Too close to home

[ding]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned?

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

 

[ding]

Conservatives: masters of the red herring fallacy.

Too cowardly to address the issue of school shootings, lacking any constructive solutions to address the problem, rightists engage in failed attempts to deflect from the issue.

So what's YOUR solution?

The natural conclusion to their solution ends with the banning and confiscation of all guns.

Short of doing that there is zero chance that this won't happen again. So whatever, legal action we make won't prevent the next one and something else will have to be done, and so on and so on. Until they finally realize that the only thing that will satisfy their Utopian vision is to ban and confiscate guns of law abiding citizens which is what they really wanted to do all along.

Yeah, Okay Mr. Paranoid.

It's just logic and observation, bro. Everyone sees it but apparently you.

 

[John Shaw]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned?

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

 

[ding]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned?

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

It's doubtful. But the beauty is we'll never find out because there are 300 million guns in the hands of it's citizens.

And of course none of that matters because the bottom line is that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

 

[John Shaw]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned?

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

It's doubtful. But the beauty is we'll never find out because there are 300 million guns in the hands of it's citizens.

And of course none of that matters because the bottom line is that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

To actually harness that power, you'd have to organize it. Think you're gonna organize 100 million people? 10 million? 1 million? Probably not, huh? How about 100,000? Very unlikely in the heat of the inevitable mass panic and confusion that would surely ensue were the government to take military action against the American people. Okay, so maybe 10,000? Okay, maybe you could actually get 10,000 people to form a coherent fighting force.

Oh yeah, right; 10,000 people ain't jack shit. And chances are you couldn't even manage that. It's hard enough trying to get a few hundred organized over something stupid and (relatively) risk free like a company party. Meanwhile, the military is already highly organized, well-trained, and armed with the best weapons and technology. They would win before the American people even knew what the hell was happening. The best you could hope for is some kind of war of attrition, and then it would be less about guns and more about the spirit, the soul, and the will to win at any cost.

The 2nd amendment is not going to help you "fight the government". Please get that through your thick heads.

 

[ding]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned?

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

It's doubtful. But the beauty is we'll never find out because there are 300 million guns in the hands of it's citizens.

And of course none of that matters because the bottom line is that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

To actually harness that power, you'd have to organize it. Think you're gonna organize 100 million people? 10 million? 1 million? Probably not, huh? How about 100,000? Very unlikely in the heat of the inevitable mass panic and confusion that would surely ensue were the government to take military action against the American people. Okay, so maybe 10,000? Okay, maybe you could actually get 10,000 people to form a coherent fighting force.

Oh yeah, right; 10,000 people ain't jack shit. And chances are you couldn't even manage that. It's hard enough trying to get a few hundred organized over something stupid and (relatively) risk free like a company party. Meanwhile, the military is already highly organized, well-trained, and armed with the best weapons and technology. They would win before the American people even knew what the hell was happening. The best you could hope for is some kind of war of attrition, and then it would be less about guns and more about the spirit, the soul, and the will to win at any cost.

The 2nd amendment is not going to help you "fight the government". Please get that through your thick heads.

Dude, you are wasting your time. I know the history. I know the intent. That's all that matters.

 

[John Shaw]

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

It's doubtful. But the beauty is we'll never find out because there are 300 million guns in the hands of it's citizens.

And of course none of that matters because the bottom line is that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

To actually harness that power, you'd have to organize it. Think you're gonna organize 100 million people? 10 million? 1 million? Probably not, huh? How about 100,000? Very unlikely in the heat of the inevitable mass panic and confusion that would surely ensue were the government to take military action against the American people. Okay, so maybe 10,000? Okay, maybe you could actually get 10,000 people to form a coherent fighting force.

Oh yeah, right; 10,000 people ain't jack shit. And chances are you couldn't even manage that. It's hard enough trying to get a few hundred organized over something stupid and (relatively) risk free like a company party. Meanwhile, the military is already highly organized, well-trained, and armed with the best weapons and technology. They would win before the American people even knew what the hell was happening. The best you could hope for is some kind of war of attrition, and then it would be less about guns and more about the spirit, the soul, and the will to win at any cost.

The 2nd amendment is not going to help you "fight the government". Please get that through your thick heads.

Dude, you are wasting your time. I know the history. I know the intent. That's all that matters.

