Another week, three more Nationalists massacres.

[notes1]

according to NHTSA, there were more than 9700 deaths from speeding. why not limit all cars ability to exceed 65 mph or less.

i do not own a gun, never have. i think there are too many guns out there. but, i am tired of rights being taken away because some small demented group of folks whose actions, cause the rest of us to be restricted.

people want some action, i understand that. this is strictly an observation, so i may be wrong, but it seems that these 'sicko' shooters are rarely folks who are active in sports, active in after school clubs, religiously active, have a wide circle of friends or simply socially active. they have few if any friends, spend too much time on the internet, seek infamy, and some have displayed warning signs.

what i do not understand is this need to be famous. whether it be performing some dangerous stunt to show on youtube or kill a bunch of people, where does this need come from?

[Eduardo]

There is a big difference between speeding and using a rifle to shoot someone.

If Ford designed a vehicle called the People Masher that was intended to efficiently run over pedestrians, I think we might see some sort of restrictions put in place on that type of vehicle. And I would be okay with those restrictions.

I'm not in favor of "taking away rights" either.

But the "right" to own an AK-47 didn't exist until someone invented it and nobody did anything to stop it. The Founding Fathers didn't make any declarations about AK-47 ownership.

The right to bear arms does not mean unlimited arms.

I know people who own these types of guns. They are good people, and not a threat to anyone. However their right to this particular hobby in my opinion stops when innocent people are being slaughtered on a daily basis. It won't solve all violence or even all mass shootings. But it will make a serious dent. And that dent represents people allowed to live their lives instead of being senselessly murdered.

[notes1]

a gun does not kill anybody, until someone pulls the trigger. a car does not kill anyone, until someone drives it recklessly. have you forgotten the 'mass killings' via trucks in europe. unfortunately, where there is a will, some idiot will find a way.

an assault weapons ban was put in place in the 1990's with unclear results.

we must start with finding and treating the root cause of the problem of mass killings. if these folks did not have a gun, they would find something else. what do we ban next?

one goes to the doc because something hurts. no ethical doc just gives you a painkiller, they try to find out what is the cause of the pain.

banning weapons is just a pain killer, does not solve the problem.

[Eduardo]

Yeah, I know that argument. And we can do both.

Tell me the process of "finding out the root cause" of this violence. I think we should have enough data by now and it doesn't seem to be working.

[notes1]

i am not smart enough to know the root cause. but, maybe, just maybe, it might be some things that are uncomfortable to talk about.

could it be a lack of religion in our society? could it be the breakup of the family unit? could it be parents not paying enough attention to their kids? could it be the addictive nature of electronic devices? could it be a lack of discipline, moving the line for what is acceptable, that one does not always get what they want? could it be the over medicating of young kids? could it be abused kids are not getting treatment?

just because millions, maybe billions of people want to come to the usa, does not mean we can allow it to happen. the problem is at the country of origin and that is where we need to concentrate our efforts.

[Eduardo]

Sure, it's all of those things. But we're talking about finding solutions. I don't think the solution is for Trump to require people to enroll in a religion, nullify all divorces, mandatory parental time and a recall of video game consoles.

We can all hope for a more moral society, but in the meantime we have to figure out what we're going to do with the messed up world that we actually live in.

[notes1]

i give up! i NEVER said i knew what the problem or solution was, i only offered possibilities. i never said trump should require anything. your response is a joke.

so, you are the expert. what is your solution and do you guarantee success and take responsiblity if your solution(s) don't stop the shootings.

we live in a country with more than 300 million people. there are going to be some wackos. the only point i have tried to make, is that just doing something is not always better than doing nothing. the left has been against guns forever, they are using this as an excuse to take them away from law abiding citizens. i do not believe there has ever been a mass shooting by an NRA member. EVER!

i can promise this, take away all the AK guns and the problem will not end. and, i will remind you of that everyday.

[olds442jetaway]

I will just say this. Inaminate objects do not pick themselves up and kill people. Nor do cars or baseball bats. The root cause is the person and their mental state. I firmly believe it is the lack of human interaction because of computers, Ipads and the like, and cell phones. When we were kids, all we did was play war. Veterans were just coming back from ww2 and Korea. We played cowboy and indians and we on rainey days set up our army men and had wars. Nothing like this ir rarely so ever happened.

[Eduardo]

Offering possibilities is good. None of us are "experts" in this field. We're just having a discussion here.

I guarantee that if we don't have AK-47's out there, fewer people will be killed by AK-47's.

Yes, people will use other weapons. Yes, the killing will continue until we have major cultural change.

But in the meantime, fewer people will die when access to destructive weapons is reduced.

I agree, it's puzzling that whenever we see proposed gun restrictions, and I look at the event that just happened, their restriction wouldn't actually have stopped it at all. But banning the more destructive weapons seems like an obvious change that would have impacted many of the recent shootings. Among others, like background checks. If you look at some of the restrictions that exist on state levels, there are some fairly practical ones that should be extended on the federal level that don't prevent gun ownership at all.

But saying "guns don't kill people, people do" any time legislation is proposed accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is a policy of inaction. We are pretty much guaranteed to have at least 90 more mass shootings before the year is up (255 so far). Are you okay with inaction while we work on curing society's morals over the next few generations?

[notes1]

yes, outlawing ak weapons means less ak deaths. outlawing potato chips, pizza, soda and other unhealthy foods will save even far more. you don't care about ak weapons, so if they are taken away, no big deal. but what happens when the 'control your life' crowd comes after something you do care about. you are missing the big picture. the same crowd that wants to eliminate ak, really wants to eliminate all gun ownership. then they will move on to their next big government control agenda. thus, the green new deal, open borders, free healthcare for illegals, abortion at birth, income for those unwilling to work and the myriad of other socialist policies.

it is about power, control, big government. it's about creating a permanent ruling class. if the citizens dare to elect someone like trump, it is proof that the citizens don't know what is good for them. the citizens cannot be allowed to do this ever again.

if outlawing ak will guarantee the end of mass killings, by all means, get rid of them. but, what if they decide you don't really need that suv you drive, or need a house with a lot of land, or the pizza/potato chips/sodas or what ever you really care for.

give them an inch, they will not stop.