OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[panthermark]

The gun argument is the dumbest argument of them all. If someone can't find the reasoning behind banning or at the very least making it more difficult to obtain these weapons then it is not even worth the argument. It's like arguing with a stubborn child who won't give up even though they know it's wrong.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

The reasoning is a:

A: The vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of people that own "these weapons" DON'T murder people.
B: Slippery slope. What are "these weapons"? The answer you seek will be a non-starter.
C: The 2nd amendment, backed up my multiple SCOTUS decisions.
D: Bad guys don't care about laws.
E: You ignore the biggest problem because it is too hard to tackle. How do you identify twisted people that have so little respect for human life? What can be done along the way (if anything) to prevent people from getting to that point? Regardless of if they have a gun or not, how do we address these people because they clearly have some screws loose.


Why is it that some people can own weapons and never shoot or threaten anyone, yet other can't seem to do anything other than settle their "beefs", or take out their anger with a gun?
Do you feel the same way about alcohol? That causes a TON of problems and some people just can't handle it, maybe we should ban it (I think that was tried once before, it didn't take).

You can't kill another person with alcohol.

Drunk driving does not kill innocent people?
People don't get drunk and do stupid things that result in death?
You sure about that?

[Axolotl]

To limit gun violence, where to start? I live in Finland, and we have one of the highest private guns to population ratios in Europe, and no mass shootings. We also have fairly strict gun laws: you need a permit to get and to own gun. If someone is interested in having a closer look, here's how you apply for a permit in Finland.

Any change will be a slow one, as culture is slow to change, but you have to start somewhere and sometime.

A few points that might over time move the needle:

There are more privately owned guns in the US than people (in Finland there are 32 private guns per 100 people, 120 guns per 100 in the US), that's point one: abundance of guns.

For every registered privately owned gun, there are 400 unregistered ones. That's point two: no one knows who is responsible for the vast majority of the privately owned guns.

Pretty much anyone can get a gun, if not at where they live, then from a neighboring state. That's point three: no background checks, no validations on what the gun is for.

Licence to carry. Many states require a permit, but Firearms Owners Protection Act effectively nullifies those. That's point four: there is no need whatsoever to carry a gun in one's everyday life.

Abundance of guns is analogous to saying abundance of cars with regards to carbon emissions. Reduction is a great idea, but to what levels?

I did not take any stance on reduction, and am not saying guns should be taken away from people that have them, I just stated a fact. Guns should be registered and the owners held responsible for their firearms.

Anyone should be able to get a gun if they feel they want one without a need to provide a reason unless (as highlighted) you have a criminal history or a mentally unfit to own a weapon.

Why? And how does this work towards reducing gun violence?

As for reason to carry or not carry, that is an opinion. I believe women should be able to carry guns as a matter of self defense. Most do not, but the actual ability to do so?

How does this reduce gun violence? (If only women were allowed to carry, it might even work though...)

Most people believe in valid gun ownership. it seems the sticking point is crimes committed by people who are violating the law. What's interesting is that the people who do that are actually, in violation of the law so they rightly get charged with a crime.

I believe in valid gun ownership, and also believe that "I feel like owning a bunch of guns" is not a validation.

The question is, how do you stop people from committing violent crime?

No, the specific question here is how do you reduce gun violence. How do you stop people from committing violent crime is a different question - overlapping in a venn diagram for sure, but not the same.

[Michael Jackson]

AR-15's by design are intended to deliver a high amount of bullets into a target area very quickly. One of the problems with mass shootings is the perpetrator is able to deliver a high number of bullets into a target area very quickly. See the correlation? That can't be done with a hunting rifle, which has bolt action and a limited capacity.

There's a reason shooters choose AR-15, and it isn't aesthetics.

Well that and its popular for modding with accessories. There are plenty of other semi automatic options out there that have the same rate of fire. Just look at the virginia tech shooter years back. Killed over 32 people with handguns. What im saying is people want to focus on something that is not going to resolve the main issue. The majority of the focus is on the ar15 which isnt even going to fix our issue. Go ahead ban ar15’s, i assure you there will still be mass shootings or killing. Theres an increase of mental instability. We need to aim at the base of the fire and we can clean some things up.