Okay. Keep telling yourself that, lol. Meanwhile, people with brains will remain fully aware that having a gun won't do shit for you should the government come calling. Maybe you'll be able to stop a burglar or scare off a bear, though.

 

[Marion Morrison]

So it's the gun's fault.

Nope, it's the fucktard that has the gun.

So, decent people having guns is not a problem for you?

Newsflash: That gun did not aim itself at people and pull the trigger.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned?

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

Would that it never happens here, but for the sake or argument, consider that if only 50% of gun owners decided to resist - a conservative estimate - they would number in excess of 50,000,000. A good percentage have military or police combat training. Many individuals and groups have been collecting weapons - and dare I say ordnance - for years.

Total active US military personnel numbers under 4,000,000. Reserves equal about 800,000. Do the math.

It's doubtful in such a situation that local police would join them, since they and their families have to live in the same neighborhoods with the resistors.

We have seen in the Middle East in recent years the potential of insurgent armies. Also, it is unlikely the national government would be willing to lay waste large portions of America in order to force an unconstitutional point of law, no matter how corrupt they may be. Money, after all, is money.

Bottom line is - it's unlikely in the extreme that the current military would engage itself in such a fool's errand.

 

[ding]

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

It's doubtful. But the beauty is we'll never find out because there are 300 million guns in the hands of it's citizens.

And of course none of that matters because the bottom line is that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

To actually harness that power, you'd have to organize it. Think you're gonna organize 100 million people? 10 million? 1 million? Probably not, huh? How about 100,000? Very unlikely in the heat of the inevitable mass panic and confusion that would surely ensue were the government to take military action against the American people. Okay, so maybe 10,000? Okay, maybe you could actually get 10,000 people to form a coherent fighting force.

Oh yeah, right; 10,000 people ain't jack shit. And chances are you couldn't even manage that. It's hard enough trying to get a few hundred organized over something stupid and (relatively) risk free like a company party. Meanwhile, the military is already highly organized, well-trained, and armed with the best weapons and technology. They would win before the American people even knew what the hell was happening. The best you could hope for is some kind of war of attrition, and then it would be less about guns and more about the spirit, the soul, and the will to win at any cost.

The 2nd amendment is not going to help you "fight the government". Please get that through your thick heads.

Dude, you are wasting your time. I know the history. I know the intent. That's all that matters.

Okay. Keep telling yourself that, lol. Meanwhile, people with brains will remain fully aware that having a gun won't do shit for you should the government come calling. Maybe you'll be able to stop a burglar or scare off a bear, though.

But having 300 million will.

 

[John Shaw]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned?

Research shows that a majority of people will have to be exposed to a mass shooting incident before attitudes change sufficiently. Until then its in the 'hasn't happened in my back yard' category, which is not enough incentive to reduce easy access to handguns and military style semi automatics, (mssa)...

Using data from multiple sources on mass public shootings merged with the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we show that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter government regulation of firearms. Importantly, we show that this main effect does not vary by partisanship.
https://www.cambridge.org/​

These tragedies are sad but gun violence and gun accidents are the cost of freedom and liberty. We the people are the last line of defense. That's how our Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

Would that it never happens here, but for the sake or argument, consider that if only 50% of gun owners decided to resist, they would number in excess of 50,000,000. A good percentage have military or police combat training. Many individuals and groups have been collecting weapons for years.

Total active US military personnel numbers under 4,000,000. Reserves equal about 800,000. Do the math.

It's doubtful in such a situation that local police would join them, since they and their families have to live in the same neighborhoods with the resistors.

We have seen in the Middle East in recent years the potential of insurgent armies. Also, it is unlikely the national government would be willing to lay waste large portions of America in order to force an unconstitutional point of law, no matter how corrupt they may be. Money, after all, is money.

Well yeah, no shit. It's all rhetorical. My point is, even if you have a massive fighting force, it's useless if it has no direction and no clear leader. Chaos is going to favor the small, mobile, and precise government/military force.

In the case that Billy Bob is sitting in his house with his shotgun held close, waiting for Big Brother to come for him ... well, if they want to kill Billy, they can do it from a mile away before he even has a chance to blink. That little shotgun isn't going to do him any good. If they want to sneak into his house and bug it, they're just going to wait for him to leave. Meanwhile his gun is sitting there, collecting dust. See what I mean? In no circumstance does Billy's gun actually help protect him from the government.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned? These parents should sue the government for not protecting kids that are required by law to attend school.

