6 killed at private Christian School in Nashville

[Ken]

But I guess I'm enough of a redneck to believe (maybe incorrectly) that tyrants have always banned guns, and it hasn't always turned out well for the powerless in those countries. And that is the reason for the second amendment. Which is not applicable to abortion, illegal immigration, transgender hormones and surgeries, or illicit use of drugs.

This is a very common sentiment among conservatives. So I'm not picking on you here. But do YOU think, for example, that:

• The 1/6 protests would have turned out better if those thousands of protestors storming the capitol had been carrying assault rifles or had been armed like the recent school shooter with multiple firearms?
• That the civil rights movement to oppose the "tyranny" of Jim Crow segregation would have turned out better and been more effective had Blacks across the south risen up in armed rebellion against white tyranny?
• That the pro-life movement would have been more effective had protestors assaulted abortion clinics with weapons?
• That gay-marriage advocates would have been more effective had they used firearms to assault county courthouses and clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses?
• That Amish families who wished to keep their children out of public schools had barricaded themselves into their compounds with firearms in the style of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians instead of making their case peacefully in court?

In fact can you point to a single point in the past two centuries of American history where firearms helped advance a political agenda involving rights of some sort? Or where more firearms would have made things better? Afghanistan and Somalia are both awash in weapons. Is that helping advance peace and prosperity and respect for freedom in those countries?

[RZehr]

My only question is this. Why did the first post in this thread not start out with your declaration of your love for ice cream?

Good question!

What? I don't get it.

[Josh]

I can agree that this is an important point. I don't think the 45 year old duffer who collects guns should necessarily be completely off the hook either. And if the data shows that access to AR's is the single most impactful thing, I have no problem accepting that. I find it weird, and other conservatives find it alarming, that liberals only want to ban these guns, and are opposed to looking at anything else.

I really do not understand people who say "ban AR's". Getting shot with a Mini-14 is going to also result in my being dead or injured. Or being shot with a handgun. Or having a molotov cocktail thrown at my car. Or being stabbed with a knife.

I know that the family unit is being destroyed in this country.
What percentage of young mass shooters live with or have both their biological parents married, living together, and go to church regularly? What percentage were taught to value human life? What percent were taught gun safety? What percent were taught that pretending to shoot people is not good?

That should be precisely the question that we ask. Guns actually used to be more legal and much easier to obtain back in the 1950s before the Gun Control Act, and yet these kind of things hardly ever happened. And before the National Firearms Act, one could simply walk into any hardware store and buy a Tommy gun. Yet there weren't young people committing school shootings back then. (I think any reasonable person could agree a Tommy gun with an 100 round drum would be much more lethal than anything you can buy today!)

[MaxPC]

My only question is this. Why did the first post in this thread not start out with your declaration of your love for ice cream?

Good question!

What? I don't get it.

Biden makes bizarre ice cream joke as an intro to the presser on the Nashville shootings

[Josh]

• The 1/6 protests would have turned out better if those thousands of protestors storming the capitol had been carrying assault rifles or had been armed like the recent school shooter with multiple firearms?

Exactly 1 person got shot and killed at that protest: Ashli Babbitt, one of the protesters, and a decorated veteran.

[*]That the civil rights movement to oppose the "tyranny" of Jim Crow segregation would have turned out better and been more effective had Blacks across the south risen up in armed rebellion against white tyranny?

A key part of why the NRA exists was to push for equal rights for guns. Jim Crow laws allowed whites to have guns but not black people. The NRA lobbied against that. Nobody has promoted "armed rebellion" here - but I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a person living under Jim Crow to be armed to defend their own home and family.

[*]That the pro-life movement would have been more effective had protestors assaulted abortion clinics with weapons?

Nobody has said that either. Who are you talking to who is coming up with those fantasies? I don't think a single person here supports taking armed action against abortion clinics.

[*]That gay-marriage advocates would have been more effective had they used firearms to assault county courthouses and clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses?

That doesn't make any sense, either.

[*]That Amish families who wished to keep their children out of public schools had barricaded themselves into their compounds with firearms in the style of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians instead of making their case peacefully in court?

Huh?

The government decided to incinerate the children in the compound which is not something I would support. David Koresh was known to regularly take trips to McDonald's and the grocery store; they could have arrested anytime they wanted to. The real problem was a bunch of cowboys with badges, guns, and other offensive weapons.

