Narcissus

So... you don't have a solution, but demand action. Literally anything, you say? What about making murder illegal? I really wish they would do that. Think of the lives that would be saved. If only... Seriously... who needs to do 'literally anything'? I assume you mean the government? What should they do? I'm not joking here... you said "literally anything", so what does that mean? Are you talking about making laws to prevent this from happening? What would these new laws involve? What limits should be considered, if any, to prevent people from dying? You offer nothing productive beyond signaling to everyone that you think it is wrong that nothing has been done, yet offer zero suggestions as to what could be done. Would it be hyperbolic for me to say that all guns should be stripped from the populace? What about all knives have to be dull and non-pointy? Cars can't go faster than people can evade them? All items that can be hefted and bashed into someones head should be destroyed? Yes, it is obvious I'm talking hyperbole... but other than signalling your virtuous and indignant fury, you offer nothing. Feeling better?

I created this account solely because of this topic. I found it very frustrating and simply couldn't resist posting... First things first: gun ownership is a RIGHT. Please understand that it isn't a right that is afforded us by our government... the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to own firearms. It doesn't give us that right in any way. The 2nd amendment protects us from our government trying to take away that right. Anyone that looks at our history and reads about our founders will know and understand that the right is granted inherently (whether by God or by natural laws is for each man's perception to determine). The RIGHT to protect ourselves is inherent... not dictated by a document. For people outside of the USA, this can be very difficult to understand (I do not mean that in a negative way, simply an informative one). The 2nd amendment is not up for debate. That has been tried and has failed (many times). Please, can we not have that argument again and again? Two of the core principles on which we base our freedom are defined by the first two amendments: we are free to arm ourselves and we are free to say what we feel needs to be said. Those that claim the 2nd amendment was based on an outmoded ideal that isn't applicable today... well, they are either not Americans (and therefore usually don't understand what makes our 'freedom' unique) or they have no understanding of what our rights are and why they are so staunchly protected. We, as Americans, are not subjects of our government and (hopefully) never will be. We own our government, not vise versa. Before criticizing my statements, please understand that the right to have firearms is just that ('a right') and will stay that way. My arguments are based on that simple fact, and I move forward from there. If a debate about whether we should disarm the nation is needed, we can have that debate... but I see that as a separate subject. Tragedies like this are heart wrenching and horrible and disgusting. Please don't see my viewpoint as callous or uncaring as it is neither. Having said that, I have to say the obligatory statements about freedom not being free... ad nauseam. Although that statement isn't a delicate one, it is true just the same. To have the right to defend ourselves, we must also pay the price for that right. The main price is that bad people (and mentally unstable ones as well) will abuse the freedoms this country has by committing atrocious acts of villainy. Unfortunately, bad people will do bad things. That isn't an American problem, by any means, yet because it is done with firearms, it is seen as preventable. It isn't preventable without stripping away freedoms. Murderers will still murder, rapists will still rape, etc regardless of what the law says. I agree that ready access to firearms could be argued to increase the damage these people can do. That is a valid argument. I disagree with the premise, but it is still a valid argument. I could point out the numerous times that access to firearms prevented these evils and then the argument would revolve around that. Having made that mistake in the past, I'll simply say that it is a valid argument to make, but one which I disagree with and try to leave it there. So what should we do? To that question, sadly, I have no ready answer. I'm not clapping my hands and joyously yelling that it is something that we should simply ignore because it is inevitable. I'm honestly not. As a man of faith, I sat and prayed and joined with my mother in grieving for those whose lives were lost. We discussed our Church and how we are now openly going to request on Friday's board meeting that two guaranteed CCWs be in attendance every Sabbath from now on. There are those of us that usually carry, but more often than not we leave our firearms at home. We are going to take a vote to see if we can have designated individuals who will make a point of being armed. No, that doesn't solve the problem of guns being in the hands of people who would commit such acts, but at least, in our own way, we are rising to the challenge of protecting our family in the most direct way possible. My worry is that there