mass shootings every few days. It’s you. You’re the problem.

What it would actually require to solve the problem is mass curtailment of civil rights and a police state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let the insurance companies handle this. Require insurance for all guns and they will have algorithms to figure out who and which type of guns are a risk.

Get caught with an uninsured gun and you get a felony charge (so banned from all future gun ownership) and jail time.

Just curious... How can you require insurance for something that is considered a right (2nd amendment).
Do you also believe in a poll tax?

[Anonymous]

Mental health professional here to say:it’s the guns!

[Anonymous]

Re voting, we require voters to register.

We don't require gun owners to register firearms in most states

We don't require gun owners to carry a license or permit in most states.

Simple things we can do for a start which are constitutionally permissable but haven't been implemented at the federal level.

Also: Heller case majority summary makes it clear gun control measures can be implemented constitutionally

[Anonymous]

ust curious... How can you require insurance for something that is considered a right (2nd amendment).

How absurd. Long ago when freedom of the press was included, you had to pay to buy a newspaper. You do realize people buy guns and ammo, right? So why not insurance for the gun?
Parroting right-wing talking points that aren't well-thought-out doesn't advance the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

ust curious... How can you require insurance for something that is considered a right (2nd amendment).

How absurd. Long ago when freedom of the press was included, you had to pay to buy a newspaper. You do realize people buy guns and ammo, right? So why not insurance for the gun?
Parroting right-wing talking points that aren't well-thought-out doesn't advance the conversation.

False equivlance.

You don't have to pay to buy a newspaper. You can get free papers. People distribute pamphlets etc. You can state your views while standing on a soapbox. You aren't required to buy insurance to do any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the insurance companies handle this. Require insurance for all guns and they will have algorithms to figure out who and which type of guns are a risk.

Get caught with an uninsured gun and you get a felony charge (so banned from all future gun ownership) and jail time.

Just curious... How can you require insurance for something that is considered a right (2nd amendment).
Do you also believe in a poll tax?

Every single right in the Bill of Rights comes with qualifications. Every single one. No right is absolute and the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on the exercising of those rights. Considering the amount of damage and destruction guns cause in this country, it is entirely reasonable to require people register and insure their guns. And insurance is a lot cheaper than the civil damages you could get sued for if you improperly handle or store a gun. So if you can’t afford insurance then you can’t afford owning a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ust curious... How can you require insurance for something that is considered a right (2nd amendment).

How absurd. Long ago when freedom of the press was included, you had to pay to buy a newspaper. You do realize people buy guns and ammo, right? So why not insurance for the gun?
Parroting right-wing talking points that aren't well-thought-out doesn't advance the conversation.

False equivlance.

You don't have to pay to buy a newspaper. You can get free papers. People distribute pamphlets etc. You can state your views while standing on a soapbox. You aren't required to buy insurance to do any of that.

Well you have to pay to buy a gun and ammo. So there is no scenario in which you can exercise your second amendment right for free to begin with. You are not as clever as you think you are with your nonsensical arguments about free newspapers.

And if you don’t like requiring citizens to buy insurance then let’s place the insurance requirements on the gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Once they can get sued, they will figure out a way to assess risk of gun sales. They care more about their pockets than school children, so let’s hit them with the financial costs.

Also, no more immunity for gun manufacturers. That is absolutely outside the scope of the 2nd amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sane people don't go around mass murdering people. Clearly this woman was mentally ill (even her parents had concerns about her well-being). The problem is mental illness, not guns.

+1000

But what would this mentally ill person have done without legally purchased guns? Not shoot 6 people dead.

There are other ways to harm than just guns. Such as bombs, using cars as a weapon, poisonous gas, etc.

If someone wants to kill, they’re going to do it. Taking one tool away to kill won’t solve that.

Then why don’t we see this happening with the same frequency in other countries?

Because other countries don’t push violence on tv 24/7 like America does.

And they have much more strict gun regulation they usually pass after the first mass shooting. Unlike the US were guns more before people.

Yup. In the US, mass shootings BOOST gun sales.

That’s just how dysfunctional our country is.

As it should be. I want to protect myself from a crazy shooter.

