General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Active shooter" - we are having yet another of our entirely preventable episodes of gun violence.
The phrase bothers me. But really it fits. The rest of the gun nuts with their arsenals are just "inactive shooters".
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,784 posts)That Americans can amass an arsenal of guns and ammunition to go human target practicing, all thanks to the 2nd Amendment.
We don's just have a mental health issue problem in this country. We have an "all too easy acess to guns" problem in this country by a lobby concerned about profits over people.
50 Shades Of Blue
(9,978 posts)They're high-fiving over the sales they'll be getting over the latest batch of NRA-sponsored murders.
Igel
(35,300 posts)It was useful, to describe somebody who was roaming and looking for victims, typically innocent, so that anybody he runs across might be his next kill.
Now it's used for anybody who has shot somebody and hasn't put the gun down. You go in to kill the bastard who raped you and the police show up before you get away, you're an active shooter instead of a gunman holed up in a house by yourself.
News should be propositional in nature first, and emotive second. Emote based on information, not just based on the desire of somebody else that you emote in a given way.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,327 posts)would help, too.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)I'm not seeing that.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)I think most of the rest of us can.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)How was this entirely preventable, other than through a complete ban on firearms, which is both unconstitutional and unsupported by the vast majority of Americans?
Edited to add a link re: a poll addressing the issue - http://news.gallup.com/poll/220595/support-stricter-gun-laws-edges.aspx
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)I know that there's nothing I could say to influence your views, and won't even try going there.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)And I enjoy debating the meaning of the Constitution, but that said I'll admit that I believe the founding fathers intended the 2d Amendment to protect an individual right to own a firearm. So I'd argue that my views are supported by the Constitution itself, but if you have contrary authority I'm more than happy to discuss.
Voltaire2
(13,021 posts)yes it wouldn't be 100% effective. Best not to try then, right?
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Like a handgun ban. So yes, we should avoid trying to enact a law that is opposed by the vast majority of Americans and violates the Constitution.
Initech
(100,065 posts)58 dead and 500 wounded in Vegas? Not the time to talk about it.
50 dead in a nightclub in Orlando? Not the time to talk about it.
15 dead in an office Christmas party in San Bernardino? Not the time to talk about it.
26 dead - 19 of them children - in a school in Connecticut? Not the time to talk about it.
So when is the right time to talk about it? Ever, Wayne?