Two students shot; one in critical condition. 12-year old girl in custody

[Mistame]

There are people who, at any mention of gun regulation, will bring up the text of the Second Amendment. Specifically, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In their reading, any firearm regulation equals infringement, and is therefore prohibited. Except the text is outdated, and simply states 'arms'. Obviously guns are a type of armament and would fall under this category, but taking that reading to try and deflect any attempt at regulation discussion is asinine because my right to bear arms under that broad stroke is infringed.
Can I legally purchase and own a cruise missile? No. My right has infringements. Text is outdated and needs reworking. Clearly lines are already drawn as to what I can and can not bear in regards to arms, so people jumping up and down screaming that you can't draw any lines because the Constitution says so are relying on broken logic that already has very clear legislation undercutting it.

Ah. That's a fair point. I thought perhaps you were just jabbing at the supposed "gun nuts" who own multiple guns. Obviously, there will be restrictions on the types of arms that are allowed. But the jump to cruise missiles, etc, is silly, as it's clearly referring to personal arms.

The Second Amendment was written when you could arm yourself with musket and the government arms were also musket and maybe cannon. Now I can go arm myself with an AR-15 and the government has aircraft carriers, combat drones, stealth fighters, and tactical nukes.

Time for a re-write.

The "musket" argument really isn't valid, as "arms" was used to be future-proof. If it was meant to be restricted to musket-type arms, it would say that. I don't think it needs to be rewritten, but it does need SCOTUS clarification to cover the fringe people on both sides (those who think they've the "right" to own a gatlin gun, etc, and those that think arms in general are "bad"). The problem mostly lies in misinterpretation. On one side, you have those who, like you've said, think "arms" covers everything, which it doesn't. On the other side, you have those that like to point out "well-regulated", which actually refers to self-regulation (ie, law-abiding citizens), and "militia", which refers to individuals who are capable of defending themselves, their land or even their country but aren't part of the military, rather some "citizen army", etc.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

The "musket" argument really isn't valid, as "arms" was used to be future-proof. If it was meant to be restricted to musket-type arms, it would say that.

Its a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. I didn't mean that as written it was intended be restricted to muskets, I meant that when it was written muskets, cannon, and mortars were really the only things around. They couldn't really foresee the future of arms development. It was written as 'arms' to mean 'you have the right to arm yourself', future-proof as you say. The problem is the people who interpret that as 'my right to arms can't have any restrictions' instead of the intended 'you have the right to arm yourself'. I was more saying that if they had been able to anticipate how people would take it along with the future of arms development they might have clarified that last point a bit more.

More of 'when this was written the arms available to the citizenry and the government were much more on-par and the dynamic of an armed citizen militia vs government military was very different than it would be today'.

The problem mostly lies in misinterpretation. On one side, you have those who, like you've said, think "arms" covers everything, which it doesn't. On the other side, you have those that like to point out "well-regulated", which actually refers to self-regulation (ie, law-abiding citizens), and "militia", which refers to individuals who are capable of defending themselves, their land or even their country but aren't part of the military, rather some "citizen army", etc.

The problem is that you can't even bring up the topic without the first batch coming in clamoring and causing such a ruckus they drown out any attempt at practical, realistic conversation.

[Moralgy]

So this was a case of a kid getting their hands on a gun and playing with it, basically. Is it bad I am kind of shocked it wasn't a "lets murder everyone" kind of shooting.

[TwistedSkull]

The average citizen doesn’t go around shooting other people either. “lmao”

Peace

- - - Updated - - -



A gun is designed to accurately propel a projectile. That is why we have different types of guns.

Peace

2 "peace" is rather redundant don't you think?

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -


And what is the intent behind this projectile? Create world peace? Order you a moccachino? Sing a duet with the nearest crow?
I'll give you a hint - It starts with K, and ends with illing.

Peace.

It can create peace under the right conditions. The military and police have proven that. Other intents for the projectile can be seen in competitive target shooting. There are firearms designed specifically for that purpose, which would not be idea in other uses.

- - - Updated - - -

Why feel the need to own so many then?

For some, it is a hobby. Like collecting anything. Swords, knives, video games, coins, stamps, etc. It is not illegal to have more than you can use at one time. Some are better at conceal/carry or better for hunting or home defense. I have a .357 mag Revolver. It is great for home defense in my situation, yet sucks as a range weapon. I have a 12 ga. Shotgun which would be better for hunting deer. And a .17 cal HMR rifle for ground hogs or coyotes if they become a problem here.