Are you saying that mental instability is only in the US? I am sure other countries have mental instability, but they do not even have the fraction of the amount of mass shootings we have. If you at least limit the instruments that these mental unstable people can have access to that will help save lives. Have lengthy background checks on individuals purchasing guns, raising a flag when an 18 year old purchases multiple rifles in a short period of time, etc are some reasonable things they can add. Causes for mental instability are many and vague. How are you going to address it? Some people say it is due to music, video games, social media, or movies. It is harder to put restrictions on those. Is the government going to force people to go see a psychiatrist to help with the mental instability? Maybe there should be a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun?

I can speak on mental health issue with some experience. We have a very very serious case in our family and boy oh boy is the mental health field in a tough spot. I personally feel that we indeed have way too much access to guns, but the mental health aspect is a huge problem and we absolutely don't have the resources to handle the influx of people (particularly preteens-20) that I have personally seen. Now far from this is all violent crime, but there is a subculture of the youth that actually glorify "mental illness" I see groups who are way too young looking to get admitted into inpatient facilities, some if not many are absolutely legit, but some do it so that they have an excuse to have any behavior. This is somewhat off topic but it is absolutely an issue.

Everything that Crimio did was a red flag.... There should have been intervention. The system is just so overtaxed as it is that people like this can easily slip through the cracks though. It is a real shame. Just like a few years ago when the guy drove the SUV through wood field mall it was more a failing of the system as people who still need help as he did are released because of limited resources. Fortunately in that case it wasn't deadly, but it took him trying to drive people down in a mall to really get the attention it needed. Crimio is posting video's insinuating school shootings, threatening to kill family members, attempting suicide etc... We need to be able to flag someone like this and at the very least stop them from getting guns. More importantly would be to actually get the person the help they need, but that is a longer term problem.

[Bullflip]

Well that and its popular for modding with accessories. There are plenty of other semi automatic options out there that have the same rate of fire. Just look at the virginia tech shooter years back. Killed over 32 people with handguns. What im saying is people want to focus on something that is not going to resolve the main issue. The majority of the focus is on the ar15 which isnt even going to fix our issue. Go ahead ban ar15’s, i assure you there will still be mass shootings or killing. Theres an increase of mental instability. We need to aim at the base of the fire and we can clean some things up.

Are you saying that mental instability is only in the US? I am sure other countries have mental instability, but they do not even have the fraction of the amount of mass shootings we have. If you at least limit the instruments that these mental unstable people can have access to that will help save lives. Have lengthy background checks on individuals purchasing guns, raising a flag when an 18 year old purchases multiple rifles in a short period of time, etc are some reasonable things they can add. Causes for mental instability are many and vague. How are you going to address it? Some people say it is due to music, video games, social media, or movies. It is harder to put restrictions on those. Is the government going to force people to go see a psychiatrist to help with the mental instability? Maybe there should be a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun?

I can speak on mental health issue with some experience. We have a very very serious case in our family and boy oh boy is the mental health field in a tough spot. I personally feel that we indeed have way too much access to guns, but the mental health aspect is a huge problem and we absolutely don't have the resources to handle the influx of people (particularly preteens-20) that I have personally seen. Now far from this is all violent crime, but there is a subculture of the youth that actually glorify "mental illness" I see groups who are way too young looking to get admitted into inpatient facilities, some if not many are absolutely legit, but some do it so that they have an excuse to have any behavior. This is somewhat off topic but it is absolutely an issue.

Everything that Crimio did was a red flag.... There should have been intervention. The system is just so overtaxed as it is that people like this can easily slip through the cracks though. It is a real shame. Just like a few years ago when the guy drove the SUV through wood field mall it was more a failing of the system as people who still need help as he did are released because of limited resources. Fortunately in that case it wasn't deadly, but it took him trying to drive people down in a mall to really get the attention it needed. Crimio is posting video's insinuating school shootings, threatening to kill family members, attempting suicide etc... We need to be able to flag someone like this and at the very least stop them from getting guns. More importantly would be to actually get the person the help they need, but that is a longer term problem.

I agree with this. Before purchasing a gun, there needs to be a more stringent background check.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

Why does anyone need an AR-15 in our modern society? The only real purpose of that weapon is to kill a lot of people quickly. A handgun is more than enough for home protection, unless you believe that a Mexican cartel has a vendetta against you. Assault rifles are just shiny toys for adult men. They serve no other purpose, and their easy availability means that more people die.

Yes, one of these young men could also just run their car into a crowd or use some other form of weapon, but the numbers show that it's mostly assault rifles doing the work. Banning assault rifles will almost certainly reduce the amount of casualties from these incidents. The only reason anyone would argue against this is because they value their toys more than human lives.

