3 children dead in private Christian elementary school shooting in TN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The manifesto is going to be released:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-s-manifesto-to-be-released-official/ar-AA19f7c5

Like a lot of people, I'll read it out of general interest, but it's not going to change the fact that it was written by a disturbed person with guns who wanted to get famous and commit suicide by cop. I mean, does it really matter what reasons these killers give for why they kill? They all have some kind of grievances, real or imagined, and they are clearly intent on dying and taking others with them in a very newsworthy fashion. The only mass killer in recent history whose motives I'd like to know is the Las Vegas shooter. He killed 60 people and wounded 100s of others and nobody knows why.

+1 doesn't matter any more than the Buffalo grocery racist shooter nor the congressional baseball game shooter. It's all just a reason to deflect from...

What can we do to decrease gun deaths? Also nobody is daying eliminate. Reduce. Gunshot wounds are the number one cause of death in the US and tje GOP is deflecting with legislation about trans kids and books. GUNS ARE THE ACTUAL DANGER.

No.
The people behind the gun pulling the trigger are the actual danger. Guns do not shoot themselves.

When a gun is used to hurt or kill innocent people it is being used by a criminal or an extremely mentally ill person. These are the people who should not have access to firearms.

DP here. Fine, I’ll go with your logic. It’s the bad people shooting the guns who are the problem. Not the guns themselves.

SO … how do we keep the guns away from those bad people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am ready to support an assault gun ban.

I wish the left would realize that two of the reasons we “cling” to our guns are (a) we think some of you want to take away all guns, not just assualt weapons, and (b) we r think some of you are soft on crime and don’t support effective policing.

I think these perceptions make the right more rigid on gun control.

- conservative southern guy.

No one wants to take away all guns. You are totally falling for the right wing propaganda used to keep you scared. Your political party *wants* you to think the democrats will take away your guns so that you keep voting red. I can’t believe how many of you conservatives fall for it, and I grew up down south in GA so I know a lot.

We do need to get tougher on crime, particularly gun crimes. A friend’s husband was murdered by someone who already had 2 gun charges by 25, but they got pleaded down and he was out yet again, with a gun. I’d love to see some sort of one strike law for gun crimes. Use a gun unlawfully and you’ll see freedom in 20 years.

[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:

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?

And his methods and conclusions were refuted by other researchers repeatedly. You don't like science, data? You never took a basic research methods class did you?

Again, all he did was go through media and add up stories. Why didn’t the researchers?

[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:

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?

And his methods and conclusions were refuted by other researchers repeatedly. You don't like science, data? You never took a basic research methods class did you?

Again, all he did was go through media and add up stories. Why didn’t the researchers?

You obviously failed science class. Please explain how he chose which articles to count and which to ignore? What statistical model was used?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The manifesto is going to be released:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-s-manifesto-to-be-released-official/ar-AA19f7c5

Like a lot of people, I'll read it out of general interest, but it's not going to change the fact that it was written by a disturbed person with guns who wanted to get famous and commit suicide by cop. I mean, does it really matter what reasons these killers give for why they kill? They all have some kind of grievances, real or imagined, and they are clearly intent on dying and taking others with them in a very newsworthy fashion. The only mass killer in recent history whose motives I'd like to know is the Las Vegas shooter. He killed 60 people and wounded 100s of others and nobody knows why.

+1 doesn't matter any more than the Buffalo grocery racist shooter nor the congressional baseball game shooter. It's all just a reason to deflect from...

What can we do to decrease gun deaths? Also nobody is daying eliminate. Reduce. Gunshot wounds are the number one cause of death in the US and tje GOP is deflecting with legislation about trans kids and books. GUNS ARE THE ACTUAL DANGER.

No.
The people behind the gun pulling the trigger are the actual danger. Guns do not shoot themselves.

When a gun is used to hurt or kill innocent people it is being used by a criminal or an extremely mentally ill person. These are the people who should not have access to firearms.

