Robb Elementary Shooting: America's Hands Are Full of Blood

  
Via:  John Russell  •  one month ago  •  85 comments

By:   David Frum (The Atlantic)

Robb Elementary Shooting: America's Hands Are Full of Blood
Amid our pain and grief, we must face a bitter truth.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Amid our pain and grief, we must face a bitter truth.

By David Frum

original.jpg

The scene at Robb Elementary School, Tuesday, May 24, 2022, in Uvalde, Texas (Dario Lopez-Mills / AP) May 24, 2022, 6 PM ETShare

About the author: David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thoughts and prayers. It began as a cliche. It became a joke. It has putrefied into a national shame.

If tonight, Americans do turn heavenward in pain and grief for the lost children of Uvalde, Texas, they may hear the answer delivered in the Bible through the words of Isaiah:

"And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood."

We will learn more about the 18-year-old killer of elementary-school children: his personality, his ideology, whatever confection of hate and cruelty drove him to his horrible crime. But we already know the answer to one question: Who put the weapon of mass murder into his hand? The answer to that question is that the public policy of this country armed him.

Read: What I saw treating the victims from Parkland should change the debate on guns

Every other democracy makes some considerable effort to keep guns away from dangerous people, and dangerous people away from guns. For many years—and especially since the massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School almost a decade ago—the United States has put more and more guns into more and more hands: 120 guns per 100 people in this country. The years of the pandemic have been the years of the greatest gun sales in U.S. history: almost 20 million guns sold in 2020; another 18.5 million sold in 2021. No surprise, those two years also witnessed a surge in gun violence: the spectacular human butchery of our recurring mass slaughters; the surge of one-on-one lethal criminality; the unceasing tragic toll of carelessness as American gun owners hurt and kill their loved ones and themselves.

Most of us are appalled. But not enough of us are sufficiently appalled to cast our votes to halt it. And those to whom Americans entrust political power, at the state and federal levels, seem determined to make things worse and bloodier. In the next few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver its opinion in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen , a decision that could strike down concealed-carry bans even in the few states that still have them. More guns, more places, fewer checks, fewer protections: Since Sandy Hook, this country has plunged backward and downward toward barbarism.

Read: What it's like to go back to school after a shooting

In his memoir of his career in the gun trade, the former gun-industry executive Ryan Busse writes of the effect of mass shootings on gun sales. They are, to put it bluntly, good for business. People think that perhaps the authorities might do something, and race to the gun stores to buy weapons before the "something" happens. The gun in the gunman's hand multiplies to more guns in more hands. Most of those hands do not mean to inflict harm. But the harm follows, even so.

In this magazine five years ago, I wrote a parable:


A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain.

At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.

After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won't work. "No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers—and oh by the way, you said 'stilts' when the proper term is 'piles,' so why should anybody listen to you?"

So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.

Since then, of course, things have only gotten worse. Can it be different this time? Whether any particular killer proves to be a racist, a jihadist, a sexually frustrated incel, or a randomly malignant carrier of sorrow and grief, can Americans ever break the pattern of empty thoughts, meaningless prayers, and more and worse bloodshed to follow?

The lobbying groups and politicians who enable these killers will dominate the federal courts and state governments, as they do today, until the mighty forces of decency and kindness in American life say to the enablers:

"That's enough! This must stop—and we will stop you."


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago
After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won't work. "No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers—and oh by the way, you said 'stilts' when the proper term is 'piles,' so why should anybody listen to you?"
-
So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Ammo 101: History of the Bullet

  Molly
When it comes to ammunition, few argue against the bullet being, perhaps, the most important aspect of the cartridge. It is, after all, the projectile that spins towards your target and makes an impact. Throughout the history of the bullet, the lead ball changed men’s lives and the history of the world.

It’s lead men into battle and women safely to their cars after work. Bullets have endured hunting trips and everyday, they keep 16 million Americans secure tucked away in a CCW.

The history of the bullet is a rich one, full of ups and downs, twists and turns. Over a thousand years since its conception, the bullet has changed in many ways. Yet, in just as many, it stayed the same.