[MisterBigglez]

I do understand...that you are terrified of big bad guns. It's ok you don't have to like them, but there are plenty of responsible people in the world who do and you have no business telling them they can't own one.

Intent is a pretty big deal, yo.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes. People build walls around their homes, lock their doors, wear seat belts, and use various other measures to protect themselves and the ones they love. It's odd to me that you would rather let the bad people in society have the upper hand when it comes to protection. Do you think a criminal gives two fucks whether or not you feel he should or shouldn't possess a gun? Get real.

Noone is getting shot where I live, crime exists sure, but never have I and everyone I know from all across the UK and other countries feel the need to carry weapons so we have a fighting chance against those that do. Wanna know why? Its not common, it rarely happens, were not carrying weapons, we don't own weapons. By your logic, not having weapons means you don't have a fighting chance. Guess what? were all doing just fine!

- - - Updated - - -

It can create peace under the right conditions. The military and police have proven that. Other intents for the projectile can be seen in competitive target shooting. There are firearms designed specifically for that purpose, which would not be idea in other uses.

- - - Updated - - -



For some, it is a hobby. Like collecting anything. Swords, knives, video games, coins, stamps, etc. It is not illegal to have more than you can use at one time. Some are better at conceal/carry or better for hunting or home defense. I have a .357 mag Revolver. It is great for home defense in my situation, yet sucks as a range weapon. I have a 12 ga. Shotgun which would be better for hunting deer. And a .17 cal HMR rifle for ground hogs or coyotes if they become a problem here.

Must be a very popular hobby

[Karlz0rz]

I do understand...that you are terrified of big bad guns. It's ok you don't have to like them, but there are plenty of responsible people in the world who do and you have no business telling them they can't own one.

Intent is a pretty big deal, yo.

The problem with intent, is that when the WRONG person has the motive of doing something that may cause death, it usually falls upon someone innocent, right? Like, if a gun is used, it's usually on either yourself, or someone else?
And if guns are readily available, then even though you don't have the intent when you buy it, you might develop that intent later in life.
Instead of terrified, I'm rather cautious with anything that can kill me. And if there is something that is designed to more or less only do that, then yes I don't want it around me. It's quite simple really!

- - - Updated - - -

It can create peace under the right conditions. The military and police have proven that. Other intents for the projectile can be seen in competitive target shooting. There are firearms designed specifically for that purpose, which would not be idea in other uses.

The firearms we are talking about here, like a handgun, will probably not create world peace through domination :P. But yes, if you kill everyone opposing you with an army, you could in theory create world peace.
Target shooting with guns is a niche. That's not what they are designed for, but something they can be used for.
But yes, that is one area where they are actually a tool used for something positive.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -



The firearms we are talking about here, like a handgun, will probably not create world peace through domination :P. But yes, if you kill everyone opposing you with an army, you could in theory create world peace.
Target shooting with guns is a niche. That's not what they are designed for, but something they can be used for.
But yes, that is one area where they are actually a tool used for something positive.

I said peace. Not world peace. We have nukes and they have proven not to guarantee world peace. And handguns made specifically for target shooting ( the Germans make one which is awesome for such) still illustrate they are a tool which has different applications. Most are carried or used to stop threats, kill others or win wars. That I grant you. Many however, are also used for hunting and never carried for self defense specifically apart from large wildlife defense as in Alaska or such type environment.

[Mormolyce]

Satire or not, that's not how that works.

Yes, thanks to the 2010 SC decision, the 12 year old girl doesn't need to join a well-regulated militia in order to shoot up her classroom.

[Ghostpanther]

Yes, thanks to the 2010 SC decision, the 12 year old girl doesn't need to join a well-regulated militia in order to shoot up her classroom.

By law, she is not allowed to keep or bear firearms because she is under age. So once again, you are wrong. :P

[Mellrod]

Looks like another case of shitty parenting

Well we don't know that for sure. Could be a case of a kid shooting up a place due to bullying, and it could also be that the kid obtained the weapon from someplace other than her parents. Could've found it in an alley or in the woods and took it home, could've stolen it from someone or some place, etc.

[Mormolyce]

By law, she is not allowed to keep or bear firearms because she is under age. So once again, you are wrong. :P

You are absolutely determined to kill this joke, aren't you?

[Ghostpanther]

You are absolutely determined to kill this joke, aren't you?

