Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (1 Viewer)

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

My question for you would then be how do we go about collecting all of the guns and ammo?

Set the cap on new gun sales based on the number of guns turned in and destroyed the previous year.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Cannot disagree.
I guess i just wonder about exactly what happened? I wonder how many of these officers are waking up in cold sweats at night right now because they were ordered to stand down? I know what i would have done or at least what i think i would have done? Just was not there and there simply has not been enough information released for me to make judgement yet.
Finding blame is going to be hard? So many questions?

Yeah, I'm sure they are, and I don't think they they are all necessarily "bad guys".

The point of the punishment wouldn't be just to place blame, but to make it publicly absolutely clear that we expect our law enforcement to intervene and help people who are at risk if necessary to save lives. IMO, it's not necessarily the individual officers who are the problem, but the overall system which needs to be completely re-imagined and revamped nationwide.

However, that will demand getting rid of any police officer with the wrong background. Including any officer with history of domestic violence.

Obviously there is no mechanism to enforce this currently, but this is how we should have things set up. Police should be compelled to take fire upon themselves if necessary to reduce the risk to civilians.

And in an active shooter situation, anybody in police leadership should know that when police show up and PUSH the killing of civilians stops immediately.

This is a problem with the way our police are trained and the culture of police we have. It's where ACAB comes from. Not every individual is a bad person, most likely are not. But the system they are in forces them to be an enemy of the public good far too often.

 

[riverman]

There's a pecking order for police accountability but any soldier or policeperson can say no...I said no to throwing garbage in the ocean I didn't think you should throw in the ocean...cost me a paygrade and two weeks confinement to the ship. Old cans of lead paint don't belong in the ocean.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No need to do that. Once you restrict ammo, as a consumable resource, it will solve itself in time. When we decided that leaded fuel is not good for the people and the environment and it was outlawed, no one went around collecting all the cars that needed it to run. It was phased out, a lot of the cars that required it worked until they stopped (as the non leaded fuel can cause problems for engines that require it) - and a lot of the cars that are worth saving as classic cars had additive used in them or updated to handle unleaded fuel. The fuel is the consumable resource in this case. Once you restrict ammunition the surplus of firearms out there are not an issue if you do not have the consumable resource to put in them.



No arguments there.



Only answer to this is to look at comparative data from other first world countries with stricter gun control, and we see that their violent crimes and murder rates are a quarter of the rate we have. For the record, I have no way how to measure mental health issues but if we look at depression and suicide rates in other first world countries - their rate seems to match ours, so the only real difference between us (as in, we are not crazier at large) - is the easy access to death tools.



No one argues that guns in the hands of responsible people can be used for good things. The problem is that guns in America are so poorly regulated that they are hard to keep out of the hands of the people who are not good.

By definition, the goal of society is to create rules that help as many as possible - and this is where the restrictions should be put - because if the rate of crime drops significantly (and we have data that shows it would, when we compare it to other "like" countries) - we should do that.

Ammo restrictions and good background checks should not be an issue for good people that are just going to use their guns for protection. This is the place where society needs to go - try to make rules that help as many people as possible, and decreasing the violent crime rate by a factor of 2, 3 or 4 is certainly worth this.

A fantastic response!

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

The paths are exactly the same....just in different landscapes...PTSD is real and in traumatized children almost always present....religion or radical fundamentalist upbringings are no more traumatic than kids with crack addicted parents in the ghetto. The new terrorist is the racist bigoted kid who grows up with easy access to weapons and ammo in the suburbs

We shall have to agree to disagree on that.
I believe one is a mindwarp of a religion. The other largely parental neglect. Paths are much different even if they end up the same.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Set the cap on new gun sales based on the number of guns turned in and destroyed the previous year.

I am not sure i follow this? So lets say 1000 guns are turned in, then are you saying only 1000 guns can be sold the next year?
If so, how is that a removal instead of an exchange?

 

[Phatguysrule]

The point of my original statement was that not long ago we all agreed the Jihad attacks needed to end. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies cracked down hard not only on social media but with terror lists and all types of AI to stop these mass murder type activities.
They even enacted laws and changed the way we do things on an every day level. Flying has and never will be the same again. Even renting a car will never be the same.
I'm assuming we will do much of the same again here. You most certainly cannot by fertilizer the way you used to?