History of the Bullet: The Bullet Begins

  • 1425, Europe.   Documented evidence of damage to body armor created by a metal ball from a hand cannon
  • 1500s, Europe.   Projectiles begin to include small balls cast from melted iron
  • 1600s, Europe.   People replace iron with cast lead balls for culverin and cannons
  • 1830, France.   Among other innovations, Henri-Gustave Delvigne developed the cylindroconoidal bullet, improving its stability
  • 1830-1832, France.   Francois Tamisier improved Delvigne’s design, adding groves and progressive rifling to the lead ball, increasing its range and accuracy
  • 1832, England.   Captain John Norton developed the first pointed bullet, one with a hollow base that expanded when under pressure

Ammo 101: History of the Bullet — Bullet Art (downtownartwalk.com)

==============================================================

The Founding Fathers did not know what a modern bullet was. The bullet was not developed until 1830, 40 years after the writing of the second amendment. The truth is there is no evidence whatsoever that the Founding Fathers would approve of what has happened in America vis a vis the proliferation of guns, and bullets , that take their toll with deadly speed and accuracy. 

The conclusion that everyone in America has a "right" to be armed to the teeth is a totally arbitrary one, the so called sacred right to own guns was affirmed by one Supreme Court vote in the famous Heller decision.  It was affirmed, not on the basis of obvious Founders intent, but simply because there was one more conservative than liberal on the Supreme Court in 2007. 

So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    one month ago

Question:  Why don’t we enforce existing laws before demanding new ones?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

I made pretty much the same point on the other article and have yet to get an answer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.2    one month ago

According to the article , there are 120 guns in America for every 100 people.  Do you sincerely believe this is a good idea? Do you seriously believe that the Founding Fathers would have thought this is a good idea? 

Confront your own disingenuous belief system before you talk about "existing laws". 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  charger 383  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    one month ago

I am keeping that number up

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.4    one month ago

yeah,  I'm just a piker at this...   But I'm executor for a friend who passed last year.  His wife is still with us...   Last month we finished cataloging his guns (info is with another friend to find out approx market value so that she can decide what she wants to do) and if 15 guns is considered an arsenal then he had several...   LOL  (and some really nice ones too, waiting for the valuation as I wouldn't mind putting a bid in on one or two of them).

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    one month ago

Your usual casting of blame while denying you're part of the problem.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/05/24/biden-turns-texas-horror-into-a-partisan-screed-n2607761?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    one month ago
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/05/24/biden-turns-texas-horror-into-a-partisan-screed-n2607761?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2

The Great Uniter he's not

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.7    one month ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

According to Townhall?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    one month ago
According to Townhall?

No, according to me. 

Biden promised repeatedly during the campaign that he would unite the country and that he would work to bring the two partisan sides together.  And all I've seen him do for the past year is continue the partisan rhetoric and deepen the divide.  He's not even done anything to bring in Independents to him based on polling.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.2    one month ago

I noticed that and I guess I mistakenly chalked it up to a coffee break.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.9    one month ago

According to bullshit you mean.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.9    one month ago

No one can unite with MAGA.  All of you, denounce Trumpism, by name, and then we can discuss "unity".  You dont want to denounce MAGA and Trumpism, then we can have "war." 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.13  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    one month ago
According to the article , there are 120 guns in America for every 100 people.  Do you sincerely believe this is a good idea? Do you seriously believe that the Founding Fathers would have thought this is a good idea?

Unintended consequences of the Wrong Priorities ?

Calls to reform, defund, dismantle and abolish the police

Progressive DAs are shaking up the criminal justice system.

BLM pressures Democrats to embrace bill described as 'roadmap for prison abolition'

Crime across America is skyrocketing, and our police officers are under attack from violent criminals.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.14  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.12    one month ago

And that seems to be the problem from the left in that someone else needs to make the first move because you are all pure of heart and narrow of purpose...

Problem is the right remembers the times they did make the first move (immgration when it was promised later movement on dreamers) and the left then did nothing once they got what they wanted.  

You also seem to ignore that I've already moved away from Trump, do not want him to run again.  Yet  you continue to lump me in with that movement.  You ignore what is in front of  you and rely only on your "feelings"...   It's almost impossible to have any discussion with you because you ignore anything that is not deeply in your echo chamber.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago
Why don’t we enforce existing laws before demanding new ones?

Because enforcing existing laws only affects the law abiding citizens.  It does absolutely NOTHING for the criminal element that carries out acts like this. 

Demanding new laws is a pathetic knee jerk reaction that does nothing to resolve the actual problem.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    one month ago
According to the article , there are 120 guns in America for every 100 people.  Do you sincerely believe this is a good idea?

I dunno.  That's a fair question.  I'm not sure what you would do about it. 

By these numbers, that's about 400 million guns in circulation.   You can't just legislate away 400 million of anything (except dollars).  

