This is really simple. Perhaps if I put it in a pop-up book it could be made easier to understand, but I don't know. The Parkland kids are up in arms over their school being shot up, friends killed. Understandable, completely. But the source of their ire is an inanimate object, and not the individual. Instead of asking why the kid did it, or why law enforcement didn't apprehend the individual before he killed folks, they are looking at restricting the inanimate object he used to prevent future tragedy. They should be screaming, suing and battling the FBI and local law enforcement. But Soros groups and other left wing opportunists have seized on to their blood and told the kids "this is what the problem is." Naivety is easy to manipulate.
Your post is clear and well stated. Thank you. We have a fundamental disagreement on which approach will yield the most satisfactory outcome overall. I believe that an approach based on reducing probability is supported by the statistics from other nations where there is not ready access to assault style firearms. This approach to the problem would have made the Parkland incident far less likely regardless of the response of local law enforcement officials. The perpetrator would have been too young to purchase a firearm in his own name, and he would not have been able to conveniently purchase an assault style firearm even if over 21. What the parkland kids are pushing for is a better, more effective approach to reducing mass shooting incidences caused by mentally disturbed persons acting individually.
What kind of controlled access/ screening area for weapons, items in backpacks etc, did the shooter have to go through in order to enter the school? Oh I see. They did nothing to make themselves secure so we should start disarming law abiding citizens. Your data and probability statistics tell you that drunk drivers kill people so the first thing you want to do is to take cars away from law abiding drivers. Might want to work on that approach a bit.
I don’t know who you’re talking to but it’s always the same, they either blame the parents or video games or the school or the police or the fbi or anything except the easy access to guns. You are right and anyone with half a brain knows the problem is the amount of guns in America not the second amendment. The volume of weapons floating around makes shootings from Chicago to parkland and everything in between possible. The argument that there is so many guns in America that I need more and bigger guns is what got us into this mess in the first place. Nobody respects the gun itself and the powerful weapon it is anymore. It’s all about fear and power.
Only a tiny fraction of shooting deaths are from AR-15s -- despite it being the most popular rifle in America. Which is why shitlibs are so intent on banning them. Your "probability" based approach "supported by statistics" is utter horseshit. According To The FBI, Knives Kill Far More People Than Rifles In America – It’s Not Even Close http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/
Unfortunately you cannot use statistics from other nations because other nations didn't start with millions upon millions of weapons already in circulation. This it the primary reason why a ban won't really work - not for decades.
No UsefulIdiot, conservatives blame who's responsible -- the shooter. And, if there are others who enabled the shooter (like the law enforcement chain from the FBI to the Broward cowards with their failures), they need to be held accountable too. Because conservatives want fact based solutions but the LEOs were secondary in Parkland. Gun-grabbing shitlibs like you, OTOH, blame inanimate objects because you're about a phony narrative and an agenda. Not solutions, or you'd be marching in Chicago.
I'm pleased to see the Parkland kids taking a very political approach. They are going after the congressmen taking NRA money. If I were to advise them that's precisely what I would suggest. They already have the public on their side.
Didn't we have a ban on assault style firearms in effect for a number of years? It expired maybe in 2002. I'm guessing here. But If I'm right, why not go back and look at the incidence (rate) of mass shootings during the time the ban was in place versus now? Any difference I wonder?