In fact can you point to a single point in the past two centuries of American history where firearms helped advance a political agenda involving rights of some sort? Or where more firearms would have made things better?

Well, let's see, Ken.

- The Revolutionary War
- The War of 1812
- The Civil War
- World War I
- World War II

I think war is wrong and that none of those wars should have been fought. However, those wars are very key to America's existence and America's political agenda today. And all of them involved use of firearms.

[RZehr]

But I guess I'm enough of a redneck to believe (maybe incorrectly) that tyrants have always banned guns, and it hasn't always turned out well for the powerless in those countries. And that is the reason for the second amendment. Which is not applicable to abortion, illegal immigration, transgender hormones and surgeries, or illicit use of drugs.

This is a very common sentiment among conservatives. So I'm not picking on you here. But do YOU think, for example, that:

• The 1/6 protests would have turned out better if those thousands of protestors storming the capitol had been carrying assault rifles or had been armed like the recent school shooter with multiple firearms?
• That the civil rights movement to oppose the "tyranny" of Jim Crow segregation would have turned out better and been more effective had Blacks across the south risen up in armed rebellion against white tyranny?
• That the pro-life movement would have been more effective had protestors assaulted abortion clinics with weapons?
• That gay-marriage advocates would have been more effective had they used firearms to assault county courthouses and clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses?
• That Amish families who wished to keep their children out of public schools had barricaded themselves into their compounds with firearms in the style of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians instead of making their case peacefully in court?

In fact can you point to a single point in the past two centuries of American history where firearms helped advance a political agenda involving rights of some sort? Or where more firearms would have made things better?

I don't consider myself an actual full fledged 2nd Amendment prepper. So while I sort of get parts of the issue, I'm just not interested in the finer points of the matter. But, I'll give it a whirl here.
1. 1/6: Assuming that their intent was to actually take the government, they should have taken a lot more guns, had a much better plan, and had much fewer pedestrians in their way. I think it was a few of these people, but it was largely misguided pedestrians there. Without getting sidetracked into the 1/6 topic....
2. Guns in the civil rights, pro-life, gay-marriage? Guns were available, weren't they? They decided that peaceful protest was a better tact. I agree with that. If the US and whites decided to re-enslave black people, do you think that peaceful protesting would be as effective as armed black defense? I don't know, but there are many who would say armed defense would be the way to go.
3. Barricading. Maybe most militias aren't thinking of Koresh style events, but rather national civil war. I don't know what all they think, it's probably a wild range of thinking in the prepper community from barricading in their homes to full fledged civil war. I'm sure you could find it all.

[Ken]

I can agree that this is an important point. I don't think the 45 year old duffer who collects guns should necessarily be completely off the hook either. And if the data shows that access to AR's is the single most impactful thing, I have no problem accepting that. I find it weird, and other conservatives find it alarming, that liberals only want to ban these guns, and are opposed to looking at anything else.

I really do not understand people who say "ban AR's". Getting shot with a Mini-14 is going to also result in my being dead or injured. Or being shot with a handgun. Or having a molotov cocktail thrown at my car. Or being stabbed with a knife.

I know that the family unit is being destroyed in this country.
What percentage of young mass shooters live with or have both their biological parents married, living together, and go to church regularly? What percentage were taught to value human life? What percent were taught gun safety? What percent were taught that pretending to shoot people is not good?

That should be precisely the question that we ask. Guns actually used to be more legal and much easier to obtain back in the 1950s before the Gun Control Act, and yet these kind of things hardly ever happened. And before the National Firearms Act, one could simply walk into any hardware store and buy a Tommy gun. Yet there weren't young people committing school shootings back then. (I think any reasonable person could agree a Tommy gun with an 100 round drum would be much more lethal than anything you can buy today!)

I personally don't think any one single action is going to reduce firearm violence in this country. Nor do I think we need to ban guns. And if you look at other countries that don't have this problem, they don't just do one regulation like banning ARs, they have a comprehensive suite of firearms-related regulations. For example

Requiring permits (and training) to own and possess firearms. This alone would, for example, allow the police to set up stop and search dragnets in cities like Chicago and seize all the weapons by gangbangers if they don't have the proper permits entitling them to possess firearms.