Statistically, there is real difficulty making the argument that the number of guns is the problem.  In 2020, there were roughly 45,000 gun deaths in the US.  Fewer than 20,000 of those were homicides (the majority of gun deaths are suicide).   So fewer than 1 in 20,000 firearms is used in a homicide.

We have more car crash deaths per automobile than we do deaths per firearm.

Do you seriously believe that the Founding Fathers would have thought this is a good idea? 

Actually, probably yes, but guns were an integral part of their everyday lives, and "rapid-fire" was 3 rounds/minute, so I'm not sure it's a valid comparison.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.15    one month ago
Demanding new laws is a pathetic knee jerk reaction that does nothing to resolve the actual problem.

Meh.  I think demanding new gun restrictions is a knee jerk, yeah.

At some point, we're going to at least need to have the conversation about early identification of homicidal maniacs.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.16    one month ago

Less common sense and more emotion if you want to fit in here friend.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.17    one month ago
At some point, we're going to at least need to have the conversation about early identification of homicidal maniacs.

That is the part everybody is running away from.  It's so much easier to place blame on an inanimate object than it is to deal with an actual person who is going through something.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.20  Right Down the Center  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago
Question:  Why don’t we enforce existing laws before demanding new ones?

2 reasons that I can think of.

1.  If the conversation goes to enforce existing laws people may want to know why the laws are not being enforced now.  If that question is asked they may find the reasons they are not being enforced is because of the same people that are screaming for new laws.

2. Feigning outrage for the camera looks alot better if you say ""more laws" and not "enforce laws".  It also gives the clowns on the left the opportunity to tell Americans that Republicans hate people and want them all to be shot.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.20    one month ago

3.)

More gun deaths are just part of an “incredible transition” to more gun confiscation. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.22  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.21    one month ago
“incredible transition”

Just when you think Joe can't say anything dumber he goes and says that.  What I want to know is did his handlers have him say that thinking it was a good idea to tell people to enjoy their pain and maybe (God willing) things will be better hopefully before they get to the point they can't pay for their bills or if Joe made that one up without any help.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.22    one month ago

His handlers are the ones completely out of touch.    
Joe is just addled.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2  Sparty On    one month ago

The only hands that are bloody here are the ones who ignored the plethora of red flags in this kids front yard.

Bloody as hell ......

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @2    one month ago

I agree.

Attempts to politicize it be damned!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

To quote someone famous: ‘So hard to think ... about anything else’



 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one month ago

Did Trump cancel his appearance at the NRA event in Houston this weekend?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    one month ago

Why should he? How many guns do you own?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.3    one month ago

i have no need or use for a gun

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    one month ago

I don't know. My life doesn't revolve around what Trump is saying & doing on a daily basis.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    one month ago
i have no need or use for a gun

You would if you lived in the Riverdale section of the city.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    one month ago

Really? Your fervent and frankly bizarre defenses of Trump increase here on an almost daily basis. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    one month ago

Your 'articles' prove otherwise.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    one month ago
Your fervent and frankly bizarre defenses of Trump increase here on an almost daily basis. 

As do your fervent and frankly bizarre obsession with every breath he takes on an almost daily basis...........for the last 7 years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.6    one month ago

What did you do, google the section of Chicago with the highest percentage of blacks ? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    one month ago

Actually It's an area of very high crime in what sadly passes for Chicago.

Gee John, Do you remember when they thought the M&M murders were a disgrace. Look at the place now!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    one month ago

Since 2017 you've smeared the man. He was a great President. On the other hand, it is you that have defended the disastrous policies of clueless Joe Biden.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    one month ago

The truth is not a smear.  He was not a great 'president'.  The only thing he is, is a great big pile of shit.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    one month ago

Given your infatuation with the man, you tell us.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Well, you know the Democrat mantra:

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Shameful. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    one month ago

So in your mind that means no one else should want one either eh?

Classic tyrannical thinking and a huge reason why we have a constitution and bill of rights

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.16    one month ago

As I said, there is no reason, at all, to think that the Founding Fathers would approve of gun rights in the context of the damage guns have done to America. They had ZERO knowledge of what the future of guns would bring. They didnt even know what a bullet was. 

We have more than one gun each for every man woman and child alive in America today. Why? Because there was one more conservative on the Supreme Court than liberals in 2007 when Heller was decided. Period. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.17    one month ago
As I said, there is no reason, at all, to think that the Founding Fathers would approve of gun rights in the context of the damage guns have done to America.

Opinions on that do vary ...... greatly.

Your understanding of law abiding, legal gun ownership in the US is sophomoric at best.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.17    one month ago
They didnt even know what a bullet was. 