DP here. Fine, I’ll go with your logic. It’s the bad people shooting the guns who are the problem. Not the guns themselves.

SO … how do we keep the guns away from those bad people?

Especially all of the people who bought guns legally and then carried out a mass shooting, because that keeps happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The manifesto is going to be released:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-s-manifesto-to-be-released-official/ar-AA19f7c5

Like a lot of people, I'll read it out of general interest, but it's not going to change the fact that it was written by a disturbed person with guns who wanted to get famous and commit suicide by cop. I mean, does it really matter what reasons these killers give for why they kill? They all have some kind of grievances, real or imagined, and they are clearly intent on dying and taking others with them in a very newsworthy fashion. The only mass killer in recent history whose motives I'd like to know is the Las Vegas shooter. He killed 60 people and wounded 100s of others and nobody knows why.

+1 doesn't matter any more than the Buffalo grocery racist shooter nor the congressional baseball game shooter. It's all just a reason to deflect from...

What can we do to decrease gun deaths? Also nobody is daying eliminate. Reduce. Gunshot wounds are the number one cause of death in the US and tje GOP is deflecting with legislation about trans kids and books. GUNS ARE THE ACTUAL DANGER.

No.
The people behind the gun pulling the trigger are the actual danger. Guns do not shoot themselves.

When a gun is used to hurt or kill innocent people it is being used by a criminal or an extremely mentally ill person. These are the people who should not have access to firearms.

Ok fair enough. So how do we keep guns out of those people’s hands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am ready to support an assault gun ban.

I wish the left would realize that two of the reasons we “cling” to our guns are (a) we think some of you want to take away all guns, not just assualt weapons, and (b) we r think some of you are soft on crime and don’t support effective policing.

I think these perceptions make the right more rigid on gun control.

- conservative southern guy.

I think the onus is on gun owners to solve the gun problem since gun owners are the ones clinging to their guns. You should be more than "ready to support" an assault gun ban. You should be actively advocating whatever restrictions you, in your infinite wisdom as a gun owner, believe will fix the mass shooting problem in America. If you think its a mental health problem, are you actively lobbying your representatives to fund mental health services? Do you think an assault gun ban will help? Are you calling your representatives telling them to support an assault gun ban, or are you sitting around saying "well that doesn't fix everything." Step up.

[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:

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.

Not sure how the freedom from being shot at school is a curtailment of civil rights. Seems like the other way around.

Ok, so lets say you want to end gun crime and prevent the mentally ill from shooting up schools. A laudable pursuit for sure.

To end gun crime, you have to round up guns. In order to do that you have to do the following:

1) Stop and frisk without probable cause
2) Target communities that commit crime at higher rates than others and tend not to have records for their firearms
3) Because we don't have firearms records for a sizeable number of firearms, we need door to door searches, particularly of people who are armed and are motivated to keep their firearms be they a criminal element, or those who believe they have a god given right to keep them
4) criminalized free speech in being able to distribute files for the creation of firearms via 3d printing

So now that we've broken the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments and had to create a giant police state, we have now provided the government with the powers to do the same for any other reason, and massively expanded police powers,

How do we also look at preventing school shootings

1) violate civil rights of people who have never committed a crime because we think they might commit a crime with red flag laws by seizing their property
2) forcing people to get treatment for mental illness when they haven't hurt anyone
3) institutionalizing people who haven't hurt themselves or others
4) created a massive surveillance state where people now report on others to the government

Do you want to live in a USA with a severely curtailed 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment and increased police powers?

I live in a blue city with guns freely accessed and trafficked from red states so I blame the GOP for every gunshot I hear. Literally just implementing already constitutional blue state gun laws at a federal level would reduce crime in my backyard FFS. Our local criminals source their weapons from the GOP states.

Ok so let's say we implement blue state gun laws tomorrow.

How will you remove the 400 million guns in circulation?

You have to go through a similar suspension of civil rights to do so.

Are we collectively willing to give up those protections?