Also, unpopular opinion, but the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. It was created 250 years ago when the US barely had a standing army and no police service, and guns took 2 minutes to reload. The fact that it hasn't been updated over the centuries as weapons have evolved is a shame.

[Ctownbulls]

The reasoning is a:

A: The vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of people that own "these weapons" DON'T murder people.
B: Slippery slope. What are "these weapons"? The answer you seek will be a non-starter.
C: The 2nd amendment, backed up my multiple SCOTUS decisions.
D: Bad guys don't care about laws.
E: You ignore the biggest problem because it is too hard to tackle. How do you identify twisted people that have so little respect for human life? What can be done along the way (if anything) to prevent people from getting to that point? Regardless of if they have a gun or not, how do we address these people because they clearly have some screws loose.


Why is it that some people can own weapons and never shoot or threaten anyone, yet other can't seem to do anything other than settle their "beefs", or take out their anger with a gun?
Do you feel the same way about alcohol? That causes a TON of problems and some people just can't handle it, maybe we should ban it (I think that was tried once before, it didn't take).

You can't kill another person with alcohol.

Drunk driving does not kill innocent people?
People don't get drunk and do stupid things that result in death?
You sure about that?

Sorry, you can't purposely kill someone with alcohol.

[samwana]

Thoughts go out to the victims and their families.

Hope everyone is safe.

Honestly I’m so tired of thoughts and prayers. It’s time to do something about this.

Didn't you hear? It's just a mental health problem. We're the only country with those problems apparently. Definitely not a gun problem.

nope our similar mental health problems in germany use a knife to kill innocent people. mostly those mental health problems are non-german named and non-german speaking males. and their second hobby is pushing people in front of trains.

RealGM mobile app

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Why does anyone need an AR-15 in our modern society? The only real purpose of that weapon is to kill a lot of people quickly. A handgun is more than enough for home protection, unless you believe that a Mexican cartel has a vendetta against you. Assault rifles are just shiny toys for adult men. They serve no other purpose, and their easy availability means that more people die.

Yes, one of these young men could also just run their car into a crowd or use some other form of weapon, but the numbers show that it's mostly assault rifles doing the work. Banning assault rifles will almost certainly reduce the amount of casualties from these incidents. The only reason anyone would argue against this is because they value their toys more than human lives.

Also, unpopular opinion, but the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. It was created 250 years ago when the US barely had a standing army and no police service, and guns took 2 minutes to reload. The fact that it hasn't been updated over the centuries as weapons have evolved is a shame.

Sorry but you are just repeating yourself and many others while disregarding the counter argument for what you are saying. Its not going anywhere like a dog chasing its own tail. Tell me what banning the AR-15 does exactly to stop mass shootings. That is what you are proposing right?

[panthermark]

Are you saying that mental instability is only in the US? I am sure other countries have mental instability, but they do not even have the fraction of the amount of mass shootings we have. If you at least limit the instruments that these mental unstable people can have access to that will help save lives. Have lengthy background checks on individuals purchasing guns, raising a flag when an 18 year old purchases multiple rifles in a short period of time, etc are some reasonable things they can add. Causes for mental instability are many and vague. How are you going to address it? Some people say it is due to music, video games, social media, or movies. It is harder to put restrictions on those. Is the government going to force people to go see a psychiatrist to help with the mental instability? Maybe there should be a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun?

And that is the problem. It is "hard" to address the root causes. No one wants to do that.
No one wants to admit moral decay.
No one wants the things they like (be it music or video games or TV or social media or whatever) infringed upon.
No one wants to call a spade a spade anymore. (Or if you do, you get cancelled and called sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, fat-shamer, etc).

The AR-15 has been available to the public continuously for 58 years now. I think the America has changed (both good and mad) more than the gun. We've lost some of our social guiderails along the way. When you mix the decay with the easy availability of guns, you get what we have now. Some want to grab the guns and ignore the decay. I think it is the decay that needs to be addressed.

So what is your solution then? Ban certain music, social media and movies being made? Have the government dictate what can be viewed? Tell people to go to church more? What are your solutions?

Instead of Bring Back Better....I have a different acronyms for BBB.

Bring Back the Bible (I am NOT a religious person, but the older I get the more I understand its place. It isn't to convince people that there is a dude in the sky, it is to set social and moral guidelines.)


Bring Back Bullying - I don't mean that kids need their lunch money stolen and no one likes to get picked on. But, stop with the damn safe space crap. When people get outside the social norms, call them out and address that (instead of continually trying to expand social norms until you get to what we have now). Not all behavior gets a free pass.

