Families upended by school shootings share trauma in push for gun law changes, but get mixed results

Most people are not asking to "ban guns." Most people are asking for restrictions that keep people safe, not least our school children, and a ban on military-style weapons like AR-15s. That's not unreasonable nor impossible.

2nd Amendment wasn't a big thing until the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the whole 'well-regulated militia' part was a nothingburger. Then the floodgates opened.

All you need is for another Supreme Court to put that part back in and restrict gun use to 'well-regulated militias.'

It's a lower bar than a constitutional amendment, but good luck putting the genie back in the bottle.

I've never heard a single politician propose banning guns. I've only ever heard Republican pundits SAY that Democrats want to take away your guns.

Sensible gun regulation can be enacted without banning all guns. It's only the extreme right that interprets the 2nd amendment as disallowing ANY regulations.

The right uses the 2nd amendment to cut off ANY discussion of gun reforms, and the eventual result COULD be that the 2nd amendment is eliminated using the methods you described, since it could be seen as the only way to enact sensible restrictions.

I don't want to lose the second amendment, do you? I'd rather see sensible regulations put in place while still largely retaining the right to bear arms. If those of us who are interested in gun ownership fight tooth-and-nail against ANY regulations, then it will make efforts to eliminate gun ownership entirely more likely to eventually succeed.

I'd prefer be part of the conversation to determine where the right line is on gun rights, rather than trying to cut off the conversation entirely by invoking the 2nd amendment.

You are correct, but it’s all about the interpretation of the law. Remember that the assault weapons ban, federal legislation on all the various tchotchkes, and the state laws on weapons and licenses have all been found constitutional. And while it won’t happen in this court, this court did establish the principle that they can reverse a decision that has historically guided laws and interpretations in this country for decades as being fundamentally flawed. The path to getting 50 votes in the senate to kill the filibuster, then expand the court with new appointees to turn the balance, then wait for the firearms cases to come in is easier than changing the constitution. I mean, we can’t even do that much at this point, but the math is easier.

So you saying your governmental structure is shit?

Good, long live the second amendment

Evidence of this statement

Did we stop the thoughts and prayers?

Guns are just too ingrained in the core of American culture for this ever to be fixed. It would probably be easier to just abolish the entire school system than it would be to implement any meaningful gun control policy.

The rest of the Western world doesn't have the same issue because we view guns totally differently.

American here.

I'm all for minorities and other groups struggling for equality arming themselves. It is a lot harder for the government to stomp on your rights when they have to worry about you fighting back.

It wasn't that long ago the government used airplanes to bomb its own citizens...

Until America addresses it's police problem, which I propose stems from an ongoing inequality problem, the American public needs a way to defend itself.

Why do think minor drug possession is a felony and police over-patrol minority areas, they aim to make all minorities felons and keep them either in prison or unable to legally obtain firearms

Kind of pointless to pick a single particular time and argue that something would or would not have stopped it without any actual data.

If guns were less prevalent and harder to get would it cause there to be less gun fatalities?

If you are harder on people committing gun crimes would there be less gun fatalities?

If it were illegal to carry large amounts of amnition around with you, would there be less gun fatalities?

If it were illegal to carry around lots of weapons without being in a well-regulated militia, hence where police or other people would see you and go in that person's probably up to no good, would that cause there to be less gun fidelities?

Those statements have a lot more deciding power behind them whether they're right or wrong are you agree or disagree They actually mean something.

If some kid rolls up and does a school shooting do we hold their families responsible? You lived with that guy, prove reasonable doubt that you didn't see it happening and not report it.

But this one time it band camp crap doesn't prove or disprove anything it doesn't say anything about the general working of gun laws on population.

Ya, it's ok for people with mental disorders or extreme stress to have tools to readily available to kill themselves, in what is no doubt an informed, rational decision.

Hmmm, I like this.

That in no way explains what I would like explained. Unless you are saying the ridiculous amount of gun proliferation in the last couple of decades are because of those gun regulating politicians, which I find hard to buy.

They’ve been told for years that the government is going to take their guns. The carnival barkers on talk radio or other right wing platforms continue to rant about government overreach taking their guns and how there’s criminals around every corner needing to be defended against.

Absolutely true.

So if we can't ban guns because of the 2nd amendment, and we can't report on psych care because that would drive people away from care, then what's the answer? 🤔 I don't see a way out of it unless you make mental health care and reporting mandatory.