People say you love guns more than kids. No, I want to live in a free country, not a police state. That's why I moved here from a communist country.

You remove the guns from circulation with generous buy backs and stiff penalties for anyone found with an unregistered gun. It will take years. And it won’t get every illegal gun off the street. But it’s a start. We will be so much better off in 10-20 years if we start cleaning up our country now than just allowing the problem to keep growing.

Also, if you are a responsible legal gun owner, what the heck are you scared of? Some paperwork? You do paperwork to own a car, vote, receive mail, etc.?

I would fill out a giant stack of paperwork if it might have any chance of preventing some murders of children.

I fear an intrusive government that abuses its power. Too much of that in the old country.

Having penalities won't disuade those that are looking to end their lives and take as many as they can with them.

Furthermore, I don't want to live in a country where the government can search me without reason, abuse POC, or provide an illusion of safety.

Honestly, I would sacrifice every single one of your civil rights if it meant saving one child. I care significantly more about the toilet paper I wipe with than your ability to own a gun, or not be intruded upon, or whatever the heck it is you think is worth the death of school children.

np. Wow. That's pretty much how societies evolve into tyranny.

[Anonymous]

The reality is that both parties need to put their ideas together and (1) implement strict gun control measures that make it harder to own a gun (maybe even an assault weapon ban) and (2) strictly enforce gun crime. If you don’t want to do both together, you’re not serious about taking care of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am ready to support an assault gun ban.

I wish the left would realize that two of the reasons we “cling” to our guns are (a) we think some of you want to take away all guns, not just assualt weapons, and (b) we r think some of you are soft on crime and don’t support effective policing.

I think these perceptions make the right more rigid on gun control.

- conservative southern guy.

The truth is the vast majority of us just want laws like those in the UK. Polling makes this clear.

And policing luckily is local. Unless you live in San Francisco, I wouldn't worry about this.

You Democrats are never honest about this issue, and your “polling” is so skewed as to be statistically worthless.

Sorry, but you’ve lost all credibility. No one believes you anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am ready to support an assault gun ban.

I wish the left would realize that two of the reasons we “cling” to our guns are (a) we think some of you want to take away all guns, not just assualt weapons, and (b) we r think some of you are soft on crime and don’t support effective policing.

I think these perceptions make the right more rigid on gun control.

- conservative southern guy.

The truth is the vast majority of us just want laws like those in the UK. Polling makes this clear.

And policing luckily is local. Unless you live in San Francisco, I wouldn't worry about this.

You Democrats are never honest about this issue, and your “polling” is so skewed as to be statistically worthless.

Sorry, but you’ve lost all credibility. No one believes you anymore.

A republican pointing fingers at others for dishonesty is a prime example of cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am ready to support an assault gun ban.

I wish the left would realize that two of the reasons we “cling” to our guns are (a) we think some of you want to take away all guns, not just assualt weapons, and (b) we r think some of you are soft on crime and don’t support effective policing.

I think these perceptions make the right more rigid on gun control.

- conservative southern guy.

The truth is the vast majority of us just want laws like those in the UK. Polling makes this clear.

And policing luckily is local. Unless you live in San Francisco, I wouldn't worry about this.

You Democrats are never honest about this issue, and your “polling” is so skewed as to be statistically worthless.

Sorry, but you’ve lost all credibility. No one believes you anymore.

A republican pointing fingers at others for dishonesty is a prime example of cognitive dissonance.

+1
Their party is in thrall to one of the most dishonest person to ever walk the Earth.

[Anonymous]

People complaining about restrictions on rights. Really should go into an airplane and yell bomb or into a government building and yell fire and see what happens when you say it was your Right to freedom of speech....... Your freedoms can't Trump public safety?

[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:

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.

Not sure how the freedom from being shot at school is a curtailment of civil rights. Seems like the other way around.

Ok, so lets say you want to end gun crime and prevent the mentally ill from shooting up schools. A laudable pursuit for sure.

