School shooting in Nashville!!

[Alligatorob]

It's in the constitution and I don't think it will ever change. I believe the United States has the longest standing constitution in the world. Back then the right to bear arms was important.

But there are people who think a president can take their guns away. They can't.

Yep, and I don't think it will change a whole lot. So we need to figure out how to reduce violence without big changes in gun ownership laws.

Regardless of all the rhetoric going back and forth, I think American society is satisfied with the status quo.

Actually a lot of polls show more people want to increase gun restrictions than not. However I think that isn't likely to happen anytime soon for a couple of reasons.

One the Constitutional right to bear arms would take more than a simple majority to change, constitutional amendments are not easy.

And second I think the guns rights people are more organized and better funded than the opposition.

 

[Warrigal]

In Germany every day people are stabbed and killed with knives. If Della's logic would be true, one would have to forbid knives here also.
We must change society but not instruments that could be used for good and bad.

In 2021, 257 people were murdered in Germany with a knife. To me that is a high figure but compare that with shooting victims in US in that year when 12,000 people were murdered by a firearm. 15,500 Americans died that year by their own hand using a firearm.

In 2021, in US there were 38 mass shootings just in December alone. 35 people died and 180 were injured. Just in one month.

Germany does seem to have a knife problem but US has a much bigger problem with firearms.

Don't take my word for these figures. Read the stats.

Murder victim numbers Germany 2000-2021 | Statista
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia
List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia

 

[SeniorBen]

Yep, and I don't think it will change a whole lot. So we need to figure out how to reduce violence without big changes in gun ownership laws.

Actually a lot of polls show more people want to increase gun restrictions than not. However I think that isn't likely to happen anytime soon for a couple of reasons.

One the Constitutional right to bear arms would take more than a majority to change, constitutional amendments are not easy.

And second I think the guns rights people are more organized and better funded than the opposition.

We don't need a "constitutional amendment." What we need is a SCOTUS that's not dominated by religious nuts and that can think logically. If you look at the rationale for some of their decisions, it's the definition of "legislating from the bench." They twist the Constitution to fit their twisted ideology.

These religious nuts shouldn't even be allowed on the court. They violate the 1st Amendment that prohibits forcing religious views on the people.

 

[rgp]

Do you think Adam Lanza could have gone into Sandy Hook elementary and killed 26 children with a knife or baseball bat before he was stopped? I doubt it.

Cars, knives and baseball bats all have good uses. as for your constitution. Get over it. It's not the ten commandments and it wasn't written by God. Its a paper written by a bunch of politicians when the world and guns were very different from today.

Why do we keep saying we can't do anything about this as if we are helpless in this situation. We don't have to get every single gun out of circulation to improve things. We can get quite a few by buying back guns. We can stop sales of new ones. We could at least try. We owe it to our children to do more than just shake our heads, throw up our hands and pretend we can figure out who's going to go berserk ahead of time because their neighbor says he wears the same plaid shirt every day.

"Cars, knives and baseball bats all have good uses. as for your constitution. Get over it. It's not the ten commandments and it wasn't written by God. Its a paper written by a bunch of politicians when the world and guns were very different from today."

Get over it ?? the constitution ??! It is [or at least should be] the very words on which this nation stands ..... and will stand forever ........ Get over it ? ..... I don't think so.

A .... It is not my constitution , it is everyone's ! B ... the ten commandments were also written by men ...

 

[Warrigal]

Yep, and I don't think it will change a whole lot. So we need to figure out how to reduce violence without big changes in gun ownership laws.
And how's that working out? Who is working on the problem of reducing violence?

Actually a lot of polls show more people want to increase gun restrictions than not. However I think that isn't likely to happen anytime soon for a couple of reasons.
And those reasons are?

One the Constitutional right to bear arms would take more than a majority to change, constitutional amendments are not easy.
The constitution has been changed multiple times in the past. 33 amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. 27 of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. (REF - List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia)

And second I think the guns rights people are more organized and better funded than the opposition.
So the tail gets to wag the dog? The power of the people, united in a cause, is extremely powerful. Dead children, murdered in their schools and citizens shot to death in their places of worship, work and recreation should not be a divisive issue. It is not a state issue. It is a national problem and needs a national solution.

