world

Trump suggests armed deputy at Florida school was a 'coward'

174 Comments
By Olivier Douliery

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2018 AFP

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

174 Comments
Login to comment

So, he was a coward because he didn't want to get in a gun fight, kind of like cadet bone spurs? Huh, irony. ;)

21 ( +28 / -7 )

Trump doesn't have the mental complexity to comprehend complex social systems, so he attacks people's personality. It may well be that Peterson is a coward, but calling him names won't bring back the dead. As Takeda says, he demonstrated no cowardice that Trump hasn't also demonstrated, but more to the point, if we had the same common-sense gun laws every other developed country in the world has, there would not be a need for him to be brave in the first place.

If you have to mock someone for not being willing to risk their life to enter a high school, you have a larger problem than a single coward on the police force.

16 ( +25 / -9 )

An AR will penetrate the bullet proof vests most police wear.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

"but has also responded with a deeply controversial call to arm teachers."

A teacher running out into unknown chaos, with a handgun, against someone in a defensive position spraying the hallway with automatic-weapons fire...you would have to be colossally ignorant, or President Trump, to bet on the teacher.

19 ( +25 / -6 )

"To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun."

With the exception of highly trained and experienced police SWAT team members, Navy Seals and other highly trained and experienced military members, perhaps some private security contractors, no one knows how they'd react in a live shooting situation. Only someone like Trump, who's never had to protect himself, who's always been able to afford to buy security, would say something like this. Or maybe the NRA would say it in another attempt to sell guns and ammo.

Real life shooting situations are not like video games or gun range practice! Only a very limited number of people have even the slightest sense how they'd respond during a real live shooting incident.

Look at the cop who's now being demonized for not reacting in the way some think he should have. He had background and training. (Why is he being vilified by the right and NRA when they don't know what actually happened? Could it be they're deflecting once again from the reality a shooter with a legally purchased automatic weapon slaughtered innocent people?)

And Cadet Bonespurs is passing judgment, calling a policeman a coward? After attacking US security organizations like the FBI, he's attacking local law enforcement now, after attacking military members (POW's, Gold Star families, etc.).

12 ( +18 / -6 )

Oh yeah, and on that note!!! Calling the guy a coward! I didn't hear it mentioned what he was armed with!!! I kind of doubt he was carrying the same kind of fire power! I read an article by an American Police officer about what it felt like, and how many of them were dying, when the "Bad guys" started having better weapons than the police! And the Bad Guy, in this case, was carrying a legal military grade weapon!!!! Wonder what the security guard was carrying? Should have the facts before we call someone a coward!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

And NRA and Trumps stupid fall back line! "It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun!" Been reading too many elementary school books and cheap movie scripts where the Bad Guy is a Bad Guy because they wrote his script for him that way! And character is revealed early in the story! In real life, the bad guy is the guy that starts shooting at the wrong people! And by the time you realize what is happening.....it is too late!!! Oh yeah, and just recently, the Trump government passes some restrictive laws so the FBI can't run background checks on people! So you don't even get to read the character development at the beginning!!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

In scapegoating this man, Trump makes it all too clear who the real cowards are.

Shame on this travesty of a leader for failing to tackle the gun problem.

The NRA must be delighted.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Total coward. He wasn't willing to give his life to prove the right's claims that the only thing it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Pathetic human being.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

There were apparently at least four who didn't enter.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

Sources: Coral Springs police upset at some Broward deputies for not entering school

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Cowards. All of them. They should have been proving the point that the only thing needed to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Here's some live action video showing the good guys! https://www.facebook.com/roguekite/videos/1339028342799498/

5 ( +8 / -3 )

And 3 more officers showed up to support him and they didn’t go inside either. That plus the Broward Sherriffs office missed tips as well and seems to have been accused of corruption too.

But yep it’s trumps fault.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

@blackl But yep it’s trumps fault.

How can you go from people saying Trump shouldn't call someone a coward to people saying it was Trump's fault? Credibility suffers when repeatedly making things up.

Unless you're actually starting a new thread to generate discussion on trump's failures, that the problems the world is dealing with are in fact Trump's fault.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Then why all the attacks on Trump and the NRA? While at same time protecting the FBI and police and the CNN kids from any questions about their conduct or motivations?

3 more officers couid have gone in and they didn’t. Why most of the comments have the name Trump in them wIth derogatory comments or names? I don’t believe he was there and armed when it happened.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

But yep it’s trumps fault.

You can be part of the problem or part of the solution, and if you're in a position where the buck stops, you own responsibility if you remain part of the former. Which is what Trump is doing, IMHO.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

And 3 more officers showed up to support him and they didn’t go inside either.

Cowards! How dare they not give up their lives for the NRA's ideals. Shame. SHAAAAAME.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Then why all the attacks on Trump and the NRA?

Three things:

Inaction (Trump)

Mind-boggling ridiculous ideas for a "solution" (Trump and NRA)

Opposing every anti-gun initiative that may make schools a little safer (NRA)

at same time protecting the ... CNN kids from any questions about their conduct or motivations?

The kids just watched their friends get gunned down at school as a result of policies pushed by the NRA, and supported by Republicans. Yeah, they deserve protection from question about their motivations, while getting their say. They've already involuntarily paid their price. When people just want to question their motivations, in order to push their team agenda, resulting in a status quo where kids have to be afraid of being shot at school, those people need to be told to shut the f*** up. Useless members of society.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Got nothing to do with that NRA. “To protect and serve.” If armed police won’t protect unarmed children and teachers, who can?

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

3 more officers couid have gone in and they didn’t.

Do you have full info on what happened? Or are you speculating?

Trump in them wIth derogatory comments or names?

Speaking for myself, I see Trump acting 1. as a shill for the NRA and 2. appealing to his political base, which includes the 'come and take it' crowd, who in my opinion have contributed to the ongoing gun problems in the US.. I see Trump insulting victims of the carnage. I see him deflecting, instead of taking responsibility point fingers of blame away from him. I could go on...

I'm trying to be honest; I've found it helps.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

So how do you feel about CNN calling one of the survivors a liar? The one who actually saved people and didn’t hide in a closet making anti gun videos? The one who protected people with Kevlar sheets (paid for by NRA donations ironically)

everyone needs to be heard, except him or anyone else who disagrees with the narrative huh?

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

So Trump is blamed for “inaction” above? Yet these guys chilling outside while kids die, no prob?

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Got nothing to do with that NRA. “To protect and serve.” If armed police won’t protect unarmed children and teachers, who can?

I agree! If the police won't prove this narrative being put out by the NRA, who can?

I bet you don't realize the answer to your question is 'no one'. And that therefore the solution isn't to try to pretend that the people can be protected at all times, but rather to try to eliminate the necessity of protection in the first place. You know, by restricting guns.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

So how do you feel about CNN calling one of the survivors a liar? The one who actually saved people and didn’t hide in a closet making anti gun videos?

If they actually did (and by no means should you take that as me accepting that what you say has any accuracy in reality whatsoever, but rather just to speak on a hypothetical situation), then they suck and should be rightfully condemned for it.

everyone needs to be heard, except him or anyone else who disagrees with the narrative huh?

Who are you, Cathy Newman? I already gave my comments on people questioning the motivation of the survivors. Go back and re-read it if you weren't able to understand it the first time.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

If liberals don’t expect FOUR armed officers to protect unarmed teachers and children, only other option is to allow certain staff members to be armed if they choose.

What else is there? Officers are armed so I don’t have to be, say liberals. Yet that is untrue as none of you expect those armed officers to actually do anything but watch me die.

that police chief knew all of this yet went on that CNN stage and attacked the NRA. Then next day we heard armed officers did nothing when they could have.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

So Trump is blamed for “inaction” above?

Of course not. It's weird that you came to that silly conclusion. You aren't maybe Cathy Newman are you?

Yet these guys chilling outside while kids die, no prob?

Wow, Americans call this 'chilling' now:

The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the

I am extremely thankful that this is not what we consider 'chilling' anywhere else I've lived in the world.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Peterson did chicken out when it came time for him to act. If it is your job you need to do what you were trained to do - protect and serve. Some people just don't have it in them - that's why we appreciate so much those that do. To be honest, I don't know what I would have done in the same situation. I hope I would have done the right thing. Unfortunately, this guy didn't. Also the FBI failed to follow up on the called in information about Cruz and now 17 young people are dead.

To me this is a perfect example of why in the end, you cannot always trust the government to protect you. They are just human beings like the rest of us with the same flaws and capable of failure. I personally don't own a gun but if I felt unsafe I would get one to protect myself/family. You ultimately can only trust in yourself to stay safe when things go wrong like this. Too bad that coach didn't have a gun to protect the children with instead of just his body.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

If liberals don’t expect FOUR armed officers to protect unarmed teachers and children, only other option is to allow certain staff members to be armed if they choose.

