The Virginia Tech shooter carried a Walther .22 in addition to another pistol.
Even tho .22s are relatively low powered, they are still deadly (despite what Biden says about them.)
I agree on limiting access for dangerous individuals and groups highly involved in school shootings (young males) I don't believe simply limiting access is the ultimate solution.
Killers will be creative, and we'll push the problem somewhere else. Bombings used to be a thing until Columbine. In fact, it was supposed to be a bombing, but bombs are unreliable, and pistols were the backup plan.
Now every violent, homicidal suicide is done with guns because they copycat what has proved effective in the past.
No it wasn't. Guns were always part of the plan at Columbine. Their plan was to both bomb (they intended to outdo the OKC bombing) and shoot up the school. But since making bombs operate like that is actually pretty difficult, most of theirs didn't work. You're also wrong about the guns, one of them had a carbine (with 52, 32, and 28 round magazines), and they both had shotguns as well. And one had a semi-auto pistol (with 10 13-round magazines). Guns were not the backup plan, they were always integral. Bombs were supposed to do the majority of the damage though.
[Most people are completely wrong about Columbine and it shows America's unwillingness to learn a goddamn thing. It also perfectly exposes why this country has had the problems its had. The parents tried to get the kids help. They actually went to therapy even. So the mental health asswipes and "where are the parents" assholes can shut the fuck up. They were bullied but most of it was part of that bullshit systemic "boys being boys" hazing type of shit that right wingers constantly defend (and they also bullied others), so Eminem can shut the fuck up (since he's partaken in that shit himself). They weren't even part of the "Trench Coat Mafia". Christians tried to hijack it claiming they targeted religious persons (they didn't). They also had been investigated by police for some of their behavior in the year before, so they were on police radar already. They tried making bombs but they didn't know what they were doing so most of them failed. I'm skeptical that even if they had worked they'd have done the damage intended (blowing up the school, killing the almost 500 people there). Did you know Columbine had police? This was before right wingers and gun nuts started shrieking how we just need to put cops in the schools. It has always been an unmitigated failure for preventing school shootings. Did you know SWAT sat outside for an hour before going in? Sound familiar? Police had investigated them for their fucked up behavior as well. They even wanted to carry out a warrant to search one of the kid's homes because of it. They don't have absolute motive, but there was enough evidence that the one was a psychopath egged on by far right mentality (he wanted to outdo Timothy McVeigh and originally had planned the attack to be on Hitler's birthday) and the other was basically an incel. Sound familiar?]
And so you simply think nothing can (sure sounds a lot more like you're thinking should instead of can) be done? Why do you think those others things aren't done? I mean you literally just fucking said bombs aren't used any more after Columbine, but you claim if we restrict guns they'll just go back to bombs? After you just said bombs aren't used? Seriously can you gun nuts ever just notice the most basic of logic you try to use is just fucked? You actually are correct though that guns get used more because that's way easier. But the fact that you don't think that's a problem worth doing anything about is so stupid I simply cannot understand that you genuinely think you're making a valid argument.
Also, fuck your "but they'll just use bombs" bullshit argument. Guess what we fucking did after Oklahoma City? We restricted sale of the materials used to make that bomb, and started tracking people that buy significant quantities of it. That's one of the reasons bombs aren't really used much.
You know what, I'd be all for targeting the groups most likely to do mass shootings. Males, especially white, by far are the biggest source of major societal problems in America. From sexual assault to murder (especially of women), to mass shootings, to major financial crimes, corruption (especially political).
Throwing up your hands is straight chickenshit. Granted, you're trying to pretend to be rational now, yet just a few days before this situation you were flying off the handle calling people just simply asking you for a real world need for suppressors as "gun grabbers" and getting mad when people showed the flaws in your arguments because you don't fucking care, you want your guns and everything else be damned. Its why you're advocating for doing nothing. Oh, sorry, you're advocating for shutting some doors. Ok, Cameron Mitchell.
When we had preponderance of serial killers, you know what we did? We changed policing (made departments start talking to each other, database of crimes, criminals, and victims). When we had large amounts of car fatalities, you know what we did? We regulated cars to be safer. A few people get sick eating something and we force recalls of it. Isn't it interesting how when things happen, we've shown not only we actually have done things about it, those things actually work to prevent major catastrophic harm? But, nope, it can't work for guns.