are many in the political field who want to disarm this country. That isn't fear mongering, that is simply taking them at their word. So when those same people try and establish "common sense" gun laws, I get nervous. I am not a fan of a gun registry. I think, in many ways, that reduces the value of having said weapons. A tyrannical government is something to be wary of... as our founders warned us and as has been seen across the globe. A disarmed people are subject to the will of those who are not disarmed (ie the government and the criminals). I am also not a fan of magazine size limits... not because I think it is an absurd idea, but simply because it is a slippery slope from that point on as can be seen happening now in a certain state or two. When a standard issue handgun's magazine exceeds the arbitrary government enforced limit of rounds a weapon can hold, a person might realize they are already sliding down that slope. The same applies to 'assault weapon' bans. When fictitious names for a nonexistent genre of firearm start being discussed, I again get nervous. While I don't own an AR-15 (for example), I see ZERO reasons to prevent someone from owning them. I'm against buying limits within a set period of time. Again, the slippery slope. The government has no right to tell me how many I can own, how often I can buy, or anything of the sort. The slippery slope again comes into play. What is next... how many rounds of ammunition I can own? What about purchase within a set period of time? No. At some point we have to say that either we still have the right to own firearms and we fight these 'common sense' laws, or we just hand everything over and trust in our government and police. Police... you know... the same people that are accused constantly of abuse of power, of racism, of indiscriminate killing and evil intent. The same people making those absurd claims would then have them be the only legally armed people... yeah, that makes sense. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself if the tragedy of these occurrences is worth the right to protect our freedom. With a sad heart, I say yes... yes, it is. Without the ability to protect ourselves, our families, and our rights... then our freedoms are given and taken without our consent, whether that be by our own government, criminals who already don't care what the law says, or anyone else with more power than us. My point is this: these shootings (regardless of whether it is a mentally disturbed individual, a man carrying out the commands of his faith, a politically motivated monster, or anyone else) are abhorrent and painful and while I wish there was a way to prevent them from happening, I openly acknowledge that our freedom is too great a price to pay. A constitution CAN be changed. The real question: should it be? The vast majority of us say no... and if that ever becomes the minority, then we will have another civil war. The problem is, your premise is based on the incorrect attitude that says less freedom for more security 'makes sense'. We disagree. Of course you don't understand that as you aren't an American and you have always lacked the freedoms we have... to you, it isn't a right. That is one of the many inherent differences between our countries. There are multitudes of studies that show both views. There are a million problems comparing country crime rates such as reported/unreported, definitions as to what constitutes a violent crime, etc. What you most need to consider in any statistics that you are researching, is that the vast majority of our crimes, ESPECIALLY all forms of violent crime... they are concentrated in a select few areas of our country. It isn't 'politically correct' to say as much so even most Americans will refuse to point this out, but the VAST majority occurs in places like Oakland, St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. The reason why this is never pointed out is because those places are almost entirely dominated by blacks. Because of the demographics, it is considered racist to even mention it. The culture of those areas is as alien to the rest of America as yours would be. Also, when considering gun ownership vs crime statistics here is the US... the facts are plain that the strictest gun laws correlate directly with the highest crime rates. In our culture, criminals don't want to risk being shot. Here, they commit less crime or they move to areas with stronger gun restrictions to ply their trade. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/criminal-justice/crime/does-gun-control-reduce-crime Feel free to do a bit of research on the topic before making ad hominem comments about something in which you obviously express your feelings about a subject you don't understand and have no knowledge of. You obviously do not understand the system of government that we have here in the United States. Final note: I'm not a huge fan of President Trump. I find him to be thin skinned and constitutionally vapid... but these comments about what he is or isn't going to do to solve the 'problem' are absurd. It is neither the power of the President of the Untited States to 'fix this problem' nor the duty. Any 'fixes' would be in the form of laws, which the last time that I checked... isn't the president's bailiwick. Just sayin'