Thing is, all of those changes (the delays in airports, car rentals, the violation of rights to privacy, etc) didn't prevent any terrorist attacks... I think terrorist attacks are actually harder to prevent because they often come from other countries that we have less ability to impact.

I think the mental health aspect (getting every American health checkups for free, including follow-up checkups if deemed necessary, and including trained mental health staff at every school) could radically reduce domestic terrorism as well as mass shootings. I think that should be our #1 priority.

I love the idea of a mental health staff member at school instead of a police officer. As well as a behavioral expert if it's not the same person. Though it seems like a federal funding to get teachers better training in behavioral studies would be a good thing as well.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I am not sure i follow this? So lets say 1000 guns are turned in, then are you saying only 1000 guns can be sold the next year?
If so, how is that a removal instead of an exchange?

One of the biggest arguments against doing anything is the "we have 400 million guns, it's too many to do anything." So instead of doing anything, we're going to add 20 million more guns to this in new gun sales. So in 5 years the number of guns will be 500,000 million, 5 years after the 600,000 million. So the problem that is already too big to fix is only going to get bigger and bigger.

So yes, if only 1000 guns are turned in only 1000 can be sold. But let's be honest, that's not going to happen. It would be a huge financial incentive for manufacturers to get old, nonworking, and illegal guns out of the public so they can sell new and better guns.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

One of the biggest arguments against doing anything is the "we have 400 million guns, it's too many to do anything." So instead of doing anything, we're going to add 20 million more guns to this in new gun sales. So in 5 years the number of guns will be 500,000 million, 5 years after the 600,000 million. So the problem that is already too big to fix is only going to get bigger and bigger.

So yes, if only 1000 guns are turned in only 1000 can be sold. But let's be honest, that's not going to happen. It would be a huge financial incentive for manufacturers to get old, nonworking, and illegal guns out of the public so they can sell new and better guns.

No l, but i get your point now and it would be starting somewhere for sure.

 

[Shaboid]

Three Arizona police officers are placed on leave after looking on as a man drowned

Forget leave, they should be prosecuted. They won't be, and they'll probably get a nice severance instead. I think it's relevant to the conversation we're having a couple posts above.

 

[Phatguysrule]

No one argues that guns in the hands of responsible people can be used for good things. The problem is that guns in America are so poorly regulated that they are hard to keep out of the hands of the people who are not good.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wmtmv3ldhakJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/ &cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

By definition, the goal of society is to create rules that help as many as possible - and this is where the restrictions should be put - because if the rate of crime drops significantly (and we have data that shows it would, when we compare it to other "like" countries) - we should do that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society

Definition of society
(Entry 1 of 2)

1: companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : COMPANY
2: a voluntary association of individuals for common endsespecially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another
b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identityliterary society
b: a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners
5a: a natural group of plants usually of a single species or habit within an association
b: the progeny of a pair of insects when constituting a social unit (such as a hive of bees)broadly : an interdependent system of organisms or biological units
society

adjective
Definition of society (Entry 2 of 2)

: of, relating to, or typical of fashionable society

Ammo restrictions and good background checks should not be an issue for good people that are just going to use their guns for protection. This is the place where society needs to go - try to make rules that help as many people as possible, and decreasing the violent crime rate by a factor of 2, 3 or 4 is certainly worth this.

I would submit that society is more about helping people be healthy than it is about controlling people. My proposal is that we first focus on helping people be heathy (as much or more than other countries) before we try controlling people as much or more than other countries.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

My question for you would then be how do we go about collecting all of the guns and ammo?
This would require a two faceted answer due to some guns are owned legally and can be tracked and then millions more are illegal and on the black market.
To me, it would first require a constitutional change.
To me, that would instigate a civil war because i do not think many gun owners will just give them up…but lets say they do Nd we have changed laws and no more legal guns can be owned sold or bought.
That leaves criminals with illegal guns left on the streets with only police to crack down.
We all know police are merely a reactionary response to an incident. So they will not be there to fend off an attacker.
What would the answer be to the following question for the millions of gun owners who gave their weapons up….
“who is going to protect me or have my back if im attacked by a criminal with a gun?”
This is the question that haunts many.
If we attempt to remove all guns then all thats left are criminals with guns.
This is largely dismissed and swept under the rug as paranoia, but it is not. At all.
One just need scroll up and see the posts of people using a gun to save themselves to know this is a reality that is not paranoia.
Without a solid and reasonable answer to that question, I do not see any gun owners giving their guns up.