I did. lol! It is a stupid joke.

[Mormolyce]

I did. lol! It is a stupid joke.

I'm sorry my joke hurt your feelings.

I can sing rock-a-bye baby to an AR-15 if it'll make you feel better.

[Ghostpanther]

I'm sorry my joke hurt your feelings.

I can sing rock-a-bye baby to an AR-15 if it'll make you feel better.

Hehe. My feelings were never hurt. There is nothing you can say which would hurt them. I do not have a AR-15. My son does however and he is going to be on assigment to Paris starting this summer for 2 years and he is going to leave it with me. Really enjoy shooting it.

[Torrasque]

This happens so often here, I'm not really caring too much by this point. It's long since past a level of "stupid" to have actually done something about public shootings.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

If you need to go back 25 years to find something to whataboutism over then you know you already failed.

Sorry, my bad. I'll let you get back to your totally unbiased (wink wink, nudge nudge) nation bashing again. Have fun! It makes you look super smart, savvy, and sophisiticated, and in no way the opposite of any of those things! Also, be sure to throw in a bunch of made-up words that have no actual meaning. It really drives that point home for you!

"Stupid USA! Dey only cuntry dat kills peeple and shit, USA ONLY tho, EUROPE & REST UF WARLD IS SUPER KEWL AND SAFE, 100% GARONTEE!!!! HERPADERP!"

Oh, and whatever you do, don't look up what happened on any of these dates.

January 7th, 2015 [France]
September 21, 2013 [Kenya]
March 19, 2012 [France]
July 22, 2011 [Norway]
April 7, 2011 [Brazil]
April 30, 2009 [Azerbaijan]
September 23, 2008 [Finland]
November 7th, 2007 [Finland]
September 28th, 2004 [Argentina]

etc.

100% USA ONLY PLACE DAT HAZ DA SKOOL SHOTTINGS!!! FOR REALZ!!!

[breadisfunny]

ban 12 year olds. problem solved.

[Ripster42]

Sorry, my bad. I'll let you get back to your totally unbiased (wink wink, nudge nudge) nation bashing again. Have fun! It makes you look super smart, savvy, and sophisiticated, and in no way the opposite of any of those things! Also, be sure to throw in a bunch of made-up words that have no actual meaning. It really drives that point home for you!

"Stupid USA! Dey only cuntry dat kills peeple and shit, USA ONLY tho, EUROPE & REST UF WARLD IS SUPER KEWL AND SAFE, 100% GARONTEE!!!! HERPADERP!"

Oh, and whatever you do, don't look up what happened on any of these dates.

January 7th, 2015 [France]
September 21, 2013 [Kenya]
March 19, 2012 [France]
July 22, 2011 [Norway]
April 7, 2011 [Brazil]
April 30, 2009 [Azerbaijan]
September 23, 2008 [Finland]
November 7th, 2007 [Finland]
September 28th, 2004 [Argentina]

etc.

100% USA ONLY PLACE DAT HAZ DA SKOOL SHOTTINGS!!! FOR REALZ!!!

Did you just have to go back 13 years and include the rest of the world to compare to the US and still come up with fewer school shootings than the US has had in the last 4 years by a factor of 70?

Edit: Did we ever find out why she had a gun?

- - - Updated - - -

The average citizen is not taking illegal drugs lmao

The average citizen has now taken illegal drugs.

Admittedly, that's not what you said, but it is related to what you said. Current habitual use rates are only around 10%, but lifetime rates are in the high 70s.

[Mistame]

More of 'when this was written the arms available to the citizenry and the government were much more on-par and the dynamic of an armed citizen militia vs government military was very different than it would be today'.

This really goes back to the types of people you mentioned who think that it's about being able to defend against the government. What the people have vs what the military has is irrelevant. The government works for the people and by proxy, so does the military. And in any insane scenario that government became so corrupted and tyrannical that such logic became relevant, the military wouldn't be on the side of said government anyhow, thus it's effectively paradoxical. /shrug

The problem is that you can't even bring up the topic without the first batch coming in clamoring and causing such a ruckus they drown out any attempt at practical, realistic conversation.

Fair point.

Yes, thanks to the 2010 SC decision, the 12 year old girl doesn't need to join a well-regulated militia in order to shoot up her classroom.

I mean, what you're saying certainly has comical value, but again, a "well-regulated militia" wasn't a condition and also doesn't mean what a lot of people seem to think it means.