Yep, you are spot on !
They should indeed sue the government school that refused to hire adequate security.

 

[John Shaw]

Last line of defense against what? Our own government? Boyo, the government could wipe your entire family off the map in one day and no one would ever know what happened to you. No number of weapons are going to protect you against the government. We don't even know what kinds of weapons they have cooked up in their military R&D. You're going to stop the big bad gov with a little semi-auto? Haha.

It's doubtful. But the beauty is we'll never find out because there are 300 million guns in the hands of it's citizens.

And of course none of that matters because the bottom line is that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

To actually harness that power, you'd have to organize it. Think you're gonna organize 100 million people? 10 million? 1 million? Probably not, huh? How about 100,000? Very unlikely in the heat of the inevitable mass panic and confusion that would surely ensue were the government to take military action against the American people. Okay, so maybe 10,000? Okay, maybe you could actually get 10,000 people to form a coherent fighting force.

Oh yeah, right; 10,000 people ain't jack shit. And chances are you couldn't even manage that. It's hard enough trying to get a few hundred organized over something stupid and (relatively) risk free like a company party. Meanwhile, the military is already highly organized, well-trained, and armed with the best weapons and technology. They would win before the American people even knew what the hell was happening. The best you could hope for is some kind of war of attrition, and then it would be less about guns and more about the spirit, the soul, and the will to win at any cost.

The 2nd amendment is not going to help you "fight the government". Please get that through your thick heads.

Dude, you are wasting your time. I know the history. I know the intent. That's all that matters.

Okay. Keep telling yourself that, lol. Meanwhile, people with brains will remain fully aware that having a gun won't do shit for you should the government come calling. Maybe you'll be able to stop a burglar or scare off a bear, though.

But having 300 million will.

Good luck making use of 300 million guns.

 

[ding]

It's doubtful. But the beauty is we'll never find out because there are 300 million guns in the hands of it's citizens.

And of course none of that matters because the bottom line is that's how the Founding Fathers saw it, and that's how the Constitution sees it.

To actually harness that power, you'd have to organize it. Think you're gonna organize 100 million people? 10 million? 1 million? Probably not, huh? How about 100,000? Very unlikely in the heat of the inevitable mass panic and confusion that would surely ensue were the government to take military action against the American people. Okay, so maybe 10,000? Okay, maybe you could actually get 10,000 people to form a coherent fighting force.

Oh yeah, right; 10,000 people ain't jack shit. And chances are you couldn't even manage that. It's hard enough trying to get a few hundred organized over something stupid and (relatively) risk free like a company party. Meanwhile, the military is already highly organized, well-trained, and armed with the best weapons and technology. They would win before the American people even knew what the hell was happening. The best you could hope for is some kind of war of attrition, and then it would be less about guns and more about the spirit, the soul, and the will to win at any cost.

The 2nd amendment is not going to help you "fight the government". Please get that through your thick heads.

Dude, you are wasting your time. I know the history. I know the intent. That's all that matters.

Okay. Keep telling yourself that, lol. Meanwhile, people with brains will remain fully aware that having a gun won't do shit for you should the government come calling. Maybe you'll be able to stop a burglar or scare off a bear, though.

But having 300 million will.

Good luck making use of 300 million guns.

I'll have lots of help.

 

[John Shaw]

To actually harness that power, you'd have to organize it. Think you're gonna organize 100 million people? 10 million? 1 million? Probably not, huh? How about 100,000? Very unlikely in the heat of the inevitable mass panic and confusion that would surely ensue were the government to take military action against the American people. Okay, so maybe 10,000? Okay, maybe you could actually get 10,000 people to form a coherent fighting force.

Oh yeah, right; 10,000 people ain't jack shit. And chances are you couldn't even manage that. It's hard enough trying to get a few hundred organized over something stupid and (relatively) risk free like a company party. Meanwhile, the military is already highly organized, well-trained, and armed with the best weapons and technology. They would win before the American people even knew what the hell was happening. The best you could hope for is some kind of war of attrition, and then it would be less about guns and more about the spirit, the soul, and the will to win at any cost.