The logical fallacy of the right - if the people who train for incidents, who are already armed, and volunteer to put their lives on the line, didn't have enough training to handle said situation, then we need to arm the people who aren't trained to deal with situations like these and didn't volunteer to put their lives on the line, and somehow think that they will do better. And not end up accidentally shooting innocents. Or go off and shoot a student on a bad day.

Seems legit.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

What else is there?

Taking away the guns.

Oh, did you want me to answer that or just to say what you wanted to hear?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

that police chief knew all of this yet went on that CNN stage and attacked the NRA. Then next day we heard armed officers did nothing when they could have.

You have no idea if they could have or not. You do not have their training, you were not on the ground, you did not watch the situation unfold.

Running in guns blazing into a firefight without knowing what is happening is an easy way to increase the count of dead victims.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

The NRA lies every single day to prevent any attention on increasing gun controls or banning dangerous assault weapons. It suggests armed guards and armed teachers but not a guarantee that it prevent another mass shooting.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Peterson did chicken out when it came time for him to act. If it is your job you need to do what you were trained to do - protect and serve.

He did, and he is a pathetic, evil, disgusting human being for not proving the assertion that the only thing needed to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Too bad that coach didn't have a gun to protect the children with instead of just his body.

We don't know if he would have accidentally shot 3-4 students in the confusion. So we cannot logically concluded that it is too bad that he didn't have a gun. If we were able to see alternate realities, we may find that in fact we should be extremely thankful he didn't have a gun.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/shooting-survivor-claims-cnn-scripted-questions-for-town-hall-meeting/

You do realize that said article does not support your assertion, correct?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@wolfp Too bad that coach didn't have a gun to protect the children with instead of just his body.

You've claimed to have military expertise. If you actually do, I think you'd be aware that the coach having a gun and using it could have done one of 3 things (I'm being reductionist limiting it to 3): 1. stopped the killer and prevented him from further slaughter; 2. done nothing to stop the killer (might have misaimed and wasted rounds); 3. killed more students because he misaimed.

would have required great skill and/or luck.

If you're an American, do you really want to see teachers who have so many responsibilities take on even more and put their lives on the line so a minority of Americans can have assault weapons?

If you're an American, do you want to see the non-gun owning majority of taxpayers pay for the extra training, insurance and all other costa associated with 'arming teachers'?

Do you expect non-gun owners to continue to pick up the lion's share of the costs resulting from gun owners?

@blacklabel same questions for you. If you're an American. And because you've said 'you served'. (whatever that means)

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The logical fallacy of the right - if the people who train for incidents, who are already armed, and volunteer to put their lives on the line, didn't have enough training to handle said situation

Your argument is the real logical fallacy. I don't see why people should have to surrender their lives to a madman just because a police officer doesn't have the courage to fulfill his duties. So first we should trust the government to protect us - but then when they fail to do so, we should just resign ourselves to our unfortunate fate? Where is the logic in that?

Or go off and shoot a student on a bad day.

That's a crime.

Taking away the guns.

You need a Constitutional amendment to do that. The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Rights of course are not unlimited and I can see that there are reasonable restrictions to this right just as there are to all other individual rights. But until the 2nd amendment is abolished, law abiding citizens will always have the right to have a gun should they meet reasonable conditions.

America needs to have a serious conversation about whether or not they want to abolish the second amendment and have a vote on it. That should put the issue of whehter or not to abolish guns to rest.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

I feel kind of sorry for the deputy. He's armed with something like a six-shooter against a suicidal gunman armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle. The peaceful school you're accustomed to strolling around in has suddenly changed into a shooting gallery where every kid you encounter in the hallway is a potential shooter. Most people would probably be more afraid of shooting the wrong kid than the right kid. On top of that, Deputy Scot Peterson will forever be remembered as a coward. I'll bet if he never had suicidal tendencies before that he does now. Meanwhile, we have a president who likes to talk like John Wayne about arming teachers in the classroom but who's also evaded the draft more than once during his lifetime. I wonder if Trump would've reacted the same way had he been in that deputy's shoes.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Most people would probably be more afraid of shooting the wrong kid than the right kid. 

Nutshells it. Same with reasonable people at a movie theater, church, bar or music concert.

@wolfpack and @blacklabel What has your experience been when confronted by a person firing an automatic weapon in a crowded place?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Your argument is the real logical fallacy.

And yet, you literally post nothing to show where there is any fallacy in it.

I don't see why people should have to surrender their lives to a madman just because a police officer doesn't have the courage to fulfill his duties.

Which means you are entirely ignoring that if people who volunteer to be in the line of fire, and are trained and armed were unable to take out the shooter, then expecting those who are not untrained (for combat situations) and haven't volunteered to be in the line of fire is placing unrealistic expectations upon them. You are also pretending that every teacher will only ever use these firearms responsibly.

So first we should trust the government to protect us - but then when they fail to do so, we should just resign ourselves to our unfortunate fate?

Governments and police forces can only react to incidents, stopping them from happening ahead of time takes a seriously high level of resources (aka taxes). They can only create an environment where incidents are less likely to happen, and to create a well functioning response to incidents after they have happened. The justice system handles incidents after they have happened, gun control creates an environment where incidents are less likely to happen.

I know that your argument is that you want anyone to be able to shoot the bad guy during the incident, but this is reactionary thinking. It's better to create an environment where the incidents don't even happen in the first place.

That's a crime.

Yeah, and sometimes teachers commit crimes.

You need a Constitutional amendment to do that.

Exactly. And now is the time to start amending that constitution.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

It’s not logical what you saying. It’s not that the trained armed people couldn’t, they DIDNT. That’s why no one else is allowed to be armed because thats their role they get paid for, not mine.

Trump is talking about the 10 or 20 percent of teachers who ARE trained and who WILL protect their students. Pay them a bonus and let them conceal carry. We aren’t talking about arming 60 year old lunch ladies come on.

of course CNN said in the article they didn’t script anything. But a survivor who is to believed no matter what he says like all the others said they did script it all. CNN called him a liar by name publicly. But all the CNN narrative kids are “untouchable” as far truth or motive.

at least one of them said on Twitter he really wished he could have gone to the funeral of the unarmed coach who died protecting him. Why couldn’t he go?CNN interview preparation. I call bs. Coach wax a trump supporter by the way.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Odd spot Trump is in. His job is to distract as much attention away from the kids' messages as possible, but by focusing on the guard, he's undercutting his own position that armed guards are the answer.

And just curious....what was the salary of the guard? In AZ, the pay for a security guard licenced to carry is about $13 an hour. Hero money. I'm assuming this guy would be getting a government contract so he'd get a bit more.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Laughable the president called the decorated deputy a coward for not rushing into the school building with rapid fire shooting off. Trump five times draft dodged to avoid running into the fire in Vietnam.

When people choose to serve and protect does not mean they have also agreed to give up their lives too. Those people also have their own families to serve and protect too. Had the deputy given his life and died, down the road when his family sued for compensation, the school board would try to avoid payment by stating he should not have entered the school building.

In previous school mass shooting there were more than one shooter. How would the police or this deputy know how many shooters there were. He had a hand gun against a rapid firing one.

The deputy made a judgement call and only he will know if it was the right one, and live with that for his remaining life.

All serving people make judgement calls every single day. Too many are killed in their line of duty including firemen rushing into a burning building.

At 2:21pm Cruz went into Building 12's east stairwell. At 2:28pm Cruz ran out of the school building in the direction of the tennis courts.

That's just 7 minutes.

What could have anyone done in 7 minutes, the deputy, the local police who hadn't reached the school or even if the teachers had been armed.

At 2:29 p.m., it said he crossed a field and ran west with other people. 

2:53pm, 31 minutes after Cruz entered the school and 24 minutes after he left, deputies responded to reports of a shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office confirmed in a tweet.

4:11pm Cruz was arrested.

The only way this mass shooting could have been prevented was if in the first place, Cruz was unable to buy the weapon one year before the tragic event.

Just a veiled attempt by Trump and the NRA to divert attention away from the real causes.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

It’s not logical what you saying. It’s not that the trained armed people couldn’t, they DIDNT.

Wow, impressive display of omniscience! I am once again amazed at the ability of the left to know the full inside details of something that no mere mortal other than those who experienced it could know. Simply delightful.

That’s why no one else is allowed to be armed because thats their role

Exactly. And even in that role, four armed individuals didn't go into that school. You people cry 'cowardice', while the rest of us cry 'reality'.