Requiring safe storage of firearms and ammo using trigger locks and safes. This would reduce large numbers of accidental deaths in the home as well as lots of youth suicides and school shootings where children get easy access to unsecured firearms at home. And if there are reasons to have close access to firearms, there are other technologies like fingerprint readers that could be used to prevent unsecured firearms from getting into the hands of the wrong people.

Registration of firearms just like we register cars which would also allow police to seize large quantities of firearms from street gangs and suspected criminals if they don't have proper permits. It would also make solving gun crimes much easier.

Restricting the capacity of rifles and handguns so that when shootings do occur they are less deadly. If there are compelling reasons for people to have 50 round magazines then we could have more restrictive permitting requirements for the deadliest types of weapons so that they are less available to psychotic teenagers.

Universal background checks and stricter red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal histories and unstable behavior.

etc.

Germany hasn't prohibited guns. One can still own guns in Germany. They are just more strictly regulated. And they experience a 54-times lower rate of children being killed by firearms than we do here in the US.

[GaryK]

My only question is this. Why did the first post in this thread not start out with your declaration of your love for ice cream?

Good question!

What? I don't get it.

The president, in a speech that included a response to the shooting, began his speech talking about what kind of ice cream he eats and how much he has upstairs, I'm assuming in the residential part of the White House. He then went on to talk about the shooting.

[Josh]

Requiring permits (and training) to own and possess firearms. This alone would, for example, allow the police to set up stop and search dragnets in cities like Chicago and seize all the weapons by gangbangers if they don't have the proper permits entitling them to possess firearms.

Chicago and NYC already have these laws requiring permits to own and possess firearms.

Former mayors of NYC did exactly what you describe and called it "stop and frisk". The policy was unpopular since certain people claimed that minorities were disproportionately affected and demanded the practice stop. De Blasio stopped it and crime has since skyrocketed.

Requiring safe storage of firearms and ammo using trigger locks and safes. This would reduce large numbers of accidental deaths in the home as well as lots of youth suicides and school shootings where children get easy access to unsecured firearms at home. And if there are reasons to have close access to firearms, there are other technologies like fingerprint readers that could be used to prevent unsecured firearms from getting into the hands of the wrong people.

That would have done zip all for the Nashville shooting. Most people choose to store firearms safely. There aren't laws ordering me to store my knives, my car, or jugs of gasoline "safely" under lock and key. And for people who live in dangerous areas who need firearms for self defence, a "trigger lock" and "gun safe" mean they can't get their firearm in the middle of the night fast enough when an intruder breaks in. People have a right to defend themselves.

Registration of firearms just like we register cars which would also allow police to seize large quantities of firearms from street gangs and suspected criminals if they don't have proper permits. It would also make solving gun crimes much easier.

Again, places like California, Illinois, and NY already do this and it hasn't helped crime at all. Firearms are already registered with the original purchaser recorded and the information available to the ATF.

Restricting the capacity of rifles and handguns so that when shootings do occur they are less deadly. If there are compelling reasons for people to have 50 round magazines then we could have more restrictive permitting requirements for the deadliest types of weapons so that they are less available to psychotic teenagers.

If you think this will make a difference then you have really no understanding at all about how firearms work. Magazines are extremely easy to make. My own state has a law against a magazine with more than 31 rounds being used in an unregistered firearm, yet gangbangers routinely ignore this law. They also routinely ignore laws against unregistered machine guns, buying parts kits from China to make fully-automatic Glock handguns. The ATF could prosecute this, but they don't.

Universal background checks and stricter red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal histories and unstable behavior.

Again, wouldn't have stopped this shooter. And it also wouldn't stop illegal, underground gun sales for cash, which is exactly how people with criminal histories work.

Germany hasn't prohibited guns. One can still own guns in Germany. They are just more strictly regulated. And they experience a 54-times lower rate of children being killed by firearms than we do here in the US.

How about this? We try Germany's speed limits on freeways instead and keep working on it until we can get a car fatality rates on those roads to be the same as Germany. Once we figure that out, we can try to replicate Germany's gun laws.

[RZehr]

Germany, along with many other countries don't have the 2nd Amendment enshrined in their constitution. That is unique to the United States. So I think it is not realistic to try to simply replicate other countries gun control laws here.