Conversations I've had with leftists over the past week. I know responders A and C, I do not know responder B.
Conversation originated with Rick Santorum saying that lack of a father is part of the problem. Here's a link to the article.
Rick Santorum blames school shootings on homes with single moms
Me: He's correct, lack of a father IS a problem. The vast majority of mass shooters come from broken homes. The article tries to swipe this aside in the case of Cruz because his father died, rather than he came from a broken home. Intentionally missing the point, aren't they? Ricky completely and totally paints himself a moron when he says 'single mothers are breeding more criminals'. Dude, seriously?? If he meant that the majority of criminals come from fatherless and/or broken homes, then he should have said that or kept his mouth shut. Until we open our eyes to the problemS that are causing kids/young men to commit such horrific and unimaginable actions and do something to address those problems, nothing will change. It's a multi-pronged problem, decades in the making and it will not be fixed over night.
Responder A: Well, guns . . . they all have guns in common. Plus, most of them are white males.
Me (refusing to take the bait): An awful lot of them were on some kind of pharmaceutical as well. I'm sure there are more commonalities in these people. Spotting those risks when they are young and getting them help, rather then letting them fall through the cracks, is paramount in putting an end to these shootings, imo.
Responder B: I'm so glad you have this all figured out. Broken homes and pharmaceuticals? Maybe you should have our former POTUS know that "broken homes" breed mass shooters.
Me: So you don't think looking for common things among these shooters is a place to start? I never said broken homes breed mass shooters. Boys are dx'd with add all the time, parents are advised to put them on meds (pharmaceuticals). Might the meds be a contributing factor? The Florida shooter was adopted. I wonder do genetics contribute something to their behavior. I don't have anything figured out just opening up some conversation, sharing ideas, asking questions. I thought this would be something both sides could agree on (discussing the "why"). Perhaps I was mistaken.
Responder B: Clearly the commonality is unfettered access to firearms which no teen should have! Automatic weapons belong only in the trained hands of soldiers. YOU stated the vast majority of mass shooters come from broken homes - which btw, is an insulting term. The Columbine shooters did not and that was just the first one I looked up. Do you have facts to back up this statment? Mental health issues have always plagued us, its nothing new, and combining them with automatic weapons is a deadly combination. Santorum is a moron and to agree with him that family structure is playing part of this horrendous trend misses the real root of the problem.
Me: Automatic weapons were banned in 1934 and tightened up again in 1986. If they are being used by everyday people they are being obtained illegally. Yes, the majority of mass shooters come from broken homes (not the same as broken homes breed mass shooters). Absentee fathers can have devastating effects on at risk boys.
https://ifstudies.org/.../school-shootings-fathers... I said majority, not all, shooters came from broken homes. Mental health issues have always plagued us. So what's different now? Why are these people committing such horrific acts now? That people believe ONLY guns are the problem is part of the problem. If guns are the only problem, why didn't we have these school shootings 30, 40 years ago? Boys would go to school and had gun racks on their trucks with their rifles on board so they could go hunting after school. How is banning the AR-15 (AR stands for Armalite Rifle for the company that originated the design. It doesn't stand for automatic rifle or assault rifle) going to stop school shootings? When the shooter chooses another rifle or gun, will banning that stop them? School shootings are a multi-pronged problem that require more than one solution.
Responder B: Yeah, that's a reliable news source. *Note: I didn't reply to responder B because of their glaring idiocy.
Responder C: Over a seven year period, the longest my husband was in the house with us was twenty-four days in a row. Phone contact was severely limited. Our four sons were not in a "broken home". We need to end the easy access to weapons.
Me: Your husband being away a lot isn't remotely the same as being an absentee father, not sure how you're equating the two. From what I can tell he's an extremely strong father and role model, in or out of the home.
Responder C: The conversation needs to be about the guns. Not how many parents are in the home, not if someone was adopted, not who is on which meds...it is simply about the guns. *Note: refused to entertain the idea that the problem could possibly be about anything other than guns.
Responder A: The average citizen surely doesn't need to own an excess of guns. I don't know what number is,an excess but I'm thinking more than 6 is getting there. The Vegas shooter was able to purchase over 30 weapons in a 12-month period. All legally. There is no federal limit on the number of guns an individual may purchase. Each state, I think, varies on their rules. I guess that's what I don't understand. What is the need for tactical weapons in the average persons hand and why do you NEED so many?
Me: It isn't about needs, it's about rights. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms; they didn't put a limit on them. Let's say 6 is the number of guns that a person can legally purchase - would that have stopped the Florida shooting? Would it have stopped any of them? It just seems to me that there are a lot of factors with these loons that lead them to think shooting up a school is somehow okay. These people didn't just wake up one day and because they had a gun they decided to go on a spree. They planned it. That tells me that something(s) were terribly wrong way before the first shot was fired and addressing/catching it /helping them THEN will go a long way in preventing further school shootings. The Florida shooter had a TON of red flags that were ignored. Just a month prior, the police (or FBI, not sure which) were contacted. The caller knew the shooter and feared something like this would happen.
Responder A: I guess I am more of a collective rights kind of gal who believes, at least for the time being, we don't need to form a well regulated militia and would like to see some sort of action for the greater good and safety of our society. But when that uprising comes, I will be ill- prepared with nothing but my personal beliefs and a hope for a peaceful society that isn't trying to slowly slaughter each other. We shall agree to disagree and I will do all I can within MY constitutional right to keep my kids alive. *Note: 'collective rights kind of gal'. "Collective rights", meaning 'group rights'. A group can not possess a right, only individuals can. Assigning a group a "right" means that only those in that group may possess that right, if you're not in that group you do not possess that right. What kind of idiotic thinking is this?
* Note: NONE of them could answer how limiting guns would fix the problem. NONE of them even acknowledged that there is even a possibility that
something other than guns is the problem. Responder C summed it up by saying "it is simply about the guns". They refuse to entertain any other possibility. Why? Because it blows their "zomg, GUNS are the problem!!" theory to pieces.
Please do continue to tell us that the left isn't about getting rid of guns. Go ahead, make my day.