Trump is talking about the 10 or 20 percent of teachers who ARE trained and who WILL protect their students.

And if they weren't to succeed for some reason (because let's be realistic, there WILL be incidents where they would not), will you call them cowards too, and insist that students be allowed to be armed? The only thing necessary to stop a bad student with a gun is a good student with a gun?

CNN called him a liar by name publicly.

You keep saying that, and yet you keep not providing anything to support this claim. I claim fake news.

But all the CNN narrative kids

Who? No such thing exists.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

An official independent public inquiry into the fateful timeline that lead to the mass shooting of February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is essential to restore any modicum of confidence and trust that law enforcement agencies are competent to carry out even the most basic duties to protect their communities.    

The victims' families diverse a full , frank, open explanation into alleged/reported failures to follow procedure.

A tribunal commissioner be appointed and legal counsel made available to explain to witness, law enforcement agencies their rights and obligations. Crucially the conduct, without prejudice, into the role of Broward County Sheriff's Office, that of school resource officer Scot Peterson, that under oath, must give an full account onto his conduct, behaviours and actions.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

PTownsend: You've claimed to have military expertise.

No, I have never claimed military "expertise" whatever that means. I was in the military but I have no special military insight on this type of thing.

If you're an American, do you really want to see teachers who have so many responsibilities take on even more and put their lives on the line so a minority of Americans can have assault weapons?

Teachers already have many more responsibilities now than just being a teacher. They are responsible for looking out for behavioral/mental health issues, child abuse, they serve as part-time parents for single parent children, and they have been tasked with handling disabled children. No teacher can be made to protect their students through the use of physical force if they do not want to. So that is not a good argument on your part. I don't think anyone believes that all teachers should have to be trained to handle a gun - not even the NRA. That isn't practical and many will not want to. But if there are some who already are trained and some that would want to be trained for it - why not utilize their skills, aptitude, and desire to protect? There are millions of guns in America and they can't be regulated or confiscated in a few weeks, months, or years.

1. would have required great skill and/or luck.

To an extent it would take some skill and luck - just as it does for a police officer or anyone else who is physically threatened. But it's better than just getting slaughtered. I don't think the American Left has a workable solution to the problem without first abolishing the Second Amendment.

If you're an American, do you want to see the non-gun owning majority of taxpayers pay for the extra training, insurance and all other costa associated with 'arming teachers'?

Well the taxpayers pay for all of the other protections in the Bill of Rights. Why wouldn't they pay for all of them? Providing for the measures outlined in the Constitution is what government is for.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

CNN Communications

@CNNPR

Feb 23

Replying to @realDonaldTrump @CNN and @TuckerCarlsonThere is absolutely no truth to this story -- and we can prove that. CNN did not provide or script questions for anyone in last night's town hall, nor have we ever. Those are the facts. #FactsFirs

yet the kid has the email from CNN telling him the only question he is allowed to ask word for word.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Just clone Charlton Heston and have one prowling the corridors in every American school. Trump's grasp of the issue is about the same as every issue he confronts: that of a sheltered and pampered 10-year old with self-esteem issues.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Today’s TV...trump speech, NRA propaganda or Olympic curling. Think I’ll go to the park.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Replying to @realDonaldTrump @CNN and @TuckerCarlsonThere is absolutely no truth to this story -- and we can prove that. CNN did not provide or script questions for anyone in last night's town hall, nor have we ever. Those are the facts. #FactsFirs

So are you ever going to actually post anything to support your claim that they "called him a liar"?

I already called it, but I'll say it again: Fake news.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Another three Broward County deputies didn't enter the school. Seems like all sides looking to blame others than themselves.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Anyway the only liberal solution seems to be to ban guns. Not gonna happen so other solutions are required.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Anyway the only liberal solution seems to be to ban guns.

Because it's the solution. Not a solution, the solution.

Not gonna happen so other solutions are required.

There aren't other solutions. That's why nothing happens after every one of these incidents - because Americans don't want to do what needs to be done. It seems the kids are either at, or nearing a breaking point though. It would be scary going to school every day wondering if you're going to be executed in front of your classmates, and/or doing active shooter drills. I can tell you this - my kids have never done one of these drills, and I am confident that it's entirely fine that they haven't, as the odds of them having to deal with an active shooter are near to none.

Weird that you people prefer to live in a country where your kids need these drills. And that you're ok with that.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Laughable the president called the decorated deputy a coward for not rushing into the school building with rapid fire shooting off. Trump five times draft dodged to avoid running into the fire in Vietnam.

Yeah, too right. When Mr Bone Spurs also starts talking about family values, I swear I can see the words hypocrisy flashing across his forehead.

Blacklabel:

Not gonna happen so other solutions are required.

One solution which won't require any changes to gun laws is to let your compatriots shoot themselves until the population dwindles.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Anyway the only liberal solution seems to be to ban guns.

And the president, NRA, republicans, rightwing solution is more guns.

Look at countries with stricter gun controls and the stats show none or much lower rates of mass shootings. Australia banned the assault weapons 20 years ago and no mass shootings since. That is the proof gun controls work.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

15-20% of gun owners who purchased a weapon over the past two years did so with none or very little background checks.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

15-20% of gun owners who purchased a weapon over the past two years did so with none or very little background checks.

If that is true then it's sad. Everyone who buys a gun, or acquires a good through any means should be required to go through a background check. Rights carry with them responsibilities.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I always call you out when I disagree, so it's only fair post when I agree:

If that is true then it's sad. Everyone who buys a gun, or acquires a good through any means should be required to go through a background check. Rights carry with them responsibilities.

I fully agree.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Coward cops it looks like. We are told that the police will protect us, yet what if they don't?

As for banning AR15s, it is a futile gesture. Rifles of ALL sorts (including the AR15) account for only a very small fraction of the gun crime and gun killing in the US. So, assuming that it would be banned, a nut like Cruz would simply get another type of gun, like a handgun. Still semiautomatic, still large capacity magazine, but could carry multiple weapons instead of just one. Not much of a solution, is it?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Pretty damning, coming from "Cadet Bone Spurs."

2 ( +5 / -3 )

No, they do the job that they are paid very well to do. Being a cop does have an element of risk to it. Not as much as some jobs, but more than others. They can't just treat it as another government work project.

Zichi; the law in Australia had no discernable effect on crime or homicide. Ditto the American assault weapon ban in 1994. Rifles aren't the problem- handguns are.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Attilathehungry

Zichi; the law in Australia had no discernable effect on crime or homicide. Ditto the American assault weapon ban in 1994. Rifles aren't the problem- handguns are.

from 2016

"Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Attilathehungry

As for banning AR15s, it is a futile gesture. Rifles of ALL sorts (including the AR15) account for only a very small fraction of the gun crime and gun killing in the US. 

But it is the weapon most used in mass shootings.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The one who protected people with Kevlar sheets (paid for by NRA donations ironically)

You not the best at irony are you?  Let me explain.  The NRA donates Kevelar sheets so the children - yes children - can have some protection when crazed gunmen come in with guns blazing.  NRA (and Trump) supports the rights of crazies to purchase assault rifles.  I understand in America this is called a "constitutional right".  Written when the crazies had single shot muskets.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Attilathehungry

As for banning AR15s, it is a futile gesture.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban(AWB) 1994-2004

Only banned weapons manufactured after ban. the manufacture of 19 military-style assault weapons, assault weapons with specific combat features, "copy-cat" models, and certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.

"In 2004, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990–1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."

Mass Shootings

• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents

• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents

• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents

Seven States and the District of Columbia have banned assault weapons

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Trump is right and the anti-Trumpers are wrong on this. "Gun-free zones" : "Yeah, we don't have any guns here, so if you sneak one in, we are pretty much defenseless."

Oh my...

Trump's CPAC speech: Can't-miss highlights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mx9QPNq2Uo

1 ( +6 / -5 )

zichi - you omit some very clear data

Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data. Handguns killed nine times as many persons as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined. The type of firearm used was unknown for about 28 percent of all firearm murders.

you are on another wild goose chase. Keep your eyes on the prize. Mental disorders and drug use in young men who grew up in fatherless families.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Zichi;

About Oz, the crime rate and murder rate were already dropping BEFORE the gun law, the trend simply continued. Less firearms were used as weapons, but the homicide rate itself was not really changed. It was simply a downward trend that continued.

About the US Law, again less assault weapons were used in crimes, true. However, they were already very rarely used in crimes to begin with- less than 5% according to your numbers. And again, their use was simply replaced by other types of firearms. So the law had no impact on either the violent crime rate or the murder rate. If you ban Toyotas, people will just drive Hondas. But they will still drive.