Oh i understand. This is pretty much the giant conundrum we are in. We have lots of guns and people who like guns. To deal with it we need more guns and people who know how to use them. If we take away the guns? Only people who are not supposed to have guns will have them.
Not to mention half the country will want to take up their guns and shoot people who don't want any guns.

Then of course we have those people willing to pick up their gun to stop people from having guns.

The United States is in a pretty messed up place right now. No easy answers.

 

[andalusian]

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wmtmv3ldhakJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/ &cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

If we reduce our violent crime rate to 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of what it is, less defensive gun use is needed. This is not a bad thing.

I would submit that society is more about helping people be healthy than it is about controlling people. My proposal is that we first focus on helping people be heathy (as much or more than other countries) before we try controlling people as much or more than other countries.

The only reason for society is to make more people be "better" in many aspects, health, safety, wealth, happiness. As there is no indication that I have seen that Americans have a larger portion of mentally ill people than other comparable nations, I would say the obvious first step is to get us closer on par in access to death tools so that we are closer to these other countries that have much lower rates of violent crimes.

It does not mean that healthcare is not a concern, it certainly is, but you can not control what you can not measure - and from what measures we do have, there is one statistic where we are way out of whack - and that's access to death tools.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If we reduce our violent crime rate to 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of what it is, less defensive gun use is needed. This is not a bad thing.



The only reason for society is to make more people be "better" in many aspects, health, safety, wealth, happiness. As there is no indication that I have seen that Americans have a larger portion of mentally ill people than other comparable nations, I would say the obvious first step is to get us closer on par in access to death tools so that we are closer to these other countries that have much lower rates of violent crimes.

It does not mean that healthcare is not a concern, it certainly is, but you can not control what you can not measure - and from what measures we do have, there is one statistic where we are way out of whack - and that's access to death tools.

This is what I struggle with. How can that be the first step if it's the hardest step to take? Shouldn't we start doing things that actually have a chance to get done in the next couple of decades?

We need 34 states to agree to a constitutional convention. And then we need 38 states to vote to approve actually changing the constitution.
But at least 30 states now allow permitless open and concealed carry, after a recent increase of around 25%... so I seriously doubt they'll be changing their mind any time soon...

We would need 60 votes in the senate to get an age restriction. And we're not close.

And even if we did, the (decidedly liberal) 9th Circuit Court of appeals just recently ruled that it's unconstitutional to prevent people over 18 from buying guns. What do you think the "conservative" Supreme Court will say about it?
https://abc7.com/ca-gun-ban-semiautomatic-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-laws/11838571/

And even if those weren't in the way, most police support the rights of individuals to own guns. They are refusing to do their jobs all over the country.
It's hard to believe they are going to risk their lives to disarm people who will fight to the death to keep their guns. They are probably more likely to join them in the (oft threatened) civil war...

 

[Shaboid]

 

[andalusian]

This is what I struggle with. How can that be the first step if it's the hardest step to take? Shouldn't we start doing things that actually have a chance to get done in the next couple of decades?

I do not think the political reality is that this is the first step we can make. I argue that it is the first step we should make and thus, fixing that obvious flaw in the constitution is of utter importance.

I would never argue against health reform and more mental health support, but my belief has been and I can not see anything that predicts otherwise, that these will just be a band-aid to fix cancer, unfortunately.

I would actually argue that the electoral collage is the #1 problem in the constitution. Once it is fixed and every one's vote is worth the same, the 2nd amendment issues will be fixed. A 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons. The people have spoken, but an outdated legal document that favors land to people is standing in the way. It's a shame, but it's the truth.

You fix the electoral collage issue, you let the people vote on what they really want and the 2nd amendment will be fixed to reflect the 21st century instead of the 18th century.

