Another day another mass shooting

What? Kent State shows us why people need to carry guns? And who is trying to prevent the knowledge of Kent State? Is the person wondering why Kent State doesn't get the new coverage a modern mass shooting gets?

@basso
Do you believe this Xweet has any kind of profound message or makes an important point?

 

Initially we have to strengthen existing systems. While there is a database of firearms and the NICS service that allows for background checks on those purchasing firearms my understanding is that we can't actually keep track of firearm ownership. This makes it difficult to track firearms used in crimes and how someone who shouldn't have a firearm is able to get one. We then need to enforce things like red flag laws more strictly again with much better tracking. For example the shooter at Lakewood Church should've never been able to get firearms given her history with mental illness to even having a prior protection order.

Mandatory training and insurance requirements should be required. Like with Canada exceptions could be made for things like hunting rifles but for handguns those should absolutely be required.

Expansion of liability laws and even criminal culpability for those who irresponsibly give weapons such as in the case of the mother in MI recently, or irresponsibly store their weapons allowing them to get stolen or accessed by children. This could further cut down on straw purchasers if someone purchases a firearm and gives or resells it to someone who shouldn't have one and they use it in a crime the original buyer is also culpable.

I agree with not exactly an "assault weapon" ban as that was largely based on appearance but with bans based on functions such as magazine capacity and firepower. A confiscation program will be unworkable so unfortunately any such ban would likely end up being grandfathered in and there are so many weapons like that out there already. At the minimum though we shouldn't be adding more into circulation.

The main thing that we need and one that cannot be easily changed is we need a culture that stops fetishizing firearms. So much of the resistance to firearm regulation is the symbolic value of them we need to get past that. Until we can address that we will not significantly reduce the number of firearms out there.

 

So should the student protesters then shot it out with National Guard instead?

 

agree 100%.

 

it's an example of why the 2nd amendment exists.

 

I agree with all of this.

I also wonder whether any of it is applicable to what happened in KC, but then we don't yet have all the facts.

 

the 2nd amendment is a safeguard against the sort of government tyranny we see in much of the rest of the world.

for instance, it's a fine hedge against Trump becoming the dictator you all see to fear.

 

I don't think this is a good argument in favor of an unrestricted second amendment. The "tyranny" Boogeyman doesn't exist in the developed world and we shouldn't compare the strength of our government to places like Senegal. Countries like the UK, France, Germany, etc. have societies comparable to ours without tyranny or vast, unfettered gun ownership.

The thing people leave out in this "me against the government " fantasy is the military. A ragtag group of suburban weekend warriors has absolutely no chance against whoever controls the military.

 

This is exactly what Trump promises to do as leader. Think about that. Trump would reportedly invoke the Insurrection Act — a law that gives the president nearly unchecked powers to use the military as a domestic police force — on his first day in office, so that he could quash any public protests against him.

 

if you buy an assault rifle now, you'll be able to resist Trump's tyranny.

 

The guy deployed national guard on protestors before and asked whether they can shoot protestors in knee caps I seem to recall. Which makes your tongue-in-cheek statement pretty crass.

 

where, and when?

 

Do you seriously believe this?

 

first time in D&D?

 

Yes I've never been in the D&D.

Given your early post in reply to my post

Do you seriously believe buying an assault rifle is going to resist Trump tyranny?

 

Does this really need to be said?

It was, 250 years ago when you had muskets, flintlock pistols and blunderbusses.

Now it's ARs vs the by-far most advanced military in the world with tanks, gunships, drones, planes, special forces, etc.

 

who won last time?

 

I think if you're worried about Trump being a dictator you should 100% go out and buy an assault rifle.

 

Yes that would totally work great like at Waco.

 

The guys who had the access to the most resources.