Mass killings are tragedies, but statistically not significant. Policy and law should answer to facts and not emotion. Banning the cosmetic looks of certain weapons is a waste of time, especially since those weapons are rarely used in crime to begin with.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Oh, and it is not true that AR15s are the most common weapon for mass shootings. Pistols are.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Blame single mothers. Blame drugs. Blame 16 years olds who want to stop the horror. Blame mental illness. Blame video games. Blame security guards who may have froze, too shocked to do anything.

Blame anyone but those who glorify, worship and promote guns and the culture that surrounds it.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The solution is quite simple. End the NRA's hold over US politicians. Stop making guns available.

This is not the 18th century anymore.

More guns is just not the answer.

Hertz and others now showing some spine

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43173753

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Hertz is showing the opposite of spine. They are cow-towing to the rabid left who offer no real solutions.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Attilathehungry

Oh, and it is not true that AR15s are the most common weapon for mass shootings. Pistols are.

From Feb 14 2008

Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings

The National Rifle Association has called the AR-15 — the semi-automatic, civilian version of the military’s M-16 — the "most popular rifle in America" and estimates Americans own more than 8 million of them. 

Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.

Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.

June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.

June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.

March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.

May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.

Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.

Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.

June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.

Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.

Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.

Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Attilathehungry

About Oz, the crime rate and murder rate were already dropping BEFORE the gun law, the trend simply continued. Less firearms were used as weapons, but the homicide rate itself was not really changed. It was simply a downward trend that continued.

Gun related crimes were falling from the early 1990's and may have continued without the assault weapon ban and the buying back of 650,000 weapons but most studies seem to state the levels were dropping faster and lower because of the ban and since 1999 there has not been one mass shooting.

Compare that with America, when even its own assault weapons ban 1994-2004 produced a drop in mass shooting which again increased when the ban was lifted.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

clemanza

just like your link report, assault weapons are used in mass shootings

"Although handguns are more common in crime overall, rifles were used in many recent high-profile mass shootings. The gunmen in the Las Vegas, Texas church, and Orlando nightclub massacres used rifles."

7 ( +8 / -1 )

zichi - I guess you didn't read the link. We're talking overall numbers. rifles including the AR 15 are used in a very small minority. We don't need to be concerned with "high profile".

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

and since immigration laws have not been able to keep 11 million illegals from entering the country, what makes u think increased gun laws will keep more guns out of the country?

They will always get in and always in the hands of criminals.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Compare that with America, when even its own assault weapons ban 1994-2004 produced a drop in mass shooting which again increased when the ban was lifted.

false. statistics routinely show that stricter gun laws have no effect on crimes committed with guns

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

clamenza

zichi - I guess you didn't read the link. We're talking overall numbers. rifles including the AR 15 are used in a very small minority.

I did actually read the link you so kindly provided showing the most common weapon used in mass shootings are the assault style rifles.

We don't need to be concerned with "high profile".

Well I guess you don't have to worry about high profile shootings if you live in Chiba but this post and many others on JT since the Feb 14 St Valentine's Day massacre are and have been, about mass shootings and not about gun crime in general.

How to protect the young students attending their schools and institutions of learning.

and since immigration laws have not been able to keep 11 million illegals from entering the country, what makes u think increased gun laws will keep more guns out of the country?

The mass shootings at the schools and churches and the recent Las Vegas killings were all by American born people. Out of the 13 mass shooting I listed in a previous comment, only three of the shooters were immigrants out of the 11 million illegals you have claimed.

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center were carried out by Islamic terrorist with planes and not illegal aliens.

The 1994 assault weapon ban showed a decrease in the number of mass shootings. A ban on assault weapons will not prevent criminals from obtaining weapons nor those involved in gang war killings.

The problem is how to reduce the number of mass shootings especially those at schools and so far you have provided nothing on that point, nor any reaction to draft dodging Trump calling the deputy a "coward" like the kettle calling the pot black.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

false. statistics routinely show that stricter gun laws have no effect on crimes committed with guns

We'll just take your word for it.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Wait. No, we won't just take your word for it:

*In this study of 108 mass shootings, 92 of them occurred before the assault weapons ban, and after it as well, with only 16 mass shootings in the ten years in which we had an assault weapons ban. If you divide those by the number of years (34 for non-ban years and 10 for ban years), you find that we had 2.71 shootings per year in non-ban years, and 1.6 shootings per ban year. *That means we had 1.69 times as many mass shootings in non-ban years.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9740352

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The solution is quite simple. End the NRA's hold over US politicians. Stop making guns available.

by doing what exactly...? Spell it out. Give us a plan that could eventually have political support and withstand legal challenges.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Zichi;

As others have said: mass shootings, while tragic, are not significant statistically. They are anomalies that don't register in the bigger picture. They are used by both sides as emotional hooks to pander to their respective audiences. IF you are interested in reducing violence and crime overall in a meaningful way, it makes no sense to focus on so-called "assault weapons". It may make you feel good, but feelings inevitably make for bad policy.

If you want a statistic to chew on, here's one:

Murders by knife/blade in 2016: 1,604

Murders by bare hands/feet: 656

Murders by rifle: 374

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@Attilathehungry

IF you are interested in reducing violence and crime overall in a meaningful way, it makes no sense to focus on so-called "assault weapons".

I get your point to some extent. But your statistics don't indicate how many of the victims were random. I'd guess that most of the knife killings were targeted - the result of a disagreement, a fit of jealousy, whatever. Mass shootings may be statistically fewer, but the victims are generally random - wrong place at the wrong time. The fear is real, similar to the fear of terrorist bombs when entering a building. Statistically small, but we seem to have no problem regulating explosive devices. I think that makes assault weapons a legitimate target.

As for reducing violence in general, I'd put handguns at the top of the list. Countries with strict gun laws pretty much ban all firearms with the exception being those used for hunting and sports purposes. Even those are strictly regulated.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Attilathehungry

Zichi; As others have said: mass shootings, while tragic, are not significant statistically.

Try telling that to the survivors of the mass shootings, the families of the dead victims, the broken communities.

IF you are interested in reducing violence and crime overall in a meaningful way, it makes no sense to focus on so-called "assault weapons". It may make you feel good, but feelings inevitably make for bad policy.

Whatever can be done to improve the gun crime rates like even banning the bump stocks, gun licenses, 28 day background checks, ban on assault weapons, no gun ownership for under 21 years. These can be changed without changing the 2nd amendment. Even if it only saves a few thousand lives its worth the effort.

I don't live in America, so I don't have to worry about the guns and the killings. Handguns with a few exceptions are banned. Knives over a certain length banned.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Zichi, the point is that there is no evidence that those measures would save any lives at all. I understand the desire to "do something", but again that needs to be tempered by intelligence and reality.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Public mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of the country's homicide deaths and are not a good way to understand gun violence in general but it does get talk of these common sense measures onto the front page. And this story is staying in the news longer than other tragedies partly because these events really are becoming more deadly but also thanks to the persistence of some of the survivors organizing on a mass level to push for political solutions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/red-flag-laws-guns.html

States Mull ‘Red Flag’ Gun Seizures from People Deemed Dangerous

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Tommy Jones - knowing that any link I provide will be called biased, I looked for the most left-leaning, liberally-biased rag there is besides Salon (which is the crystallized version of mass insanity)

I give you....HuffPost.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/do-gun-laws-reduce-the-gun-homicide-rates-in-states_us_59f0807ce4b01ecaf1a3e838

No effect.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@ Atiilathehungry

If you want a statistic to chew on, here's one:

Murders by knife/blade in 2016: 1,604

Murders by bare hands/feet: 656

Murders by rifle: 374

A statistic related to what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Attilathehungry

From what I remember of your comments here, you consider anything short of changing the 2nd amendment as something which won't reduce the numbers and deaths caused by mass shootings, which you also seem to believe is overrated, when compared to handgun and knife killings.

I don't believe there will be any changes to the 2nd amendment which the current president, the majority of the congress, the NRA and many Americans would oppose to any changes. While the majority of American households don't own any gun weapon how many are willing to support any radical changes to the 2nd amendment.

Seven States have banned the assault rifle. Are they incorrect?

Not doing anything except waiting for the next tragic mass murder is also not very intelligent. The reality will continue as the same as before. The opposition to meaningful changes is too strong, especially with the NRA daily campaign based on fears and fake news geared with massive donations and constant congress lobbying.

In the short time of 5 months, since Oct 1 2017 there have been three mass shootings with an array of various assault weapons which have killed more than 100 people, including about 17 young school students and hundreds of other seriously injured.