The 2nd amendment is not going to help you "fight the government". Please get that through your thick heads.

Dude, you are wasting your time. I know the history. I know the intent. That's all that matters.

Okay. Keep telling yourself that, lol. Meanwhile, people with brains will remain fully aware that having a gun won't do shit for you should the government come calling. Maybe you'll be able to stop a burglar or scare off a bear, though.

But having 300 million will.

Good luck making use of 300 million guns.

I'll have lots of help.

Lol. Sure you will. I'm sure it would all go right according to plan. Things like this usually do, amirite?

 

[ding]

Dude, you are wasting your time. I know the history. I know the intent. That's all that matters.

Okay. Keep telling yourself that, lol. Meanwhile, people with brains will remain fully aware that having a gun won't do shit for you should the government come calling. Maybe you'll be able to stop a burglar or scare off a bear, though.

But having 300 million will.

Good luck making use of 300 million guns.

I'll have lots of help.

Lol. Sure you will. I'm sure it would all go right according to plan. Things like this usually do, amirite?

Like I said before, the fact that we have them means we will never have to find out.

 

[KeiserC]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned? These parents should sue the government for not protecting kids that are required by law to attend school.

I'm going to try to tread lightly here... forgive me in advance for expressing a diametrically opposite view in your 'time of apparent emotion'

- unjustifiable homicides are to be 'exclusively' laid at the feet of the perpetrator... NOT the hardware / tool utilized.

- It is 'unnatural' to to think that data bases and log-rhythmic"sophistication" will ever be a reliable safeguard against 'human nature... at its worst'. Do you realize how rapidly a benign 14 yo boy goes amiss to a 17 yo homicidal hellion without tripping any Federal or State 'trip wires'. The most dangerous thing people can do is complacently entrust their personal safety (entirely) unto an other entity other than themselves... (town, state... police... FBI, ATF)... Sure they will be there to sweep your moist remnants into a pile...

Recognize first that evil exists in the world and all minds are not created equally... Unless you consign all your personal freedoms away to live in a virtual 'prison unto yourself'... You will have to confront, head on, the scourges that slip through the cracks... Society has not evolved as far as the MSM, Mr. Gates.. & Zimmerman want you to believe.... you may want to reserve for yourself the option of 'defending yourself' if it comes down to your life, your kids life etc... or "their's"

 

[John Shaw]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned? These parents should sue the government for not protecting kids that are required by law to attend school.

I'm going to try to tread lightly here... forgive me in advance for expressing a diametrically opposite view in your 'time of apparent emotion'

- unjustifiable homicides are to be 'exclusively' laid at the feet of the perpetrator... NOT the hardware / tool utilized.

- It is 'unnatural' to to think that data bases and log-rhythmic"sophistication" will ever be a reliable safeguard against 'human nature... at its worst'. Do you realize how rapidly a benign 14 yo boy goes amiss to a 17 yo homicidal hellion without tripping any Federal or State 'trip wires'. The most dangerous thing people can do is complacently entrust their personal safety (entirely) unto an other entity other than themselves... (town, state... police... FBI, ATF)... Sure they will be there to sweep your moist remnants into a pile...

Recognize first that evil exists in the world and all minds are not created equally... Unless you consign all your personal freedoms away to live in a virtual 'prison unto yourself'... You will have to confront head on the scourges that slip through the cracks... Society has not evolved as far as the MSM, Mr. Gates.. & Zimmerman want you to believe.... you may want to reserve for yourself the option of 'defending yourself' if it comes down to your life, your kids life etc...

So your solution is ... what, exactly? Pray, and meanwhile buy more guns? Legit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned? These parents should sue the government for not protecting kids that are required by law to attend school.

Say Ravtard, the safest schools are in Israel (I know you're a democrat and hate Jews, but facts are facts.)

You know WHY schools are safe in Israel?

 

[Marion Morrison]

This latest mass shooting was in my neck of the woods.

What's got to happen before guns for all gets shitcanned? These parents should sue the government for not protecting kids that are required by law to attend school.

I'll hazard a guess and say you weren't there for the Jamaican Cocaine Cowboys full-auto AK and 9mm Uzi days.

STFU with your snowflake bullshit, seriously. I was there.