sorry- just one more quick point- not only are there around 20,000 actual gun laws on the books (I see that i typed 40 before- that was a mistake- should have been 20,000), but there are an astonishing 300,000 statutes regulating guns on the books already-
“What Is the Total Number of State and Federal Laws? There are already more than 300 thousand statutes in the United States that are only devoted to the regulation of weapons.”
https://www.bartleylawoffice.com/interesting/how-many-gun-laws-are-in-the-us.html
We don’t need more “Common sense laws and statutes”- We have mountains of “common sense gun laws” that have been enacted already— What we We need is just some common sense- period- Gun free zones like schools is not common sense- Teachers should be armed- and schools should have several armed guards as well- as well as methods to prevent anyone who is armed who doesn’t belong there from getting in
You Stated: “We don’t need more “Common sense laws and statutes”- We have mountains of “common sense gun laws” that have been enacted already— What we We need is just some common sense- period-”
- - - - - -
Spot On!
Let’s converse with a politician who has been in office for, say, 30, maybe 40, years and who advocates/supports “common sense” gun laws.
“How many gun laws have you voted for over the years?
Let’s imagine he says, “I voted for 100.”
“Now you are admitting that none of them were ‘common sense.’ If you had no ‘common sense’ then, why should I believe you have ‘common sense’ now?”
- - - - -
I can’t disagree with any of that. And I’m not an expert on the laws you cite. Except to say, they clearly aren’t working. And doing nothing, or more of the same, clearly isn’t working.
We need to try something new. I’m not sure arming teachers is a good idea. Even if we assume we can adequately train one to handle a firearm quickly and efficiently in the face of a stressful situation, are we to expect them to incapacitate/kill another human? Is that what we want teachers to do?
I don’t know what I can suggest at the moment. And yes, I’m fully aware that cases like this, and their sensational nature make the danger amplified. I’m fully aware that more hand guns kill people than assault rifles. But the latter make it easier, faster and more efficient. That’s what they’re designed to do.
So yes, something has to change. I’m a hunter. I have shot guns and rifles (Win. 220 bolt action) but I don’t need any type of AR-15. I’d willing support a ban on weapons of that type with the exception that if you own one - you may use it at an official shooting range where the weapon must remain under lock and key. My brother owns an AR-15. He target shoots with it. There is little else legal he can do with it. So isn’t that maybe a step at least worth considering?
We could restrict the sale of Ammunition for certain weapons. We could ban the sale of tactical gear. Purchases of that stuff just may be a red flag. Who needs that stuff in the public domain?
I understand the 2A. And I do support liberty. But I also realize that the 2A was written when there was no national army. When a citizen militia could conceivably overthrow the government if it became tyrannical. But in these times, it seems fruitless no? What good will my AR-15 or shotgun do against a Bradley AFV or a team of highly trained soldiers with professional weapons, tactics, armaments?
Now, I’m not a Commie! I don’t belong on DU. I’ve been here a long time. So let’s not call each other names. (I’m not saying you did) But if we, as like minded people to some degree, can’t discuss this issue among us, how can we convince anyone else?
Something has got to give. Are Americans more homicidal than any other society in the world? Are our children more warped by Social Media/Covid/Movies/Video Games than other kids in the world? Are schools in Italy, Germany, Spain, Mexico etc...all staffed with armed guards every day?
Or is it that our gun access plays a role here? What do you think?