If the victims had the right to sue the gun manufacturers for the loss of loved ones, but that is just another apple pie in the skies "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

3 ( +4 / -1 )

 IF you are interested in reducing violence and crime overall in a meaningful way, it makes no sense to focus on so-called "assault weapons". It may make you feel good, but feelings inevitably make for bad policy.

Not so-called, so no quotes needed around assault weapon:

Definition of assault weapon

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially  : assault rifle

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon

Starting with assault weapons is as good a place as any. Banning assault weapons would lead to fewer deaths because the amount of lead flung down range would decrease. This is due to the rate of fire and capacity of rounds.

Slower rate of fire with fewer rounds before reload = fewer dead people, particularly students.

We can have the conversation about reasonably regulating firearms of all types, but we know the assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse was constitutional and effective to a certain degree.

Take the first step at least to signal to students that we care enough to get off our arses and move to do something.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What comfort or relief do the statistics and numbers hold for the families of the deceased?  

Change will come, provoked by the loss of one young life after another, sooner or later, layer upon layer, assault rifles first, followed by hand guns.

Ironically the firearms and ammunition industry will be the catalyst for change. The reality, logic and reasoning that will legislate responsible ownership of firearms, sustainability for 13,000 manufacturers, for the distributors and firearms retailers.

National Rifle Association’s Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre is the harpenger of the industies own downfall, in the seconds it takes to pull the trigger that determines which parents have to mourn the loss of their children.

Politically, that is the game changer,  it is only a matter of time before an avalanche of anguished despair reaches a critical threshold that will effect change at the ballot box. Sorry if that  might appear cold and cynical

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Take the first step at least to signal to students that we care enough to get off our arses and move to do something.

Done. Lets tell them that the FBI will start to do its job again. Then lets promise them that sheriffs will take proper action against those who have had the police called on them 50 times over a few years including specific death threats. Finally, lets promise them that on-site deputies who are charged with their safety DO the ultimate job they swore they would do.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

I don't believe there will be any changes to the 2nd amendment

I disagree. There can always be a change if enough people call for it. Why doesn't everybody focus solely on this simple call for constitutional change and see what happens? If you did, you wouldn't have to justify or debate gun or crime statistics or get lost in the weeds of what sort of gun control is legal or not. You could just demand change by envoking the will of the people without having to justify it. This is why I would support repeal of the 2nd amendment and replace it with an amendment to return this power to the states (if I were American, which I'm not).

banning the bump stocks, gun licenses, 28 day background checks, ban on assault weapons, no gun ownership for under 21 years. These can be changed without changing the 2nd amendment. 

In your opinion. In my opinion, all would violate the second amendment following the 2008 Supreme court decision in Heller. I recommend everyone read it in full because you can't be an informed participant in this debate if you haven't.

Seven States have banned the assault rifle. Are they incorrect?

We don't know anymore. Following the decision in Heller, the new test for whether a gun or class of guns can or cannot be banned is whether they are in 'common use'. This displaces the old test of whether they are 'unusual and dangerous'. All of the state assault weapons bans were grounded on the old interpretation. So far, the SC has refused to hear cases challenging these state bans, but when they eventually do, they might be ruled unconstitutional just like the DC ban and registry were in Heller. And by the way, none of these states actually ban the AR15 or the sorts of guns most ordinary people would assume are assault rifles. They have just come up with their own definition of what an assault rifle is and then passed a law to ban that.

You can try to ban all the 'assault weapons' you want, but the average person is going to be shocked when they discover that this gun doesn't meet the legal definition of an assault rifle...

https://www.preppergunshop.com/springfield-saint-ar15-ca-legal-5-56nato-rifle-hera-cqr-featureless/

0 ( +3 / -3 )

A change to the 2nd amendment would require a two-thirds vote by congress with the president signing off on it and two-thirds of the voters.

Between 1975 to 2015, 3,021 Americans were killed by foreign born terrorism. That includes the 9/11 victims.

Less Americans died from terrorism than from all forms of gun shot crimes. In its fight against terrorism, America spent $500 million per victim. Spending on anti terrorism is 50,000 times more than any other threat including medical ones like cancer or heart disease.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

A change to the 2nd amendment would require a two-thirds vote by congress with the president signing off on it and two-thirds of the voters.

You would need either 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of states to vote in favour of a specific amendment, or simply 3/4 of the states to call a constitutional convention where everything would be up for grabs. The president has no power to refuse because 2/3 is already a veto-proof super majority.

I don't think an amendment to ban guns across the nation would be acceptable to 3/4 of the states, which is why my compromise is to simply return this power to the states by passing an amendment saying the federal government cannot legislate in this area. That way gun bans in California and other states would be unquestionably legal while residents of other states could continue to sleep with their guns under their pillows. Even in the absolute worse case scenario where illegal guns would flow across state lines, we would just be back to the status quo we have today.

I don't think constitutional amendment is as far off or unrealistic as some people imagine. It only seems impossible until it actually happens. Perhaps the catalyst will be the Supreme court striking down all the state assault rifle bans? There are a number of other constitutional provisions that people have suggested should be amended or repealed, such as curbing the powers of the president and birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment. Congress could package them all together.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I don't think gun supporters are serious about changing anything. Mostly it's, "What do you propose? Nah, that won't work. Nah, we won't be giving that up. Nah, that won't change anything. So again, what's your solution?" It's just circle talk until it falls out of the headlines.

Guns aren't going anywhere and more children will be slaughtered.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@SuperLib

I share you cynicism, which is exaclty why I think we should call out people who are satisfied with half-measures like gun 'control' or propose solutions that have already been struck down by the courts on 2nd amendment grounds.

The argument for democracy and freedom is far more convincing that gun control statistics. Everybody should have the right to live in a gun free society if that's what the majority of people in their community want. It's only the 2nd amendment which denies people this freedom. No amount of gun control is satisfactory if what you and your neighbours actually want is a total ban on guns. The 2nd amendment is not about freedom (as some gun advocates claim), it is just another example of the nanny state telling you what you are not allowed to do (ie. what you are not allowed to ban).

Of course, the flipside of this is that guns should be perfectly legal in the communities or states where the majority of residents wish to have them.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

. . . Peterson was present during the Valentine's Day rampage that left 14 students and three teachers dead . . . but did not act to stop it.-- article

This blows the anti-2A, anti-NRA shriek fest by the leftist gun-grabbers out of the water. This cop and his three fellow BSO brothers in blue, all of whom swore an oath to serve and protect, didn't even try to come to the aid of the children at the high school as the massacre was taking place. All the more reason for those who have them to keep their guns. . . .

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The reason billions can be spent on terrorism is because the war on terror is not unconstitutional. Spending billions on a nationwide gun registry, gun licensing, or a ban on weapons in common use is unconstitutional.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Some of you guys have been interesting over the past few day. You denounce the gun advocates for being pro-gun but when I come along to point out the reality that your gun control is weak sauce, already illegal, and only a 2nd amendment repeal will be effective at this stage, you get upset and downvote me too. You're like the 3 bears in the goldilocks story. You really want your gun control, but not to hot and not too cold either. It has to be juuust right.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

saying he froze or was a "coward." Trump the draft dodger calling someone a coward, LMFAO

3 ( +5 / -2 )

M3M3M3: I share you cynicism, which is exaclty why I think we should call out people who are satisfied with half-measures like gun 'control' or propose solutions that have already been struck down by the courts on 2nd amendment grounds.

Save the crocodile tears.

One path that the anti-gun crowd can take would be to follow the anti-abortionist plan. The Supreme Court ruled abortions are legal, and it's a safe procedure. Despite that, some states are successfully regulating them out of business. The anti-gun crowd can do the same. Require gun shops to have a full time, armed guard on duty. Require expensive changes to their stores for safety (and if you're against it, you're against safety). Require expensive training and make gun sellers follow scripts to make a sale, including language about how many people guns kill every year.

If being made to go out of state isn't a burden on abortions, then going out of state shouldn't be a burden to buy a gun. Replicate in all states untill gun shops can't afford to stay open. And leave the second amendment where it is.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

. . . Peterson was present during the Valentine's Day rampage that left 14 students and three teachers dead . . . but did not act to stop it.-- article

This blows the nra bllsht fest argument "if only there was a good guy with a gun..." by the triggergasm crowd out of the water.

ps: turns out there were three more men charged with protecting the school that didn't enter it during the shooting

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Spending billions on a nationwide gun registry, gun licensing, or a ban on weapons in common use is unconstitutional.

As currently interpreted. What part of "well-regulated militia" do you not understand?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@SuperLib

Replicate in all states untill gun shops can't afford to stay open. And leave the second amendment where it is.

So basically piss off as many of your fellow citizens as possible, sew more political division, but treat your constitution as sacrosanct. How successful is this strategy likely to be?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Laguna

As currently interpreted. What part of "well-regulated militia" do you not understand?