Mental health is a problem...but I think part of it is from social media, over medication, and the lack of moral and social guidelines. It all needs to be addressed.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

Why does anyone need an AR-15 in our modern society? The only real purpose of that weapon is to kill a lot of people quickly. A handgun is more than enough for home protection, unless you believe that a Mexican cartel has a vendetta against you. Assault rifles are just shiny toys for adult men. They serve no other purpose, and their easy availability means that more people die.

Yes, one of these young men could also just run their car into a crowd or use some other form of weapon, but the numbers show that it's mostly assault rifles doing the work. Banning assault rifles will almost certainly reduce the amount of casualties from these incidents. The only reason anyone would argue against this is because they value their toys more than human lives.

Also, unpopular opinion, but the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. It was created 250 years ago when the US barely had a standing army and no police service, and guns took 2 minutes to reload. The fact that it hasn't been updated over the centuries as weapons have evolved is a shame.

Sorry but you are just repeating yourself and many others while disregarding the counter argument for what you are saying. Its not going anywhere like a dog chasing its own tail. Tell me what banning the AR-15 does exactly to stop mass shootings. That is what you are proposing right?

I'm not saying it will stop mass shootings. I'm saying that less people would die if someone was using a handgun instead of an assault rifle. If a ban on assault rifles saves 1 life from a mass shooting, then its worth it.

[moorhosj]

A: The vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of people that own "these weapons" DON'T murder people.
B: Slippery slope. What are "these weapons"? The answer you seek will be a non-starter.
C: The 2nd amendment, backed up my multiple SCOTUS decisions.
D: Bad guys don't care about laws.
E: You ignore the biggest problem because it is too hard to tackle. How do you identify twisted people that have so little respect for human life? What can be done along the way (if anything) to prevent people from getting to that point? Regardless of if they have a gun or not, how do we address these people because they clearly have some screws loose.

Drunk driving does not kill innocent people?
People don't get drunk and do stupid things that result in death?
You sure about that?

This guys was a responsible gun owner up until the exact moment he wasn’t. Now, he’s a murderer. Cars serve a purpose other than killing living animals, guns don’t. When a car kills someone, it is being operated improperly, when a gun kills someone it is being used as intended.

Drunk driving is already illegal. You have to be 21 to drink alcohol. The alcohol doesn’t kill someone else, the drunk person driving a car does. People have to go through a much more complex process to purchase/drive a car than to purchase/use a gun. Cops do random road stops for drunk drivers. Plus a bunch of other factors that make them obviously different.

The second amendment argue is particularly odd given how precedent doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Have you looked at all gun rulings prior to 2008 when the Supreme Court ignored the same precedents you are appealing to?

[panthermark]

You can't kill another person with alcohol.

Drunk driving does not kill innocent people?
People don't get drunk and do stupid things that result in death?
You sure about that?

Sorry, you can't purposely kill someone with alcohol.

Oh, so deaths from drunk drivers are OK because the person didn't crash into them on purpose? Did that person not drink the alcohol on purpose?

[League Circles]

It appears that Crimo should maybe have been institutionalized when he threatened to kill everyone and the cops had to take all hiis knives and swords away. Of course they are saying they had no power to do more. I'm not sure if I believe that, and if it is true, I definitely think that should be changed. Talking about killing everyone should get you a direct ride to an insane asylum. Yes, we need to start making more widespread use of those again, sadly.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Why does anyone need an AR-15 in our modern society? The only real purpose of that weapon is to kill a lot of people quickly. A handgun is more than enough for home protection, unless you believe that a Mexican cartel has a vendetta against you. Assault rifles are just shiny toys for adult men. They serve no other purpose, and their easy availability means that more people die.

Yes, one of these young men could also just run their car into a crowd or use some other form of weapon, but the numbers show that it's mostly assault rifles doing the work. Banning assault rifles will almost certainly reduce the amount of casualties from these incidents. The only reason anyone would argue against this is because they value their toys more than human lives.

Also, unpopular opinion, but the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. It was created 250 years ago when the US barely had a standing army and no police service, and guns took 2 minutes to reload. The fact that it hasn't been updated over the centuries as weapons have evolved is a shame.

Sorry but you are just repeating yourself and many others while disregarding the counter argument for what you are saying. Its not going anywhere like a dog chasing its own tail. Tell me what banning the AR-15 does exactly to stop mass shootings. That is what you are proposing right?