I have said it before and I will say it again, I am just glad the founding fathers did not put outhouses in the constitution or we would not be allowed in-house plumbing.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

This is what I struggle with. How can that be the first step if it's the hardest step to take? Shouldn't we start doing things that actually have a chance to get done in the next couple of decades?

We need 34 states to agree to a constitutional convention. And then we need 38 states to vote to approve actually changing the constitution.
But at least 30 states now allow permitless open and concealed carry, after a recent increase of around 25%... so I seriously doubt they'll be changing their mind any time soon...

We would need 60 votes in the senate to get an age restriction. And we're not close.

And even if we did, the (decidedly liberal) 9th Circuit Court of appeals just recently ruled that it's unconstitutional to prevent people over 18 from buying guns. What do you think the "conservative" Supreme Court will say about it?
https://abc7.com/ca-gun-ban-semiautomatic-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-laws/11838571/

And even if those weren't in the way, most police support the rights of individuals to own guns. They are refusing to do their jobs all over the country.
It's hard to believe they are going to risk their lives to disarm people who will fight to the death to keep their guns. They are probably more likely to join them in the (oft threatened) civil war...

Some people dismiss it, but im not a fan of comparing us with other countries. There are too many X factors like geography and population.

For example: If 15 of 20 people have a gun in one country and another country has 1500 of 2000 people with guns, the percent is the same but to get rid of the 1500 will be much harder than the 15.
I have not studied up on all the comparison gun reports regarding other countries, but I just do not see how we can be compared.

Another example would be if a country only has 20% of crimes commited with a gun, but only has 30million people, and another country has 400million people and 50% of crimes committed with a gun, it would be much easier to get a country with 50 million people from 50% down to 20% than it would the 400million person country I would think?
Meaning its easier for smaller countries to tackle the problem than larger countries? Then you add in how vast and large our country is geographically(not populous) compared to most others and I see another geographical hurdle.

 

[riverman]

Some people dismiss it, but im not a fan of comparing us with other countries.

If you don't study countries where gun control has worked then you are not willing to see how it works...regardless of the population...Mao's children Red Guard disarmed an entire largely populated nation as did the Allies disarm Germany and Japan post WWII.that didn't take long and they dismantled their entire militaries.....all this idea that it takes decades to disarm a civilian population is just coming from pro gun enthusiasts. The issue here is the type of clips, guns and amount of ammo civilians can purchase...that's where you start...damage control ...plenty of countries allow you a hunting rifle or shotgun but no other form of weaponry or rapid fire weapons. Here it's gone over the top and we need to make the guns people can have less capable of massive murder before they can be countered by peace keepers.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

If you don't study countries where gun control has worked then you are not willing to see how it works...regardless of the population...Mao's children Red Guard disarmed an entire largely populated nation as did the Allies disarm Germany and Japan post WWII.that didn't take long and they dismantled their entire militaries.....all this idea that it takes decades to disarm a civilian population is just coming from pro gun enthusiasts. The issue here is the type of clips, guns and amount of ammo civilians can purchase...that's where you start...damage control ...plenty of countries allow you a hunting rifle or shotgun but no other form of weaponry or rapid fire weapons. Here it's gone over the top and we need to make the guns people can have less capable of massive murder before they can be countered by peace keepers.

To me, studying and comparing are two different things.
Are you saying in a post WW we could then easily disarm citizens?
To me, your point is apples to oranges. Germany and Japan had just lost a war and the world was suppressing any ability for them to rise again.
To me that is quite a bit different than the current situation/topic at hand.

If we lose a war to Russia I would think they would be able to disarm our citizenry, but we haven't.

Im failing to see how your examples equate to the current state of our country. Im sorry.

 

[riverman]

To me, studying and comparing are two different things.
Are you saying in a post WW we could then easily disarm citizens?
To me, your point is apples to oranges. Germany and Japan had just lost a war and the world was suppressing any ability for them to rise again.
To me that is quite a bit different than the current situation/topic at hand.

If we lose a war to Russia I would think they would be able to disarm our citizenry, but we haven't.

Im failing to see how your examples equate to the current state of our country. Im sorry.

I make these comparisons to counter the idea that disarming the civilian population is either impossible or will take decades...if it's seen as necessary it can absolutely be done...situation, problem, process, solution.......can't stop at the second step...the "problem" and say...oh well! The process starts now or it doesn't....I vote now. The more people who balk at change, the more mass killings we're going to read about or worse, children we'll grieve for... Stop the trend...be part of the solution...vote for gun reform, ammo reform, health care and all that is needed to regain a healthy society

 

[andalusian]

Some people dismiss it, but im not a fan of comparing us with other countries. There are too many X factors like geography and population.

For example: If 15 of 20 people have a gun in one country and another country has 1500 of 2000 people with guns, the percent is the same but to get rid of the 1500 will be much harder than the 15.


I have not studied up on all the comparison gun reports regarding other countries, but I just do not see how we can be compared.

Another example would be if a country only has 20% of crimes commited with a gun, but only has 30million people, and another country has 400million people and 50% of crimes committed with a gun, it would be much easier to get a country with 50 million people from 50% down to 20% than it would the 400million person country I would think?
Meaning its easier for smaller countries to tackle the problem than larger countries? Then you add in how vast and large our country is geographically(not populous) compared to most others and I see another geographical hurdle.

All the comparisons I discussed are about rates,as in - number of incidents per 100,000 people. As discussed earlier - by controlling ammunition you can rather quickly solve the problem since it is a consumable resource - if you have 100 bullets it does not matter if there are 20 guns out there or 5000, you can only shoot 100 bullets - so restrictions on ammunition will restrict gun use once the existing cache of ammunition is exhausted

 

[Chris Craig]

All the comparisons I discussed are about rates,as in - number of incidents per 100,000 people. As discussed earlier - by controlling ammunition you can rather quickly solve the problem since it is a consumable resource - if you have 100 bullets it does not matter if there are 20 guns out there or 5000, you can only shoot 100 bullets - so restrictions on ammunition will restrict gun use once the existing cache of ammunition is exhausted

I agree. But, like Phatguy said, the The Republicans won't go for it. To them ammunition are arms too and thus cannot be restricted.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

All the comparisons I discussed are about rates,as in - number of incidents per 100,000 people. As discussed earlier - by controlling ammunition you can rather quickly solve the problem since it is a consumable resource - if you have 100 bullets it does not matter if there are 20 guns out there or 5000, you can only shoot 100 bullets - so restrictions on ammunition will restrict gun use once the existing cache of ammunition is exhausted

Understood. I just feel the whole guns debate is sweeping the real problem under the rug? Why do people kill? Until we understand that, I do not think we can solve it.
Those hellbent on killing will figure out how to do it. We banned guns from airplanes. Has that deterred plane hijackings? One of the larger body counts of mass killings a pyscho can go for?
So much money and resources that could be used on other means that can have a real impact.
Unfortunately, some of the arguments against banning all guns are valid/strong enough that the debate will just continue for ages with lobbyists spending millions to thwart the NRA when that energy and funds could be used in other ways to have the same or an even greater effect.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If you don't study countries where gun control has worked then you are not willing to see how it works...regardless of the population...Mao's children Red Guard disarmed an entire largely populated nation as did the Allies disarm Germany and Japan post WWII.that didn't take long and they dismantled their entire militaries.....all this idea that it takes decades to disarm a civilian population is just coming from pro gun enthusiasts. The issue here is the type of clips, guns and amount of ammo civilians can purchase...that's where you start...damage control ...plenty of countries allow you a hunting rifle or shotgun but no other form of weaponry or rapid fire weapons. Here it's gone over the top and we need to make the guns people can have less capable of massive murder before they can be countered by peace keepers.

Have you compared the before and after gun control numbers for other country's violent crime and murder rates, though?

UK's rates have gone up. Brazil's rates went up. Australia's have gone down after time, but they've followed the same general trendline down as ours have here in the US...

That's the best data I've been able to find and it's not overly compelling. Neither is the data here in the US between states.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Understood. I just feel the whole guns debate is sweeping the real problem under the rug? Why do people kill? Until we understand that, I do not think we can solve it.
Those hellbent on killing will figure out how to do it. We banned guns from airplanes. Has that deterred plane hijackings? One of the larger body counts of mass killings a pyscho can go for?
So much money and resources that could be used on other means that can have a real impact.
Unfortunately, some of the arguments against banning all guns are valid/strong enough that the debate will just continue for ages with lobbyists spending millions to thwart the NRA when that energy and funds could be used in other ways to have the same or an even greater effect.