My interpretation is irrelevant. The supreme court considered the various militia arguments and rejected them. Of course you are entitled to disagree. That is your right.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

One change I'm seeing is a chipping away of the stranglehold gun supporters have on

Congress. Rubio was brave to stand up and give his opinion but in the face of kids and parents he said he would reconsider. We need to target more politicians like that.

Its also good that big business is starting to show some separation with the NRA, Those little changes can snowball.

In the end we need to make it too embarrasing for people to say, "Yeah, dead kids are bad, but...".

We also need to expose those "moderates" who constantly ask for solutions then constantly work against any changes.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@SuperLib

Seeing as you are not aiming to repeal the 2nd amendment, can you do a google image search and post a link to a type of gun you wouldn't ban? I'm genuinely curious to know where you would draw the line (assuming you had reasonably unlimited power).

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Congress wasn't given the power to create any militia. The militia is pre-existing. It exists without the presence of the government, as it is the body of the people, at least white males between the ages of 18 and 50, capable of bearing arms. It is a declarative statement showing what is a very important reason to protect the individual right to bear arms.

The declarative clause is not conditional. It is similar to the wording in Article 1 of the Constitution that says To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...

Do you think that this means that the government only has the authority to protect intellectual property if it promotes the progress of science or the useful arts? Of course not. That is just a declarative clause, stating what is an important reason for granting the government that power.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Toasted: The solution is quite simple. End the NRA's hold over US politicians. Stop making guns available.

Actually that is too simple. You must first amend the US Constitution. You cannot just vote out a fundamental right in a governments foundational document. That is what Banana Republics do. The American Left is trying to do the same with other rights from the Bill of Rights such as freedom of speech and religion. Socialists always seem to have an authoritarian streak believing they can just write a new law to fix any flaw in human behavior.

Go through the process the right way and let the people and their representatives in Congress have their say. Amend the Constitution if you must. It is a living document only in the sense that it can be changed in an orderly and transparent manner. If Leftists voters, politicians, and judges undermine the Constitution through subversion it only proves the are authoritarians and don’t believe in the rule of law.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Attilathehungry: If you want a statistic to chew on, here's one:

Murders by knife/blade in 2016: 1,604

Murders by bare hands/feet: 656

Murders by rifle: 374

People consumed by emotionalism and blinded by their own ideology are unable to step back and see greater truths. Mass murders are the shiny object that obscures deeper societal problems. American culture is sick.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The US Legal system wrt Gun regulation looks to be a shambles across the US as a whole, as it varies so much:

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

It could be made better, by enforcing something similar to the Driving License system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licenses_in_the_United_States

But, that in itself is not good, as it will still end up with a ranging diversity of what is allowed or not.

Imposing basic License to own arms of a certain calibre, and nature of firing together with annual Insurance for those, should be enforced across the US - this would not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. It would simply ensure that people with Guns, have passed basic tests in order to be able to use those guns, and are paying an insurance premium in case of accidents from their usage.

Now... the Insurance Companies in this situation may enforce their own rules (likely to), so the Gun Ownership matter disappears from the Governments hands , and to that of Private Enterprise (a thoroughly American concept) and as such, if you cant be trained properly to hold a license, and pay the insurance fees to cover your accidents then you should not be able to possess a Gun.

Simple. Effective. Doesnt breach 2nd Amendment, and is totally American... so why not ?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Imposing basic License to own arms of a certain calibre, and nature of firing together with annual Insurance for those, should be enforced across the US - this would not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.

And what do you do when someone fails to register, doesn't pass the test, or doesn't buy the insurance? Take away or deny them the gun? A licence would absolutely infringe the 2nd amendment if you attempt to enforce it. The fundamental issue is that gun ownership in America is a right and not just a privillege as it is in most other countries. The reason the government can fine you or physically intervene to stop you from driving a car without a licence is because it's not a constitutionally protected right.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

M3M3M3: can you do a google image search and post a link to a type of gun you wouldn't ban?

Just assume I made up a gun. Go ahead and tell me why it shouldn't be banned or why a ban wouldn't work. And don't forget to add language about tears for mass shootings.

The goal is to expose 2nd Amendment supporters as nutjobs, then slowly chip away at their base.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Attilathehungry

> : If you want a statistic to chew on, here's one:

Murders by knife/blade in 2016: 1,604

Murders by bare hands/feet: 656

Murders by rifle: 374

-------------------

of the 17,000+ murders in the u.s. in 2016, over 11,000 involved a gun as the weapon

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Wolfpack

On average 11,583 people are murdered by guns every year much greater than your posted figures.

https://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Just assume I made up a gun. Go ahead and tell me why it shouldn't be banned or why a ban wouldn't work. And don't forget to add language about tears for mass shootings.

No, you've just completely twisted this and strawmanned me. Why would I be the one arguing against banning your choice of gun or telling you that a ban wouldn't work? Have you read my previous comments? I'm the one arguing that a repeal of the 2nd amendment is possible and that a total ban is the only thing that would work. It's you who is unprepared to advocate for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, so I'm just curious which specific type of gun you think all Americans should have a constitutionally protected right to own? I promise not to make any comments on the one you pick.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

This is what we have come to expect of American police. If they have the advantage, they shoot wildly. In an even confrontation, they hide and hold extra tight onto their sphincters. And if there are 'good' police, their efforts are completely hidden by the HR policies which hire mostly bullies and defend these bullies when they murder people or beat them into hospitalization (if the victims are lucky). America's national character is fully expressed in our enforcement mentalities where we destroy the little fish and let the big fish eat whatever and whoever they want. And the hypocrisy of trump, a draft evader, calling anyone a 'coward' completely deflates any 'patriotic' B.S. he or his true believers are prone to gush out when this tent preacher reaches into their programmed minds and plays the dog whistle notes arousing their primitive naive and paranoic false understandings of their fellow Humans. But, modern collective America finally has the POTUS it deserves, an empty, cowardly, fat encased shell containing the pure essence of the poison which will destroy us. Sho ga nai, ne?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SuperLib: The goal is to expose 2nd Amendment supporters as nutjobs, then slowly chip away at their base.

It doesn’t matter if they are nut jobs or not. The Bill of Rights exists. It doesn’t matter what people think about them. If there was a crazy group of people that oppose the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, they would have absolutely zero effect on the rights of all Americans against that sort of police practice.

zichi: On average 11,583 people are murdered by guns every year much greater than your posted figures.

Although I referenced them those were not my figures. More important than than numbers themselves are the relative totals. Many mores times of people are killed by handguns than rifles of all kinds. In fact, more people are killed by hand/feet than by rifles. Do you want to regulate hands and feet? I am guessing not.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It's you who is unprepared to advocate for the repeal of the 2nd amendment

The repeal is common sense, especially in the face of so many dead kids. But it won't be repealed tomorrow.

We should continue to expose and humiliate gun supporters after each shooting. We should drive a wedge between politicians/business and the NRA. Use anti-abortion laws to shut down gun shops. Keep chopping away until the repeal conversation is brought to the table.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And while we are waiting, turn schools into supermax prisons.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Tommy Jones - knowing that any link I provide will be called biased, I looked for the most left-leaning, liberally-biased rag there is besides Salon (which is the crystallized version of mass insanity)

I give you....HuffPost.

An article that does not support your proposition:

*We cannot conclude that states that regulate private gun sales have a higher, or lower, gun homicide rate. *

It's okay, champ. You'll get em next time, tiger.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

This blows the anti-2A, anti-NRA shriek fest by the leftist gun-grabbers out of the water. This cop and his three fellow BSO brothers in blue, all of whom swore an oath to serve and protect, didn't even try to come to the aid of the children at the high school as the massacre was taking place. All the more reason for those who have them to keep their guns. . . .

So we can hear more news about police freezing in the face of an assault rifle? Sound logic.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Done. Lets tell them that the FBI will start to do its job again. Then lets promise them that sheriffs will take proper action against those who have had the police called on them 50 times over a few years including specific death threats. Finally, lets promise them that on-site deputies who are charged with their safety DO the ultimate job they swore they would do.

Yes, let's tell them all of that. Goes without saying. Those all involve human factors that cannot easily be controlled. Restricting assault weapons reduces the carnage far more quickly.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Strangerland - And that therefore the solution isn't to try to pretend that the people can be protected at all times, but rather to try to eliminate the necessity of protection in the first place. You know, by restricting guns.

In order to eliminate the necessity for protection in the first place? Protection from whom? You must mean the psychopath who chose to commit mass murder. This psychopath was known to his fellow students, his neighbors, people on the internet, school authorities, local police, county police, and the FBI. The psychopath finally decided to commit mass murder, and you would like people to blame the inanimate object for the psychopath's decisions, and actions.