Okay. But you can’t, not in reality. “Good” guys are never the iconic cowboys they think they’ll be. They’re too afraid to remember how to shoot at all or they shoot innocents or just crap themselves like everyone else. And honestly what kind of mental problem is it if someone keeps buying guns with each mass shooting? At the end of the year, if you bought one gun for every mass shooting in 2021, you’d have 690 guns and then an additional 647 for 2022 and then 131 for this year so far. What kind of idiot needs 1468 guns to feel better about themselves? A gulllible, egotistical and not very intelligent kind of idiot.

Hop on youtube and you will find plenty of evidence to the contrary. There are channels dedicated to that sort of thing.

Hop into the news and you can find plenty of evidence that I’m right and you’re wrong.

Actually you can find actual evidence - not a pathetic YouTube wormhole someone uses to ramp up their cortisol - that I’m right and you’re wrong.

“In fact, recently gathered data show that fewer than one-third of all active shooters are actually stopped by law enforcement. Moreover, "good guys" with both guns and badges have been responsible for dozens of friendly-fire deaths of their fellow officers, and the other "good guys with guns"—security guards or bystanders—are frequently killed by police arriving on the scene. In fact, in the last seven years alone, police officers have shot and killed more than 8,000 people in this country.” https://policingequity.org/resources/blog/the-fiction-of-a-good-guy-with-a-gun

“From 2000 to 2021, ALERRT researchers studied 464 attacks (434 shootings, 23 knife attacks and seven vehicle attacks) and found civilians — including security guards and off-duty police officers — stopped attackers before police arrived on 73 occasions. In the vast majority of those cases (67%), bystanders subdued the assailant using physical force.

An armed civilian stopped attacks by shooting the suspect in 24 of the 464 attacks recorded, about 5% of all events.” Emphasis mine. Wowie. 5% to 67% of people just going for it and overpowering the loser gun nut. https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-end-an-attack/

Gosh, how about just a good guy who’s not a cop but is paid to be there? Like a school officer, how about that? “Research disputes recent assertions from Cruz and others that armed law enforcement on campus is “the most effective tool for keeping kids safe.” A 2021 JAMA Network Open study analyzed every documented incident from 1980-2019 in which “one or more people was intentionally shot in a school building during the school day, or where a perpetrator came to school heavily armed with the intent of firing indiscriminately.” It found “no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence.” “When there’s more guns, more people die,” says Jillian Peterson, one of the author’s of the JAMA study.” Oh, so no joy there, either. https://time.com/6182970/good-guys-guns-mass-shootings-uvalde/

I’ve got a crazy mad idea but given that the Republicans would just as soon see every last one of us exploded in a red explosion of tissue and have tried nothing: WHAT ABOUT IF WE DIDN’T HAVE SO DUCKING MANY GUNS. It’s so crazy it just might work here like it does in every other ducking country with gun control.

Stat is incorrect. 5% is actually around 55%. All one has to do is aggregate the actual reported news for a year.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/08/10/the_good_guys_with_guns_the_fbi_stats_omit_846869.html#!

Sorry, John Lott is one person with an opinion, that doesn't make his information factual. He has been discredited. Typical GOP, don't get that one opinion doesn't make a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

All he did was go through media and add up the stories. You don’t like media?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m disappointed at the press photographers so greedily trying to get their money shot after a tragedy like this. The pic of the crying kid on the school bus which is plastered on the CNN website makes me so angry. What about that poor child’s privacy? That child just experienced a traumatic event. The press are just as disgusting as the politicians who do nothing. I’m sick of people turning tragedy into profit.

FULLY agree.

If you're so bothered by the media coverage of these shootings then maybe you should think about DOING SOMETHING TO STOP THE SHOOTINGS? Like sensible gun control? Like mental health?

So much cognitive dissonance with you people. I cannot even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the insurance companies handle this. Require insurance for all guns and they will have algorithms to figure out who and which type of guns are a risk.

Get caught with an uninsured gun and you get a felony charge (so banned from all future gun ownership) and jail time.

Just curious... How can you require insurance for something that is considered a right (2nd amendment).
Do you also believe in a poll tax?

Every single right in the Bill of Rights comes with qualifications. Every single one. No right is absolute and the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on the exercising of those rights. Considering the amount of damage and destruction guns cause in this country, it is entirely reasonable to require people register and insure their guns. And insurance is a lot cheaper than the civil damages you could get sued for if you improperly handle or store a gun. So if you can’t afford insurance then you can’t afford owning a gun.

What 3rd amendment qualifications are there?