The Puckle Gun, was patented in 1718. It was an  early automatic weapon fitted with a multi-shot revolving cylinder, and it was mounted on a tripod. Instead of firing 3 rounds per minute (musket), it fired nine rounds per minute and was the world’s first machine gun.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.20  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.18    one month ago

You are not [deleted] addressing what I said, so you deflect. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.17    one month ago
hat the Founding Fathers would approve of gun rights in the context of the damage guns have done to Ameri

Who knows or cares?  They gave us a tool to amend the Constitution and change it should the people of the future want to. 

Do you think the founders would approve of the President's son committing  a felony while purchasing a gun and  subsequently have his girlfriend dump the gun next to a school all without legal consequence? Sounds like something that would have happened in a corrupt monarchy, doesn't it? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.22  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.17    one month ago
As I said, there is no reason, at all, to think that the Founding Fathers would approve of gun rights in the context of the damage guns have done to America. They had ZERO knowledge of what the future of guns would bring. They didnt even know what a bullet was. 

Yet the Second Amendment was open enough to allow for growth and technological advancement so the Founding Fathers had some insight.  And they did know what a bullet wa, they just had no technical experience to understand what a bullet is today.  

We have more than one gun each for every man woman and child alive in America today. Why? Because there was one more conservative on the Supreme Court than liberals in 2007 when Heller was decided. Period. 

So?  Why do you want to control what people can buy?  There are an estimated 15 million AR-15 rifles privately owned in the US, and I don't know how many more similar type rifles.  If the large numbers of these types of rifles were truly a problem then we would be seeing 10's of thousands of gun deaths daily.  We don't because most are held by legal law abiding people.  Let's do the harder job of identifying those who should not possess a gun and we will see much better results.

If it was just a case of numbers,  well there are approx 140 million households in the US and an estimated 385 million TV sets.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.23  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.19    one month ago
The Puckle Gun It was never used during any combat operation or war. [3] [4] Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

According to a site I looked at that glorifies ammo, the bullet was invented in 1830. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.20    one month ago

The comprehension issue and deflection are not mine but yours John.    All day long .....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.25  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.22    one month ago
Yet the Second Amendment was open enough to allow for growth and technological advancement so the Founding Fathers had some insight. 

That is simply an unproven opinion. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.26  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.6    one month ago

Or the Arizona/Mexico border where I live.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.27  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.25    one month ago

Any more of an unproven opinion than yours?

As I said, there is no reason, at all, to think that the Founding Fathers would approve of gun rights in the context of the damage guns have done to America. They had ZERO knowledge of what the future of guns would bring. They didnt even know what a bullet was. 

256

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.28  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.25    one month ago

Do  you also argue that the First Amendment doesn't protect modern forms of communications?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.29  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.27    one month ago

I havent greenlighted the proliferation of guns in America. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.30  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.28    one month ago

modern forms of communication arent what is protected, speech is. 

Do you think the Founding Fathers would approve of what guns have done to America (tens of thousands of gun deaths every year)? Its a simple question. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    one month ago
modern forms of communication arent what is protected, speech is. 

Speech on modern forms is protected, not just printed press or quill penned speech.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.32  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    one month ago
Do you think the Founding Fathers would approve of what guns have done to America (tens of thousands of gun deaths every year)

Of course not.

Its a simple question.

Yes, simple and irrelevant.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.33  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    one month ago

Don't know what they would think but I do know that over 60% of the gun deaths are attributed to suicide.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.34  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.29    one month ago

Either have I, my wants and desires have very little input into the market.  So you want to talk about ideas to improve the situation or do you just want to whine?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.35  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.32    one month ago

Every day we hear about what the Founding Fathers wanted or intended regarding some issue or another. I think their views should be more irrelevant than what we perceive them to be, but my opinion hasnt prevailed yet. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.36  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    one month ago
modern forms of communication arent what is protected, speech is.

As is the right to bear arms, modern or otherwise. 

Do you think the Founding Fathers would approve of what guns have done to America (tens of thousands of gun deaths every year)? Its a simple question. 

The Founding Fathers would disagree vehemently with the phrase "what guns have done to America".  Guns haven't done anything.  Americans have.  And yes, they would be appalled and outraged by quite a lot.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.37  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.36    one month ago

Very true. Guns don't kill people. Other people kill people! Guns are just inanimate tools. When will those on the hard core liberal left ever learn that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.38  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.37    one month ago

The bullet kills the dead person. This is literally indisputable.  We can agree to ban bullets then. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.39  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.38    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.40  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.38    one month ago
The bullet kills the dead person.  This is literally indisputable.