Foreign nationals are now desperately trying to convince U.S. voters to give up THEIR right to own firearms. Ain't gonna happen. Russian hackers couldn't change U.S. elections before, and they're not going change U.S. elections now.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

zichi - From Feb 14 2008

Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings

FYI - An AR 15-style rifle is not an AR 15. An AR 15-style Ruger rifle is not an AR 15. Your list of so-called AR15s keeps getting smaller. Did you bother to verify that an actual AR15 was used during any of the stories you isted?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

SuperLib - We should continue to expose and humiliate gun supporters after each shooting. We should drive a wedge between politicians/business and the NRA. Use anti-abortion laws to shut down gun shops. Keep chopping away until the repeal conversation is brought to the table.

Your solution seems to be a call to lie, cheat, spin the truth, and twist the facts in order to get U.S. voters to trust you. Seriously?

You want to blame an inanimate object for the choices, and actions, of a well-known psychopath who was repeatedly allowed to walk free on the streets in Florida. Seriously?

The only ones who are humiliating themselves would be the people who are advocating for lying to the public in order to take advantage of a mass murder.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Guns don't kill people.

People do.

People with guns.

Meanwhile the boycott of the NRA is picking up.

There is hope after all.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Arrestpaul: You want to blame an inanimate object for the choices, and actions, of a well-known psychopath who was repeatedly allowed to walk free on the streets in Florida. Seriously?

Yep. And it could have happened anywhere in the world.

By the way, have you ever felt unsafe in Japan because you didn't have a gun?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

A draft dodger, who has never even once in his entire life demonstrated heroism, let alone dedication to principle, calling someone else a coward. Got it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The repeal is common sense, especially in the face of so many dead kids. But it won't be repealed tomorrow. 

And probably never. There are dozens of other corporations as well as money coming in by the millions from private donors. It’s just not going to happen. Oh, the left and how overly and easily jubilant they become when a few sponsors back away, there will be others that come. No panic here. But I do see the effortless and futile attempts.

We should continue to expose and humiliate gun supporters after each shooting.

Childish. It won’t work, as a registered gun owner and NRA supporter and law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to do with ANY crazed person that goes around shooting innocent people, the fault rests with the individual that perpetrated the crime and in this case it seems like the Sheriff, the FBI and a lot of people dropped the ball on this a cowardly deputy behind the school could have engaged and possibly have killed the shooter with his firearm. That’s the real problem, but as usual, the left does not believe in taking personal responsibility, The State failed these kids on the local, State and Federal level.

We should drive a wedge between politicians/business and the NRA. Use anti-abortion laws to shut down gun shops.

What?

Keep chopping away until the repeal conversation is brought to the table.

When that happens we just see the 2nd ice age coming.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

 But I do see the effortless and futile attempts.

Effortless?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

arrestpaul

Your solution seems to be a call to lie, cheat, spin the truth, and twist the facts in order to get U.S. voters to trust you. 

That would be exactly the NRA, yes I agree

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Bass:. the fault rests with the individual that perpetrated the crime and in this case it seems like the Sheriff, the FBI and a lot of people dropped the ball on this a cowardly deputy behind the school could have engaged and possibly have killed the shooter with his firearm. That’s the real problem, but as usual, the left does not believe in taking personal responsibility, The State failed these kids on the local, State and Federal level.

Yep. And it could have happened anywhere in the world.

as a registered gun owner and NRA supporter and law-abiding citizen, I have nothing to do with ANY crazed person that goes around shooting innocent people

Who cares?

You guys should check out the NRA's promotional video:

https://youtu.be/WK_jkPhrddc

Just straight-up crazy. This is a culture war cult.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I’ve heard people - often college students - say, in so many words, that soldiers should not complain about hazardous duty as they are “paid to die”. The first time I heard a young (European) person say that I was ready to scream.

No. Soldiers are not paid to die and neither are policemen but that seems to be an undercurrent in this and other criticisms of the police.

The level of preparedness for shooting incidents is and remains incredibly low guaranteeing many more occurrences. Forget gun bans for the moment and focus on what CAN be done. There are no political points to be made by doing such, so I don’t expect much change.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So Trump is blamed for “inaction” above? Yet these guys chilling outside while kids die, no prob?

You clearly haven't seen the video. If you had, you'd know those guys weren't just chilling outside, they were chillaxin. Knocking back a cold one while listening to the sweet sound of an AR ripping through students and staff. Keeping it casual in a Valentine's Day.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

An AR 15-style rifle is not an AR 15. An AR 15-style Ruger rifle is not an AR 15.

This is the equivalent of saying a tissue is not a Kleenex. Kleenex is trademark of a tissue brand. Different form, same substance,

4 ( +6 / -2 )

a cowardly deputy behind the school could have engaged and possibly have killed the shooter with his firearm

It didn't work in Dallas (5 cops killed) or Orlando (armed security). And Scalise was almost killed with his armed staff. The ARs need to go.

left does not believe in taking personal responsibility

The Florida school shooter is a Trump supporter. And Dylann Roof is a white supremacist. The BTK Killer was a born again Jesus freak. Ted Haggard is a Conservative.

FYI - An AR 15-style rifle...

...does a lot more damage to the body than a typical gun in its rifle form

Did you bother to verify that an actual AR15 was used during any of the stories you isted?

Let's clarify. They are semi autos and often they are military grade semi auto rifles designed to tear the body up. They are the main choice for mass shooters.

Do you want to regulate hands and feet? I am guessing not.

Then you are saying grenade launchers should be legalized. Or shoulder mounted rocket launchers (could have worked in Las Vegas against the shooter there). Right? It says shall not be infringed. Because if you are a Trump supporter and you say that Military grade weapons should be banned for common citizens then you are really a Hillary Liberal.

Hey Trump Supporters. Trump is deceiving you. He wants to raise the purchase age of guns to 21. Also, he wants to outlaw bump stocks. President Hillary never did that. Trump has gone Liberal on you. That is so funny. You say Liberal but Trump is actually starting to restrict weapons. Also, Rick Scott wants to do the same. But Trump supporters still think President Hillary is out there grabbing guns. They keep chanting lock her up...lock her up... But Trump is the one who is going to lock up those guns and screw your 2A NRA rights over.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Anyone else see the video of the police officers chillaxin instead of engaging the guy with the assault rifle? Their set up was sick. Lawn chairs, cooler, daquari maker, etc. They looked like they were having the times of their lives.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I truly feel sorry for the many intelligent Americans who reject this toxic gun culture. For it is these people who often bear the consequences. I find it mind boggling that any country's gov't can put such little value on the lives of children. Rome burnt while Nero fiddled.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Trump also "hid" during the Vietnam War. He sure knows about cowardice.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Trump also "hid" during the Vietnam War. He sure knows about cowardice.

And Trump's set up was even plusher. Still, the video shows those officers were well kitted for chillaxin. They even had somewhat coordinated outfits.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Just straight-up crazy. This is a culture war cult.

Its a culture war, yes, but not a cult. The United States will not forfeit its culture to leftists like Western Europe has so tragically done.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Who in their right minds would want a culture of guns in their country? And a sociopathic organisation like the NRA?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Tommy, I agree. The right is a complete and utter cult.

Whether it's about assault weapons or assaulting women, or children making a stand or people telling the NRA where to go ... you can be sure that the cult will be hard at work. Trying to undermine, cause division and up the daily quota of hatred.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

All the words, both written and spoken, about this are wasted. People are no longer thoughtful enough to change their minds about anything anymore.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nishikat: The Florida school shooter is a Trump supporter. 

Where did you hear that from - Huffington Post, MSNBC, DNC?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nishikat: Let's clarify. They are semi autos and often they are military grade semi auto rifles designed to tear the body up. They are the main choice for mass shooters.

Your arguments are ridiculously uninformed when it comes to so called assault rifles. It’s not the weapon that causes the damage, it’s the type of ammunition used. A rifle of the same caliber with the same ammunition will have the exact same effect whether fired from an AR-15 or a non-assault rifle type weapon. The thing that distinguishes an assault rifle from a non assault rifle is the pistol grip and other features that make it look different. The type of ammunition fired and the rate of fire can be the same with non-assault rifle type weapons. Banning only assault weapons will make no difference what so ever. The reason is because it does nothing about existing weapons and because non-assault style weapons can do the same things as a AR-15.