 

[Warrigal]

We don't need a "constitutional amendment." What we need is a SCOTUS that's not dominated by religious nuts and that can think logically. If you look at the rationale for some of their decisions, it's the definition of "legislating from the bench." They twist the Constitution to fit their twisted ideology.

These religious nuts shouldn't even be allowed on the court. They violate the 1st Amendment that prohibits forcing religious views on the people.

A reinterpretation of the second amendment would be one solution but as recent history has shown, not necessarily a permanent one.

 

[Alligatorob]

@Warrigal I can't do a reply to the text you added to mine, so I'll just quote a couple of the things you said:

"And how's that working out? Who is working on the problem of reducing violence?"

It's not working out real well. There are lots of people and organizations working on the problem, but no good solutions yet.

"The constitution has been changed multiple times in the past. 33 amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. 27 of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. (REF - List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia)"

That's 27 amendments in over 200 years, not a lot. And if you subtract out the first 10, the Bill of Rights passed right after the Constitution was ratified, and the 3 amendments pushed through in the wake of the Civil War, and the 2 prohibition amendments, one enacting and one repealing, that only leaves 12. Out of the almost 12,000 that have been proposed, not good odds, about 1,000 to 1.

Problem is amendments requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate, and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. Just ain't gonna happen. Not with today's political climate.

 

[mrstime]

The point made is that guns don't kill by themselves; they require a human to make them do anything.
Your logic is similar to "People are constantly killed by cars, so cars are the problem."
And, think about this: A gun stopped the shooter & saved lives. Whose hands was the gun in?

The police should have the guns. The military should have all the assault weapons!

 

[Nosy Bee-54]

Doesn't matter who commits it, gun violence is norm in America.

 

[Warrigal]

That's 27 amendments in over 200 years, not a lot. And if you subtract out the first 10, the Bill of Rights passed right after the Constitution was ratified, and the 3 amendments pushed through in the wake of the Civil War, and the 2 prohibition amendments, one enacting and one repealing, that only leaves 12. Out of the almost 12,000 that have been proposed, not good odds, about 1,000 to 1.

Problem is amendments requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate, and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. Just ain't gonna happen. Not with today's political climate.

Don't discount the 2 prohibition amendments because they demonstrate that amendments can be removed as well as added to the constitution.

Our method of amending the national constitution is very different. The people have a direct say in any amendment to the document. A national referendum is held where a simple question is asked, such as "Do you approve a change to wording of the constitution to include (or delete/substitute) the words ... XXX X XXXX etc We mark either the YES or No option.

For the amendment to pass there must be an overall majority of Yes votes and a further requirement that a majority of states (4 out of 6) return a majority YES vote. It is a high bar and most referendum amendments are rejected. The last one was a referendum about Australia becoming a republic. It was emphatically rejected.

We will have another referendum later this year to amend the constitution to recognise our indigenous people, effectively negating the "Terra nullis" doctrine that allowed the British to claim the continent for the Crown as if it was unoccupied territory. The second question will seek approval to establish a formal body to be known as "The Voice" that will allow first nations peoples to speak to Parliament and the Executive on matters that directly affect them. It will have no power to compel parliament.

It is possible that both amendments will pass, both will fail and it is also possible that just the first one will pass.

The history of referendums in Australia has been that they are only successful when there is support from both of the major parties. For the coming one the Government (Labor) is supporting and the minor party in the Opposition, the Nationals, have declared their opposition. The major opposition party is yet to declare their position but is they come out for NO, it will be more difficult for the amendments to pass.

However, in the end, it will be the voters who decide. My gut is telling me that the first will pass but the second proposal could fail. One important sign is that after the recent state election in NSW, 5 out of 6 states now have Labor governments. Only Tasmania, with a small population, is still coalition governed. This means that it is very possible to achieve an overall majority and at least 5 states returning majority YES. The result is entirely up to the voters and the result is binding on the national parliament.