Investing in Healthcare and education could literally save millions of lives per year, not to mention how many it owild improve.

Gun control can only save at best 50k lives per year. And only 10k of those are crimes against others.

That's a lot of people. But not when compared to the millions who could be saved sooner if we'd focus on the real root of the problem...

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I make these comparisons to counter the idea that disarming the civilian population is either impossible or will take decades...if it's seen as necessary it can absolutely be done...situation, problem, process, solution.......can't stop at the second step...the "problem" and say...oh well! The process starts now or it doesn't....I vote now. The more people who balk at change, the more mass killings we're going to read about or worse, children we'll grieve for... Stop the trend...be part of the solution...vote for gun reform, ammo reform, health care and all that is needed to regain a healthy society

I am not sure it is as much about balking about change as it is a debate of which type of change will society benefit from the most?

 

[riverman]

Have you compared the before and after gun control numbers for other country's violent crime and murder rates, though?

UK's rates have gone up. Brazil's rates went up. Australia's have gone down after time, but they've followed the same general trendline down as ours have here in the US...

That's the best data I've been able to find and it's not overly compelling. Neither is the data here in the US between states.

I've lived in a country for 2 decades where you can't have a gun.....in a county with the same population as Lane county in Oregon....there's no comparison in the murder rates at all...I can draw from that experience and it's enough proof for me. I've now lived in Lane county for 22 years....about the same amount of time and murder is way more prevalent. Covid in Brazil...can't imagine what the 5 million homeless orphans in Rio had to deal with over covid or the millions in the Favelas where gang presence is huge. Covid lockdowns skew many of the numbers but I've a couple decades in two systems and trust me...one is way safer

 

[Chris Craig]

Understood. I just feel the whole guns debate is sweeping the real problem under the rug? Why do people kill? Until we understand that, I do not think we can solve it.
Those hellbent on killing will figure out how to do it. We banned guns from airplanes. Has that deterred plane hijackings? One of the larger body counts of mass killings a pyscho can go for?
So much money and resources that could be used on other means that can have a real impact.
Unfortunately, some of the arguments against banning all guns are valid/strong enough that the debate will just continue for ages with lobbyists spending millions to thwart the NRA when that energy and funds could be used in other ways to have the same or an even greater effect.

Most people here are not saying ban all guns. Maybe 2 posters have said that. Its not going to happen. It will never be on the table.

Most people here want restrictions. Restriction doesn't mean we want it banned, just harder to get.

Though, I don't see a reason for civilians to have access to versions of military guns other than they are cool. That cool factor is part of what has led to a culture around guns like the AR-15. It's the gun of choice for mass shooters for a reason.

You were talking about video games earlier. Well, the problem is gun makers, have taken the video game and made it real by offering versions of the guns in games. It's not the game itself, but the realization of that game via guns like Ar-15s.

Why do people kill is an age old question. Are they driven to it? Are they born with wicked capabilities and compulsions? Mental illness? Isolation? Bad parenting? The answer needs to be sought out yes, but there are things we can do in the meantime.

I believe that eventually better more accessible healthcare could help curb some of this. But, it's going to take time. Getting rid of poverty would be great and would help too, but it will never happen. The rich won't allow it.

The fastest things we can do now in the moment are:

• raising the age to buy guns
• Making guns harder to get via background checks, etc
• Offer gun buybacks to get some guns off the street
• Push for more responsible parenting
• Hold parents responsible if their kids gets ahold of their weapons and use them nefariously.
• Better school security upgrades (Doors that are locked from the outside, but can open from the inside and buzz in systems, etc)

We could also look to ban military style rifles among other things but that's probably not going to happen, so I'm not including that. Though most of my ideas won't happen anyway.

Yes, banning guns from planes has deterred some hijackings. Not all, but some. Implementing other strategies has helped to deter them even more. It's nearly impossible to hijack a plane post 9-11 because we did what we needed to do. If we sat around saying oh it's not going to work and the such we would have likely had more hijackings. Can you name a hijacking post 9-11 here in the US?

We need to attack gun violence, especially school shootings like we did hijacking, with several solutions at once. That's how it stops.