But let’s not let facts cloud the debate. The real aim is the eventual abolishing of the second amendment. So why not start that debate and stop pretending that it’s not about the confiscation of 300 million weapons. I give StrangerLand credit for stating that this is the goal. Let’s get on with it already.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

They're trained, they didn't react properly under pressure or they were a coward," Trump said, calling out the school resource officer Scot Peterson by name."When it came time to get in there and do something he didn't have the courage or something happened," Trump said. "But he certainly did a poor job. There's no question about that."

Which debunks the "more guns in schools to prevent massacres" argument. A trained and armed deputy couldn't even do his supposed job, and now they want want to arm teachers? There''ll be inaction at best, or more massacres at worst. It's not inconceivable to think a deranged/resentful student could just steal a teacher's gun and start a rampage. That's just one likely scenario.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

ThePBot - It's not inconceivable to think a deranged/resentful student could just steal a teacher's gun and start a rampage.

You're saying that some deranged student/person would actually make a personal decision steal a gun and commit mass murder. That a person would make that decision, not an inanimate object/firearm. A psychopathic person.

Hopefully, someone will have seen something, AND said something BEFORE that would happen. Or will it be a repeat of the debacle in Florida where people repeatedly allowed/ignored the warning signs that a psychopath intended to commit mass murder?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Toasted Heretic - Who in their right minds would want a culture of guns in their country? And a sociopathic organization like the NRA?

Apparently you're not as convincing as you'd hope you would be. Is it conceivable that you can't convince U.S. voters to change their minds while you're insulting them?

These issues has been discussed in the U.S. since 1968. You simply do not have the votes, in Congress or from the general public, to implement your agenda. Gun-banners only claim that they do.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

nishikat - ...does a lot more damage to the body than a typical gun in its rifle form

.....Hey Trump Supporters. Trump is deceiving you. He wants to raise the purchase age of guns to 21. Also, he wants to outlaw bump stocks. President Hillary never did that.

LOL. News flash - "President Hillary" has never done anything.

The AR-15 is a typical gun in its rifle form. Only gun-banners believe a story that the AR-15 is some sort of magical device that causes/demands/forces people to commit mass murders. In the real world, inanimate objects don't control the actions people. Banning inanimate object won't stop psychopaths from committing mass murder. Identifying, and treating, psychopaths will prevent mass murders.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Tommy Jones - This is the equivalent of saying a tissue is not a Kleenex. Kleenex is trademark of a tissue brand. Different form, same substance,

Gun banners claim they want U.S. voters to ban AR-15s, but what they really want is for U.S. voters to ban all firearms starting with the AR-15. Doesn't matter to gun-banners if an AR-15 was actually used by a psychopath to commit mass murder, the goal seems to be blame an inanimate AR-15 for the thoughts and actions of a mass murdering psychopath.

What you don't have is the votes to carry out your plan for U.S. citizens.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

zichi - That would be exactly the NRA, yes I agree

Just to be clear, I don't agree with anything you're said. Your twisting of my words in order to create some strawman that you agree with is disingenuous. You make your case, and I'll make mine.

The NRA has been around a really long time. Unlike the usual anti-2nd Amendment, gun-banning groups. The anti-2nd Amendment, gun-banning groups spring up, spout the usual twisted untruths, take in as many donations as possible, fold their tents, and sneak away, only to reappear under a different name, while spouting the same rhetoric to the same chumps who donated before. It sounds like a very lucrative business plan.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That a person would make that decision, not an inanimate object/firearm. A psychopathic person.

Yeah, because that psycho saw an easy opportunity: GUNS EVERYWHERE

Hopefully, someone will have seen something, AND said something BEFORE that would happen. 

....many people have, but with guys being paid by the huge gun lobby (like Trump, who repealed a law that banned people with mental disability from buying guns), they make it quite easy for psychos to arm themselves with guns.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Only gun-banners believe a story that the AR-15 is some sort of magical device that causes/demands/forces people to commit mass murders.

No, just a tool that mass murderers use to kill their victims.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

arrestpaul

yes, glad once agin we are able to agree.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The designer of the AR15 stated it was a military weapon and not one for civi street.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

zichi - The designer of the AR15 stated it was a military weapon and not one for civi street.

He didn't happen to make that alleged statement in fluent Russian, did he?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

arrestpaul

He didn't happen to make that alleged statement in fluent Russian, did he?

I don't know there was a Russian translation made or not but you really must learn how to use Google so you can quickly find those answers instead of waiting for others to give you all of your answers.

To start you off the inventor of the AR-15 was Eugene Stoner who was an ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

the goal seems to be blame an inanimate AR-15 for the thoughts and actions of a mass murdering psychopath.

Way out there. Way, way out there. Nobody is blaming the thoughts and actions of a psychopathy on an AR. People are blaming ARs for allowing a psychopath's actions to be far, far more deadly.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@M3M3M3 - the Insurance idea proposed does not infringe upon ones right to own a Gun, it merely ascertains that the person owning a gun has met the requirements. Just like a car, if you dont have a license, or insurance you can be arrested, and the car taken away.

By your argument, a mentally unsound person has the right to own a gun under the 2nd amendment, so all those background checks are in breech of this amendment ?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

clamenza: "The United States will not forfeit its culture"

The "culture" you speak of, is complete lunacy.

Anyway, it's funny how Trump wants to arm teachers, but clearly the person with a gun did not only NOT deter what happened, but ran and hid.

Please... people who love guns, line up in circles, point, and shoot to your heart's content when you see another person with a gun. Leave the rest of us all alone and stop murdering innocents. The world will be a better place with you all gone, and most certainly a safer one.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Trump has suggested giving guns to the teachers to fight back in situations like this. However, in this real scenario, it was a someone with training who had a gun and was there but failed to engage. Given this situation how likely would it be that untrained teachers or teachers with very minimal training would be able to thwart an attack in the future. I'm afraid this solution is non-viable as it's already proven to fail. Plus I can see a LOT of drawbacks to this sort of plan.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

800,000 school teachers, tens of thousands of schools and colleges, millions of churches, hundreds of thousands of shopping malls, millions and millions of streets.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As a non American utterly, utterly sick to death of this same go-nowhere 'debate and discussion' after every mass/school shooting in the US, can I propose that we all just shut up and leave them to it?

As Toasted so very aptly calls them, 'those who glorify, worship and promote guns and the culture that surrounds it' are never going to change their opinions, not even when the bodies of their own kids or loved ones are lying on the ground so nothing the rest of the world thinks or says is going to make any difference.

Why does the rest of the world keep on beating its head against the brick wall of American indifference to the value of human life? Enough already; let the idiots keep their beloved guns and we can all sit back and watch the country continue its steady decline into chaos and complete social disorder.

Seriously.. if most of them don't care, why on earth should we?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Times like this when Americans take stupid pills to function in society, I am proud that I am not American. I am happy to come from a country where there are gun laws and I feel safe in society. It took one incident to decide the gun laws of my country. I'm glad that my priminister at the time done the right thing to keep everyone safe.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The gun nuts' "freedom militia against tyranny" argument is the most absurd. The state has more advanced weaponry than the people do. It's no longer the 1700s for goodness' sake. In this day and age, if there is truly tyranny like they talk about, one tyrant can just press a button and nuke all gun-wielding rebels to oblivion. Does that mean civilians should have the right to bear nukes?

So idea of the people being as armed and dangerous as the government to create a balance is nothing but wishful thinking. Well in this case, that idea is just an excuse that they say instead of admitting the truth: they just like having guns. It's a violent-minded culture.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

COWARD? Look who's talking, Mr. Heel bone spurs X 5! Trump is being a childish bully, his name-calling and labeling shows that he ain't fit to govern a colony of pissants. He should be thrown in the trash can, he's so uncouth and he doesn't know when to just shut up!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump also "hid" during the Vietnam War. He sure knows about cowardice.

COWARD. Yeah, Donnyboy - it takes one to know one! Speak for yourself, **coward.**

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

it’s the type of ammunition used

Thanks, now I understand. And from this information I can surmise it's the same with a grenade launcher (which should be legal according to the NRA). It's the grenade that does that damage, not the launcher. According to the NRA all schools should carry a Milkor MGL grenade launcher to fight someone who has an AR.

Where did you hear that from

Twitter. DT uses it.

LOL. News flash - "President Hillary" has never done anything.

Hannity said she was president. You need to argue with him

The AR-15 is a typical gun in its rifle form

Then any guns should be legal like the Mini gun you see on Terminator. Right? The mini gun is no more deadly than a typical gun. The same with a grenade launcher.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Don't see how this is Trump's fault. Why not blame everyone who preceded him as well if that's your argument. Also any security gaurd who refuses to provide security should not be doing that job.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Don't see how this is Trump's fault.

Um, Trump called the guy a coward. How could it be anyone else's fault but his? He was the one who did it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites