^Wasn’t it President Reagan and his disciples who cut funding for mental health institutions and put a lot of people out on the streets?
How much do you think the Ayn Rand disciples want to pay for mental health now?
Are you advocating for institutionalizing people who haven’t committed a crime yet but might? What parameters would you consider appropriate? Be careful, that slope is mighty slippery!
On the other hand, common sense and the experience of other countries shows that sensible gun laws work.
The same way the NRA runs targeted campaigns to remove those who oppose them, we should run targeted campaigns to remove elected officials who oppose gun regulations. There are more of us.
Long past time to follow the advice of professional security experts.
Locking entry points. Metal detectors. Armed security at entry points, minimum 1 per floor, 1 per 1000 students.
Armed teachers? If they volunteer, if they qualify, if they pass the training, etc, etc, etc.
These proposals have been on the table for 20 years. Politicians on both sides of the aisle reject them. In part because of money, for some because of ideology.
Guns aren’t going away. That is reality. The problem is here, now. You can multi-task. Defend the schools now. While you lobby for gun restrictions. You can do both at the same time, right?
Guns do not kill people. NUTS with guns do. The laws need to be made and enforced to find and keep the NUTS from buying guns. Yeah, some NUTS are going to have ‘their rights violated’ and the NRA has to accept that as a necessary evil. Yeah, some honest citizens are going to have to have their backgrounds checked, and the NRA has to accept that as another necessary evil. The Second Amendment was to make sure there was a well-armed militia. If you are not a member of a credited militia then you should not have a gun. This would quickly eliminate the majority of loners that do the mass shootings from having guns.
Here’s an article written by Jay Dickey, the Republican Congressman who wrote the Dickey Amendment that stops federal funding on research into gun violence.
“From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries.”
braindead: You mean like gun cultures such as Australia and Canada, which still have their guns? Rational gun laws don’t involve total confiscation, so burn that straw man and deal with reality for a change.
“Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240 million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries. As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm. We don’t know whether a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, or limiting access to ammunition, would have saved lives in Aurora or would make it riskier for people to go to a movie. And we don’t know how to effectively restrict access to firearms by those with serious mental illness.What we do know is that firearm injuries will continue to claim far too many lives at home, at school, at work and at the movies until we start asking and answering the hard questions. “Such violence, such evil is senseless,” President Obama said last week. What is truly senseless is to decry these deaths as senseless when the tools exist to understand causes and to prevent these deadly effects.We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence. Most politicians fear talking about guns almost as much as they would being confronted by one, but these fears are senseless. We must learn what we can do to save lives.”
DD Wiz Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Once again, barbaric savagery from a white male middle class NON-MUSLIM, NON-IMMIGRANT domestic terrorist.
Trump and NRA sending “thoughts and prayers.” But no action.
Joe1962 Premium Member almost 6 years ago
The Democrats want to strip away our second amendment rights.
piobaire almost 6 years ago
^Wasn’t it President Reagan and his disciples who cut funding for mental health institutions and put a lot of people out on the streets?
How much do you think the Ayn Rand disciples want to pay for mental health now?
Are you advocating for institutionalizing people who haven’t committed a crime yet but might? What parameters would you consider appropriate? Be careful, that slope is mighty slippery!
On the other hand, common sense and the experience of other countries shows that sensible gun laws work.
shakeswilly almost 6 years ago
The same way the NRA runs targeted campaigns to remove those who oppose them, we should run targeted campaigns to remove elected officials who oppose gun regulations. There are more of us.
Carl Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Forgot the step about media hype and glorification.
Ontman almost 6 years ago
As one can see from our comments and replies show Mr. Stantis is right. And so it, and we go.
superposition almost 6 years ago
Is the status quo acceptable?
Nantucket Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Elections can disrupt the cycle. Get informed and VOTE.
Radish the wordsmith almost 6 years ago
Greedy Republicans under the thumb of the NRA won’t do anything, vote them out.
braindead Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Re: the thoughts and prayers section — what exactly are they praying for? (H/T to Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station)
Do they pray for gun owners to be responsible?
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Long past time to follow the advice of professional security experts.
Locking entry points. Metal detectors. Armed security at entry points, minimum 1 per floor, 1 per 1000 students.
Armed teachers? If they volunteer, if they qualify, if they pass the training, etc, etc, etc.
These proposals have been on the table for 20 years. Politicians on both sides of the aisle reject them. In part because of money, for some because of ideology.
Guns aren’t going away. That is reality. The problem is here, now. You can multi-task. Defend the schools now. While you lobby for gun restrictions. You can do both at the same time, right?
Scoutmaster77 almost 6 years ago
LOL! The Russians and their stooges are loving this. They financially support the NRA.
Bookworm almost 6 years ago
“Prayers and thoughts” work so well, don’t they.
les.embrey almost 6 years ago
Guns do not kill people. NUTS with guns do. The laws need to be made and enforced to find and keep the NUTS from buying guns. Yeah, some NUTS are going to have ‘their rights violated’ and the NRA has to accept that as a necessary evil. Yeah, some honest citizens are going to have to have their backgrounds checked, and the NRA has to accept that as another necessary evil. The Second Amendment was to make sure there was a well-armed militia. If you are not a member of a credited militia then you should not have a gun. This would quickly eliminate the majority of loners that do the mass shootings from having guns.
Cheapskate0 almost 6 years ago
From an avowed Libertarian and Republican, Scott ‘s cartoon is actually refreshing. The comments above, not so much.
feverjr Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Here’s an article written by Jay Dickey, the Republican Congressman who wrote the Dickey Amendment that stops federal funding on research into gun violence.
“From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-wont-know-the-cause-of-gun-violence-until-we-look-for-it/2012/07/27/gJQAPfenEX_story.html?utm_term=.44276b38f5af
braindead Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Fever, obviously any further research would be total confiscation of all guns (except from criminals, of course).
Boy, we really dodged the bullet there.
Hippogriff almost 6 years ago
braindead: You mean like gun cultures such as Australia and Canada, which still have their guns? Rational gun laws don’t involve total confiscation, so burn that straw man and deal with reality for a change.
feverjr Premium Member almost 6 years ago
Braindead, Jay Dickey wrote this in 2012…
“Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240 million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries. As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm. We don’t know whether a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, or limiting access to ammunition, would have saved lives in Aurora or would make it riskier for people to go to a movie. And we don’t know how to effectively restrict access to firearms by those with serious mental illness.What we do know is that firearm injuries will continue to claim far too many lives at home, at school, at work and at the movies until we start asking and answering the hard questions. “Such violence, such evil is senseless,” President Obama said last week. What is truly senseless is to decry these deaths as senseless when the tools exist to understand causes and to prevent these deadly effects.We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence. Most politicians fear talking about guns almost as much as they would being confronted by one, but these fears are senseless. We must learn what we can do to save lives.”
Scoutmaster77 almost 6 years ago
Weren’t the Black Panthers a “well regulated” militia? Asking for a friend.