I'm not saying it will stop mass shootings. I'm saying that less people would die if someone was using a handgun instead of an assault rifle. If a ban on assault rifles saves 1 life from a mass shooting, then its worth it.

Really? Because back in 2007, just as an example, the asian kid at virginia tech killed 32 people with handguns? So I think what you are proposing really is banning semi automatic weapons? I mean its hard to have this discussion like this.

[panthermark]

A: The vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of people that own "these weapons" DON'T murder people.
B: Slippery slope. What are "these weapons"? The answer you seek will be a non-starter.
C: The 2nd amendment, backed up my multiple SCOTUS decisions.
D: Bad guys don't care about laws.
E: You ignore the biggest problem because it is too hard to tackle. How do you identify twisted people that have so little respect for human life? What can be done along the way (if anything) to prevent people from getting to that point? Regardless of if they have a gun or not, how do we address these people because they clearly have some screws loose.

Drunk driving does not kill innocent people?
People don't get drunk and do stupid things that result in death?
You sure about that?

This guys was a responsible gun owner up until the exact moment he wasn’t. Now, he’s a murderer. Cars serve a purpose other than killing living animals, guns don’t. When a car kills someone, it is being operated improperly, when a gun kills someone it is being used as intended.

Drunk driving is already illegal. You have to be 21 to drink alcohol. The alcohol doesn’t kill someone else, the drunk person driving a car does. People have to go through a much more complex process to purchase/drive a car than to purchase/use a gun. Cops do random road stops for drunk drivers. Plus a bunch of other factors that make them obviously different.

The second amendment argue is particularly odd given how precedent doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Have you looked at all gun rulings prior to 2008 when the Supreme Court ignored the same precedents you are appealing to?

The guy was a nut job that owned guns.
The police were called on him in 2019 for attempted suicide. That seems like an issue.
The police were then called again on him in 2019 for threatening to kill his family. That seems like an issue.
That same year, his father sponsored his FOID card which allowed him to purchase weapons. That seems like an issue.
Have you seen his videos and art? Tons of issues that should have been addressed LONG before he got to this point.

Precedent before 2008? You mean like how fully automatic weapons used to be easily available (pre 1986)?

And NO, you don't have to go through a complex process to buy or drive a car. You don't need insurance or a license or emissions tests. Think farm trucks (nor do I see anything in the Bill of Rights about car ownship....and somehow, all of those requirements don't stop some people from driving without a license or insurance or update tags, etc).

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun. In Illinois, you need a FOID as well. Do you think that stops all of the "teens" shooting each other?

Yeah, drunk driving is illegal. You know what else is illegal? Murdering people.
When a gun MURDERS someone, it is being operated improperly.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

Sorry but you are just repeating yourself and many others while disregarding the counter argument for what you are saying. Its not going anywhere like a dog chasing its own tail. Tell me what banning the AR-15 does exactly to stop mass shootings. That is what you are proposing right?

I'm not saying it will stop mass shootings. I'm saying that less people would die if someone was using a handgun instead of an assault rifle. If a ban on assault rifles saves 1 life from a mass shooting, then its worth it.

Really? Because back in 2007, just as an example, the asian kid at virginia tech killed 32 people with handguns? So I think what you are proposing really is banning semi automatic weapons? I mean its hard to have this discussion like this.

Do you think he would have been able to kill more people if he had an assault rifle instead of handguns? I guess we don't know, but instead of picking out 1 incident from 15+ years ago that helps your thesis, look at the overall picture. Recently, its almost always assault rifles because they kill more people quickly.

A genuine question to all assault rifle owners. Why did you purchase it and how do you use it?

[Ctownbulls]

Drunk driving does not kill innocent people?
People don't get drunk and do stupid things that result in death?
You sure about that?

Sorry, you can't purposely kill someone with alcohol.

Oh, so deaths from drunk drivers are OK because the person didn't crash into them on purpose? Did that person not drink the alcohol on purpose?

As I said, trying to have this argument is a waste of time. If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to say to you.

[Bullflip]

And that is the problem. It is "hard" to address the root causes. No one wants to do that.
No one wants to admit moral decay.
No one wants the things they like (be it music or video games or TV or social media or whatever) infringed upon.
No one wants to call a spade a spade anymore. (Or if you do, you get cancelled and called sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, fat-shamer, etc).

