You just made a fictitious scenario to defend your argument. This is what people do when they lose a debate based on the facts. So, yes, anything is possible. If he had not passed a mental heath screening he could have fabricated a gun with a 3D printer, or an AR 15 could have fell out of the sky into his lap. There’s always a scenario someone can create but it’s not real, it’s what is called a fallacy. You’re arguing fallacies now. You might as well argue what is the point of having police if a crime is committed on the other side of the world. In this case he used his own gun and a mental health screening would have prevented the massacre in that high school.
What fictious scenario? There was a gun safe in the house for the family(so there were guns from other members of the family), he had a key the he wasn't supposed to have and then used it to take the guns without the permission of the father(which was the agreement they had) and then he did what we all know he did. There is no fictional scenario here, look for yourself, THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. And in this ACTUAL FACT a mental health screening would have made absolutely no difference at all, since he had unauthorized access to the family's gun safe. You are the one who lost the argument again and again, because even after all these posts you couldn't answer that simple question: "Given that guns are here to stay. How can laws be used to prevent people who have no respect for laws from getting their hands on guns?" You avoided this question from the beginning, because this is the crucial point and this is where all your propositions are shown to be absurd. Because all your propositions are law, and people that follow the law don't do mass shootings and the people who do, obviously couldn't care less about ANY LAW.
A parent putting a 19 year oldon punishment is not an effective deterrent. Do you honestly think Americans should risk their children’s lives on other people’s parenting? As a parent, I do not accept that risk and you obviously are not a parent. Your immaturity is shining through now.
I was hunting with a rifle from age 13 ( .22 rimfire, but still lethal) with my cousins same age.No adults nearby. We were taught proper gun safety and trusted to abide by it. Just a rite of passage.
I see you're beginning with the repeated personal attacks, that's a sign of desperation due to lack of arguments. We can agree that parents who are irresponsable with guns and allow children to have access to them and if something happens, they should be held accountable for it, but that is it, the fact that one parent was irresponsable doesn't give anyone the right to take away a freedom from all other millions of parents who have guns and are responsable. But this is not the case, a 19-year-old is not a child and the facts that a mental health check wouldn't have made a difference still holds and since this other argument from you was proved to be invalid by this, you again try to change the focus on it... Always going in circles and avoiding the main question THAT STILL HOLDS AND YOU INSIST TO AVOID: "Given that guns are here to stay. How can laws be used to prevent people who have no respect for laws from getting their hands on guns?" You avoided this question from the beginning, because this is the crucial point and this is where all your propositions are shown to be absurd. Because all your propositions are law, and people that follow the law don't do mass shootings and the people who do,obviously couldn't care less about ANY LAW.
This is the crazy thing, I don't know a liberal who is against guns for sports or even home defense though they will be aware of and mindful of the massively increased suicides and accidental deaths. As happened to my friend's teen, shot through the wall. They even make bullet proof drywall now for homes, fear is profitable and the NRA sows this like wheat. I was in anti-poaching in Africa and I have met many hunters, a few had a love of hunting from childhood and probably would have been as happy taking a photo as the shot. Many others.. high-functioning psychopaths (permits expensive, most psychopaths are sub-normal IQ research says) who were in a war of one-upmanship with another guy at the the local Rotary back in Cincinnati. I did not like those guys and put time into studying psychopathy as a result. The mainstay of liberals do not want to repeal the 2nd, they also like guns and even if they did, with the exception of the looney 2-5% that corresponds to the same fringe on the right, they would respect the majority view. The NRA is playing one side off against the other for the benefit of arms manufacturers and their own power (Wayne's power). That red line is moving up and up as a result of the NRA's actions.
Your argument is this person is not a child but should have been restrained from his gun by his parents (really guardians). Enough with you.
Show me three of your 'facts', data that supports a rational argument You will have trouble as the NRA hobbled the CDC's research into gun fatalities. https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02...-it-really-wanted-it-could-study-gun-violence "The CDC studied gun violence from the mid-80s to the mid-90s until a 1993 study it funded angered the National Rifle Association so much that it lobbied Congress to shut down the CDC division that researched gun violence. The study showed that keeping a gun in the home was associated with a higher risk of being killed by a relative or close acquaintance. Three years later, Rep. Jay Dickey, a lifetime member of the NRA and a Republican from Arkansas, added an amendment to the bill that funds the CDC that said "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control" could be used to study or promote gun control. That same year, Congress stripped the CDC of $2.6 million — exactly the amount the agency had spent studying gun violence the previous year. The message was clear: Study gun violence and risk your career and your agency's funding. CDC researchers who used to study gun violence told me they stayed well clear of guns for fear of jeopardizing their livelihoods. " He also makes an interesting point about lead from bullets being absorbed at the range. Could explain a lot... http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 = bad for business. From the Doctor's channel: https://dk3b4rj411no5.cloudfront.net/2013/04/a4e44b27-27f3-43c1-81b5-57d8b650fe5e_480.mp4
So you chose to run... I'm not surprised. You can argue until which age the parents are responsable for their children. I have no problem with that. But now you are simply changing the blame, from the state to HIS parents. But still, that doesn't justify taking away the freedom of all other responsable parents that have guns. And again, YOU ARE STILL RUNNING FROM THE QUESTION I MADE: "Given that guns are here to stay. How can laws be used to prevent people who have no respect for laws from getting their hands on guns?" You avoided this question from the beginning, because this is the crucial point and this is where all your propositions are shown to be absurd. Because all your propositions are law, and people that follow the law don't do mass shootings and the people who do,obviously couldn't care less about ANY LAW. But run away, nothing new about the two standart behavior of leftists when confronted with logic: Either they run away or do personal attacks.