Um, yes, it is disputable.  I was shot 4 times in Afghanistan and blown up 6 times by roadside bombs in Iraq and yet here I am.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.41  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.40    one month ago

No its not disputable. If a person dies after being shot, the bullet is the cause of death. 

Its amazing that you people will even argue the obvious. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.38    one month ago
We can agree to ban bullets then. 

I wonder if any ammunition manufacturer could survive on only supplying police, the US military, and federal agencies with ammo.

Seems like a rather small market to try to cater to exclusively.

Or are those named above supposed to use something other than guns after the ban?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.43  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.41    one month ago
No its not disputable. If a person dies after being shot, the bullet is the cause of death.  Its amazing that you people will even argue the obvious.

So.... by this "logic"..... if a person dies after being hit by a car driven by a drunk, the car is the cause of death.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.44  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.41    one month ago
No its not disputable.

Based on your ill-informed premise 2.1.38 "The bullet kills the dead person."  I should be dead.  And yet, somehow here I am 10 years later still kicking it.  Just like thousands of other veterans, law enforcement officers and civilians who have been shot.  And yet you still double down on stupid trying to convince me otherwise.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.45  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.44    one month ago

Why do you insist on saying that I said everyone who is shot dies? 

It is a total waste of time to talk to you. You cant even think straight. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.46  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.45    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.47  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.45    one month ago
Why do you insist on saying that I said everyone who is shot dies? 

Because that is what you said.  

2.1.38     seeder    JohnRussell     replied to    Ed-NavDoc   @ 2.1.37       29 minutes ago
The bullet kills the dead person. This is literally indisputable.

Do you not pay attention to your own comments?

It is a total waste of time to talk to you. You cant even think straight

I'm thinking straight.  You seem to be the one who can't remember what they said.  Now don't get boo boo lipped and but hurt that I literally am the opposite of what you say is "indisputable".  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.48  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.47    one month ago
The bullet kills the dead person.

That does NOT mean that everyone who is shot dies. It means that someone who is dead from being shot is killed by the bullet. 

Seriously, you get so many things completely wrong it is a waste of time to engage with you. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.49  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.48    one month ago
That does NOT mean that everyone who is shot dies

That's not what you said or implied.  

It means that someone who is dead from being shot is killed by the bullet.

Not necessarily.  I lost a friend in Afghanistan who was shot (multiple times) but what killed him was injuries sustained in a vehicle roll-over.  

You just keep spewing out the stupid.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.50  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.49    one month ago

When some cannot defend their position in a reasonable and intelligent manner, they deflect or deny. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.51  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.50    one month ago
lost a friend in Afghanistan who was shot (multiple times) but what killed him was injuries sustained in a vehicle roll-over.  

This is normal with many.  They make a moronic statement, then when proven wrong they try to convince me that what they posted is not what they meant.  Then get all boo boo lipped and butt hurt when they are called out on it.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.52  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.38    one month ago

Pure deflection there John and you know it. Bullet is another inanimate object that goes with the gun. Bullet cannot be fired from the gun unless a person pulls the trigger of the gun, and that's the bottom line.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.53  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.52    one month ago

The pablum "guns dont kill, people kill" is absurd.  The bullet, which comes from inside the gun, is what kills. 

The shooter gets the ball rolling. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.54  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.53    one month ago
The pablum "guns dont kill, people kill" is absurd. 

Exactly, but as Mr. Bumble said, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass - a idiot".

The law has the temerity of convicting people of homicide, not bullets,

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.55  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.53    one month ago

Lol .... pablum?    I think you are projecting again John.

So this is the process.  

A process like this has a beginning and an end.   First you need a weapon to fire a bullet.    No bullet fires consistently and accurately without one.    Next you need a bullet.    Lastly and most importantly you need a mechanism to aim the weapon and pull the trigger to fire the bullet.   That mechanism is a person.   No weapon is going to fire an aimed shot without one.    No bullet is going to fire without one.    The bullet hitting a target is the end of the process.    A process that would never happen without a shooter.

The fact that you deny the inescapable logic of this process is testimony to how far gone you really are. 

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
2.2  JaneDoe  replied to  Sparty On @2    one month ago
ignored the plethora of red flags in this kids front yard.

Mental health is a issue we don’t seem to want to deal with. We ignore all the flags then mourn the outcome.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  JaneDoe @2.2    one month ago

And blame anything else but the real cause.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.1    one month ago

To do otherwise would require them to actually do something more than lip service.

 
 

Who is online




35 visitors