These questions seem like small issues but to our indigenous people they are of immense importance. They have never ceded sovereignty of their traditional lands nor have they ever had a treaty. They are the only first world people not to have one. They were not considered as Australian citizens until the referendum of 1967 when they were finally counted in the census and allowed to vote in national elections.

When the Constitution first came into being in 1901 there were only two parts that referred to the First Peoples of Australia: Section 51 (xxvi) gave the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to ‘people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any state, for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws’; and Section 127 provided that ‘in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted’.

This meant that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people weren’t recognised as part of the Australian population.

Small changes to the words of a national constitution can have very significant outcomes that benefit the people. That is the issue that should drive some changes and cause others to be rejected.

 

[squatting dog]

It's not an individual Constitutional right; it's a collective right, as in "militia."

Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

You are ignoring that pesky little comma. Without it, you would be correct to view it as a collective right as in militia. However... that little comma breaks that amendment into two separate pieces. In order to have a well regulated militia, your citizens would have to possess and bear arms. Let's not forge how this amendment came about. We had just overthrown a tyrannical government and therefore the founding fathers wanted to be sure that we would always be prepared should the need arise again.

 

[Murrmurr]

Do you think Adam Lanza could have gone into Sandy Hook elementary and killed 26 children with a knife or baseball bat before he was stopped? I doubt it.

Cars, knives and baseball bats all have good uses. as for your constitution. Get over it. It's not the ten commandments and it wasn't written by God. Its a paper written by a bunch of politicians when the world and guns were very different from today.

Why do we keep saying we can't do anything about this as if we are helpless in this situation. We don't have to get every single gun out of circulation to improve things. We can get quite a few by buying back guns. We can stop sales of new ones. We could at least try. We owe it to our children to do more than just shake our heads, throw up our hands and pretend we can figure out who's going to go berserk ahead of time because their neighbor says he wears the same plaid shirt every day.

There were 3 bomb threats at my high school one year. Once, a device was found and removed. It could not have exploded because it had no detonator. Either someone didn't know what they were doing or they thought it was funny.

 

[Murrmurr]

Interesting to note, the shooter would have chosen a different school but it had much better security.

 

[Jules]

7 guns and the parents didn't think there was a problem?????

Her parents only knew about the one gun and they made her sell it. She had the other ones hidden.

 

[seadoug]

There are conflicting reports but apparently she was a biological female living as a man.

Have to wonder if she/he started taking steroids because not only could they fuel rage they could make some depressed because they throw the body's own hormones out of wack which can lead to depression. If depressed was given anti depressants or something like SSRIs which many young killers are on.

I've been on SSRIs for 18 years, since I was first diagnosed with depression. I'm happy. I have no desire to kill anyone. Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment.

 

[Murrmurr]

I've been on SSRIs for 18 years, since I was first diagnosed with depression. I'm happy. I have no desire to kill anyone. Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment.

Yeah, if hormone therapy caused this person to go off the deep end, it was totally mishandled.

But I think this "gender issue" is being sensationalized.

 

[seadoug]

Yes, this is a replay of Uvalde except Ramos was handicapped and Hale was gay........same thing......

Did you really say there is something wrong with handicapped and gay people that would make them commit mass shootings, and that they are the same? I am gay and I take exception to your comment. I won't say on this forum what I would really like to say to you.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

I've been on SSRIs for 18 years, since I was first diagnosed with depression. I'm happy. I have no desire to kill anyone. Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment.

Not that I agree with the assessment either but I will say that suicidal tendency is one of the many side effects of most anti depressants. You are very fortunate

 

[Murrmurr]

Yeah, if hormone therapy caused this person to go off the deep end, it was totally mishandled.

But I think this "gender issue" is being sensationalized.

@seadoug - Oops. I clicked reply on the wrong post. Now I forget which one I meant it for.

Oh well, same sentiment.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

Did you really say there is something wrong with handicapped and gay people that would make them commit mass shootings, and that they are the same? I am gay and I take exception to your comment. I won't say on this forum what I would really like to say to you.

People say stupid stuff all the time including me. Try not to take it as a personal insult.
We like you.

 

[seadoug]

People say stupid stuff all the time including me. Try not to take it as a personal insult.
We like you.

I know. I'm usually low-key, but sometimes people also say hateful stuff and I feel the need to call our their ignorance on behalf of my community, not myself. Nothing hurts me personally anymore. I've seen too much and lived too long for that.

 

[Warrigal]

Well, well well... the Nashville school shooter had purchased seven guns legally.
Sounds like Tennessee's lawmakers have some work to do although it seems that they have been quite active in passing laws concerning gun ownership.

Over the last few years, gun laws in Tennessee have become less strict after lawmakers approved legislation that removed requirements for permits and background checks.

Despite calls from local law enforcement, some lawmakers are now looking to loosen the state's gun laws even further, contending that gun owners' rights need to be expanded.

State lawmakers have introduced gun-related bills that would allow permit carriers to bring their weapons to college campuses and another that would allow school staff members to carry a handgun.

On March 21, the Tennessee House's Civil Justice Subcommittee voted to approve HB1005, a bill introduced by Rusty Grills that would rename "enhanced and concealed handgun carry permits as enhanced and concealed firearm carry permits."

According to the state's constitution, residents "have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

Tennessee enacted a law in July of 2021 that allowed the permitless carry of handguns, both concealed and unconcealed, for anyone over the age of 21.

Currently, there are no requirements for background checks or trainings for handgun owners in Tennessee. Under the provisions, law enforcement members and military members between 18 and 20 are also allowed to carry their handguns without a permit.

Rifles and shotguns are allowed to be purchased by anyone over 18 and be carried without a permit but there are restrictions. Firearms are not permitted "if it is not concealed on or about the person and must be unloaded" and the owner is not allowed to carry the ammunition of those long guns on their person or in their "immediate vicinity," according to the law.

Guns are prohibited for residents who have a felony conviction, a DUI conviction, reported mental health problems and undocumented legal status. (No background checks, so what use is this prohibition. It is just window dressing)

The state prohibits guns from being brought to locations like schools, any place that serves alcohol, public parks, courts and government buildings, according to the law. Private businesses are also allowed to prohibit firearms from their properties and must make it clear with signage, according to the law. (But, permit carriers are allowed to bring their weapons to college campuses .??? Somewhat contradictory IMO)

What we know about Tennessee's gun laws after Nashville shooting - ABC News (go.com)

 

[SeniorBen]

Well, well well... the Nashville school shooter had purchased seven guns legally.
Sounds like Tennessee's lawmakers have some work to do although it seems that they have been quite active in passing laws concerning gun ownership.

Yep, they passed laws making it easier to buy, own, and carry guns.

Often, in these mass murders, the shooter purchased several guns just before going on a rampage. If there was a national database of gun ownership and software detected someone amassing an arsenal of guns and ammo, maybe the FBI should pay them a visit and find out if they're up to no good.

In this case, they could have talked to the parents and found out that their daughter had some mental health issues and also found out that she had lied to them about getting rid of her gun, and instead, had purchased... what was it? six more guns? They could have prevented the shooting by taking that little bit of action and nobody's 2nd Amendment rights would have been infringed upon except for maybe the shooter's.

 

[Murrmurr]

Well, well well... the Nashville school shooter had purchased seven guns legally.
Sounds like Tennessee's lawmakers have some work to do although it seems that they have been quite active in passing laws concerning gun ownership.

Thorough background checks are a PITA for buyers, but they're SO necessary. There are states that don't include a complete mental health background because of patient confidentiality. Which is utterly ridiculous and obviously potentially deadly.

 

[win231]

The police should have the guns. The military should have all the assault weapons!

Uh....except for one glaring omission: Criminals have all kinds of guns, including assault weapons.
That's why decent law-abiding people need them, too.
I won't try to defend myself or my loved ones with anything less than a criminal has.
As a law-abiding citizen, I deserve and am entitled to all the edge I can get.
When it comes to my loved ones, anyone else's opinion is completely irrelevant.