The AR-15 has been available to the public continuously for 58 years now. I think the America has changed (both good and mad) more than the gun. We've lost some of our social guiderails along the way. When you mix the decay with the easy availability of guns, you get what we have now. Some want to grab the guns and ignore the decay. I think it is the decay that needs to be addressed.

So what is your solution then? Ban certain music, social media and movies being made? Have the government dictate what can be viewed? Tell people to go to church more? What are your solutions?

Instead of Bring Back Better....I have a different acronyms for BBB.

Bring Back the Bible (I am NOT a religious person, but the older I get the more I understand its place. It isn't to convince people that there is a dude in the sky, it is to set social and moral guidelines.)


Bring Back Bullying - I don't mean that kids need their lunch money stolen and no one likes to get picked on. But, stop with the damn safe space crap. When people get outside the social norms, call them out and address that (instead of continually trying to expand social norms until you get to what we have now). Not all behavior gets a free pass.

Mental health is a problem...but I think part of it is from social media, over medication, and the lack of moral and social guidelines. It all needs to be addressed.

Who determines the moral and social guidelines? You do know this is a slippery slope right? Bring Back the Bible will probably lead to the hard-right conservatives saying homosexuality is a sin. The next step will be saying interracial marriages is leading to moral decay. So would there be a committee who sets these guidelines? Will they deem heavy metal music is Satanic or rap music? And God forbid if this happens, a group of the population will be unfairly targeted by these moral guidelines. Whoever will set these moral and social guidelines can say a certain religious group or ethnic background contributes to this decay.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I'm not saying it will stop mass shootings. I'm saying that less people would die if someone was using a handgun instead of an assault rifle. If a ban on assault rifles saves 1 life from a mass shooting, then its worth it.

Really? Because back in 2007, just as an example, the asian kid at virginia tech killed 32 people with handguns? So I think what you are proposing really is banning semi automatic weapons? I mean its hard to have this discussion like this.

Do you think he would have been able to kill more people if he had an assault rifle instead of handguns? I guess we don't know, but instead of picking out 1 incident from 15+ years ago that helps your thesis, look at the overall picture. Recently, its almost always assault rifles because they kill more people quickly.

A genuine question to all assault rifle owners. Why did you purchase it and how do you use it?

Why would he have been able to kill more, lets just say if you're indoors and shooting almost point blank, why? There's a lot of mass shootings that did not involve an AR-15 or a rifle even. I just don't see any good data to show me why just banning an ar-15 is going to help with this issue.

There are a lot of gun enthusiasts and the AR-15 is a style of rifle that is very customizable. People like that. Whether it be for hunting(overkill imo) or just sport shooting. If you aren't a gun enthusiast or hunter or sport shooter or someone who wants one to defend your home, sure, I understand your wanting to just ban them. It seems like the easy answer. But really its not the answer. We need to dig deeper, its not that easy.

And to someone saying why do I need an AR to defend my home? I don't. But some people want that style of firearm. Its cool
And yes being able to defend your home is a legit reason to have a firearm whether you know how to hold or shoot one or not. If you don't like guns then don't get one but don't force that choice on others that want them for the right reasons.

[panthermark]

Who determines the moral and social guidelines? You do know this is a slippery slope right? Bring Back the Bible will probably lead to the hard-right conservatives saying homosexuality is a sin. The next step will be saying interracial marriages is leading to moral decay. So would there be a committee who sets these guidelines? Will they deem heavy metal music is Satanic or rap music? And God forbid if this happens, a group of the population will be unfairly targeted by these moral guidelines. Whoever will set these moral and social guidelines can say a certain religious group or ethnic background contributes to this decay.

I fully admit, it is a slippery slope that will be a constant tug of war. I certainly don't want a committee of morality, that sounds dystopian. I'm not interested in a real life version of the Handmaid's Tale.
But where we are at, and where we are heading isn't working. Some stuff I see isn't "brave", it is just "stupid and weird", and we don't call it out.

I'm not really a religious person, and I would PREFER to keep church and state separate. But there clearly some people out there that need some social and moral guidance beyond just written law.

I always use alcohol as an example because most people (including myself) enjoy it, and can usually control their drinking. Some people can't, and it can lead to all kinds of destruction. But that does not mean I'm for banning or limiting alcohol for EVERYONE. Or asking that drinks be monitored by the government, or that you need a pysch evaluation before you go drinking.

If the person that did this shooting didn't have access to guns (and never did the shooting), how do you get them to be a productive member of society? He was an unemployed, socially awkward stoner that had lost touch with reality and constantly thought about violence. That has time bomb written all over it.