Votes can absolutely kill lots and lots of people, depending on what/who is voted for.
That's why the founding fathers enshrined the god given right to self defense and defense of liberty into the 2A.
It's the last line of defense of your life and your freedoms, and all the other rights you hold.
Disarming citizens is always the first move by fascists and oppressors as they move to strip away freedom.
It's what the British colonizers did/tried to do to the American revolutionaries in the lead up to the war.
Sam Adams and John Hancock were the "gun nuts" of their day. I'm sure modern Bostonians would be appalled by them.
"Following the first shots of the
American Revolution at
Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, on April 27, the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and commander-in-chief of all British forces in North America, General Thomas Gage, ordered all firearms owned by the Boston citizenry stored in Faneuil Hall. On April 27,
“1778 fire arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses” were received, properly labeled with the names of the owners, and sorted for storage at Faneuil Hall.
Gage promised the weapons would be returned to their owners “at a suitable time”. Gage feared an attack on Boston was imminent and feared the civilian populace would join in the resistance, confronting him with an inner and outer enemy."
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/faneuil-hall
Government has no inherent, unbreakable goodness. Slaves were kept because they couldn't arm themselves with govt facilitation. Native Americans were genocided, Mormons massacred, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc etc etc.
Govt sponsored oppression backed by the ballot box.
Rise of dictatorships were often proceeded by mass disarmament and loss of rights. Reichstag fire, then the
Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State passed by Chancellor Hitler. List goes on and on.
It's easy to sit and safe suburbs, watch the news, forget history, and only react to the day, the failure of law enforcement, blame everything on guns, and just give away rights.
If Jan 6 was successful, what would have come next? Don't think it or worse can happen again? What in history teaches you that?
Absolutely, as evidenced by the blood on the hands of people like yourself that vote for Republicans that deliberately incite the rhetoric and hate that keeps perpetuating the cycle of violence and death, all so you can keep personally stroking your fake penises every chance you get.
And that was about letting the states have a properly trained armed force with comparable weaponry to a federal one should the federal one turn against its people. It was never about you personally owning a semi-auto rifle. So, perhaps you should know what the fuck that was about instead of trying to reframe it to fit your personally twisted view of reality?
Bullshit. The first thing fascists do is convince people like you to enable them at every turn. Which they've been successful at, as despite you clearly seeing how problematic right wingers are, you're glad to support them simply because of guns (and also fossil fuels in your case, but sure seems like guns alone would be enough for you). They are openly spouting calls for fascism and you're fine with it. You tacitly regurgitate their nonsense, you partake in the same intentional placation using lies and misinformation that they do, just for guns. You are the fascist and you're too blind to notice it.
Wanna bring up history then fucking know what you're talking about. For instance you know that there were Native tribes that fought against us in the American Revolutionary War, because they were kinda upset about the genocide stuff, right? Also the Brits used a lot of German mercenaries, and we would've gotten our asses kicked (even if we'd had every American soldier with a gun) were it not for the French and other European nations helping us. So fuck off with your attempt to reframe history as just some guns in the hands of Americans is what won our Independence. It shows that your knowledge of history is embarrassingly woeful. Which, I guess if that's what you're using to justify your beliefs it explains your pathetic arguments with regards to guns.
So, yeah, sure if you deliberately ignore the actual history, the actual intention behind the 2nd Amendment, all the history since (so I take it you'd advocated for a citizen's right to own a nuclear bomb, after all MAD is about the only way to prevent the US government from using the US military to roll into somewhere - not even chemical and biological weapons is enough, so clearly if we actually want to keep it in check, we all must have nuclear weapons, by the shit logic you just tried claiming is why you personally should always have access to guns, gun owners impinging on the right to liberty of others be damned), all the objective proof that guns make society and you personally less safe, and that regulating especially semi-automatic rifles drastically reduces mass shootings, then sure you might have a point that nothing can or should be done about school shootings. Other than closing the doors.
So I take it you and all the other gun nuts are going to give up your jobs to go be doormen? Granted, that does seem like it would be an improvement over our current situation of putting cops in schools since they don't do jack shit other than shit their pants, harass non-whites (sure they harass whites as well sometimes), and maybe kill people for no good reason. Well until you show exactly what everyone already knows that having power tripping assholes with guns is always a problem, and injecting more of them into schools is probably just going to increase the number of gun owners sexually assaulting underage girls.
Facebook
Twitter