To end gun crime, you have to round up guns. In order to do that you have to do the following:

1) Stop and frisk without probable cause
2) Target communities that commit crime at higher rates than others and tend not to have records for their firearms
3) Because we don't have firearms records for a sizeable number of firearms, we need door to door searches, particularly of people who are armed and are motivated to keep their firearms be they a criminal element, or those who believe they have a god given right to keep them
4) criminalized free speech in being able to distribute files for the creation of firearms via 3d printing

So now that we've broken the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments and had to create a giant police state, we have now provided the government with the powers to do the same for any other reason, and massively expanded police powers,

How do we also look at preventing school shootings

1) violate civil rights of people who have never committed a crime because we think they might commit a crime with red flag laws by seizing their property
2) forcing people to get treatment for mental illness when they haven't hurt anyone
3) institutionalizing people who haven't hurt themselves or others
4) created a massive surveillance state where people now report on others to the government

Do you want to live in a USA with a severely curtailed 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment and increased police powers?

I live in a blue city with guns freely accessed and trafficked from red states so I blame the GOP for every gunshot I hear. Literally just implementing already constitutional blue state gun laws at a federal level would reduce crime in my backyard FFS. Our local criminals source their weapons from the GOP states.

Ok so let's say we implement blue state gun laws tomorrow.

How will you remove the 400 million guns in circulation?

You have to go through a similar suspension of civil rights to do so.

Are we collectively willing to give up those protections?

People say you love guns more than kids. No, I want to live in a free country, not a police state. That's why I moved here from a communist country.

You remove the guns from circulation with generous buy backs and stiff penalties for anyone found with an unregistered gun. It will take years. And it won’t get every illegal gun off the street. But it’s a start. We will be so much better off in 10-20 years if we start cleaning up our country now than just allowing the problem to keep growing.

Also, if you are a responsible legal gun owner, what the heck are you scared of? Some paperwork? You do paperwork to own a car, vote, receive mail, etc.?

I would fill out a giant stack of paperwork if it might have any chance of preventing some murders of children.

I fear an intrusive government that abuses its power. Too much of that in the old country.

Having penalities won't disuade those that are looking to end their lives and take as many as they can with them.

Furthermore, I don't want to live in a country where the government can search me without reason, abuse POC, or provide an illusion of safety.

Honestly, I would sacrifice every single one of your civil rights if it meant saving one child. I care significantly more about the toilet paper I wipe with than your ability to own a gun, or not be intruded upon, or whatever the heck it is you think is worth the death of school children.

np. Wow. That's pretty much how societies evolve into tyranny.

Societies that ask adults to protect children evolve into tyranny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The manifesto is going to be released:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-s-manifesto-to-be-released-official/ar-AA19f7c5

Like a lot of people, I'll read it out of general interest, but it's not going to change the fact that it was written by a disturbed person with guns who wanted to get famous and commit suicide by cop. I mean, does it really matter what reasons these killers give for why they kill? They all have some kind of grievances, real or imagined, and they are clearly intent on dying and taking others with them in a very newsworthy fashion. The only mass killer in recent history whose motives I'd like to know is the Las Vegas shooter. He killed 60 people and wounded 100s of others and nobody knows why.

+1 doesn't matter any more than the Buffalo grocery racist shooter nor the congressional baseball game shooter. It's all just a reason to deflect from...

What can we do to decrease gun deaths? Also nobody is daying eliminate. Reduce. Gunshot wounds are the number one cause of death in the US and tje GOP is deflecting with legislation about trans kids and books. GUNS ARE THE ACTUAL DANGER.

No.
The people behind the gun pulling the trigger are the actual danger. Guns do not shoot themselves.

When a gun is used to hurt or kill innocent people it is being used by a criminal or an extremely mentally ill person. These are the people who should not have access to firearms.

do tell how you're going to keep guns away from the mentally ill, some not even diagnosed yet.

How about starting with a database of who owns guns and mental healthcare workers could report people to police who shouldn’t have guns. A red flag system. If there is a gun registered to the home the police can go investigate.