Apple CEO Cook prays for victims, families, and loved ones of mass murder in Parkland, Florida

“A heavily armed young man walked into a Florida high school he once attended and began shooting on Wednesday, killing at least 17 people and escaping amid the fleeing students before being arrested a few miles from the campus,” The New York Times reports.

“The gunman, armed with a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle and ‘countless magazines,’ was identified by the authorities as Nikolas Cruz, a 19-year-old who had been expelled from the school,” The Times reports. “In the hours after the shooting, people who knew Mr. Cruz described him as a ‘troubled kid’ who enjoyed showing off his firearms, bragging about killing animals and whose mother would resort to calling the police to have them come to their home to try to talk some sense into him.”

“School officials declined to say why Mr. Cruz no longer attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas,” The Times reports. “But Amanda Samaroo, whose daughter, Elizabeth, attended the school while he was a student there, said he had been expelled for bringing knives on campus. ‘Her friends have said he was known to always be mentally ill and would kill animals,’ Ms. Samaroo said.”

President Trump offered his prayers and condolences to the families and victims:

He was joined by the First Lady, Melania Trump:

A few hours later, Apple CEO Tim Cook also offered his prayers:

 

MacDailyNews Take: Along with praying for the victims, families, and friends, we most fervently pray that a system will be devised wherein the severely mentally ill will be identified early and helped before they degenerate to the point where such calamitous tragedies befall innocents.

SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO Cook tweets condolences for victims of mass murder in First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas – November 6, 2017
Apple CEO Cook tweets condolences for victims of Islamic terrorist attack in New York City – November 1, 2017
Apple CEO Tim Cook offers his condolences to the victims and families of the Las Vegas mass shooting – October 2, 2017
Apple CEO Cook tweets condolences for victims of Islamic terrorist attack in Barcelona – August 18, 2017

184 Comments

  1. Prayers are all that’s going to happen in the absence of leadership and common sense.

    School massacres are a uniquely American problem and America might one day have a leader with the courage and wisdom to actually deal with this problem instead of merely offering platitudes while resisting meaningful change.

    1. We already have over 21000 gun control laws in this country

      Murder is already illegal

      It is a fact that gun control only effects law abiding citizens. If guns are not available criminals will use vehicles, pressure cookers, fertilizer, etc.

      Liberal idiots wont allow teachers to be armed.

      What do YOU propse???

      1. How about taxing ammunition to pay into a fund that covers the cost of a more efficient and effective national background check system, as well as gun safety training.

        How about outlawing bump stocks.

        How about restrictions on violence in media and video games?

        How about following the lead of other nations in making public safety laws meaningful instead of numerous?

        1. Background checks have proven not to work. A criminal can easily get guns – Most are never purchased from a gun store. If guns are not available a violent criminal has lots of other options, vehicles, fertilizer, pressure cookers, kitchen knives.

          Gun safety is not at the problem, its violent criminals- Did you know that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters were democrats? How about Demoncrats pay for your reforms since they do more damage than law abiding citizens!

          Restrictions of violence in media and games LOLOLOLOLOL

          Other nations dont let violence criminals back out on the street like we do. They don’t give light sentences and they dont allow illegal immigration –ALL pet peeves of liberals.

          Conservative and the NRA are all for safety training. Liberals refused to let them in the schools to teach children to keep away from guns.

          Seems to me that the answer is to get rid of illegal aliens and liberals.

        2. By your comments, I am sure that you would be willing to tax sober citizens, to educate drunks?????

          Why don’t YOU start by taking money out of YOUR pocket.

          No? Typical liberal – always wants other to pay.

        3. I don’t appreciate your suggestion to take more hard earned money out of my pocket to pay for my ammunition when I have done nothing wrong.

          The background check system is already adequately funded and for anyone to say it differently, is pie in the sky opinion and not facts.

          As we have learned today the FBI dropped the ball big time and did not report the findings to the background check system to deny the gun purchase.

          No amount of money coming out of my wallet and millions of others will fix incompetence absent oversight and penalties …

      2. Gutless Republican response…”Thoughts and prayers” whilst swallowing gobs of NRA blood money.
        Here’s a list of congressional Republican’s (and one Democrat) “Thoughts and prayers” perfidy along with their $ payoffs to turn the other cheek in the face of innocent schoolchildren and teaching staff being butchered.
        https://splinternews.com/every-member-of-congress-who-took-money-from-the-nra-an-1823035413
        Add in the $50m spent by the NRA for ads subverting any Democrat opposing them or their agenda.
        So. NRA and Republicans!
        You created this. You promoted this. You subverted common sense gun control legislation. YOU OWN IT. 100%
        YOU DEAL WITH IT!

        1. Gutless Democrat response.

          Obviously and a pity you do not maintain a rational critically thinking brain.

          NRA blood money? Ok, call CNN and let them know your factual findings. I’m sure they will run with it non-stop for a month. Right.

          “So. NRA and Republicans!
          You created this. You promoted this. You subverted common sense gun control legislation. YOU OWN IT. 100%
          YOU DEAL WITH IT!”

          Breaking news for the drama queen: the mentally unstable teen, twice reported OFFICIALLY to the FBI that did NOTHING, OWNS IT!

          What part of this do you not understand? …

          1. Call me an idiot if you wish but YOU ARE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.
            A recent government report shows that from Sept. 12, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016, there were 85 deadly attacks in the United States by violent extremists.

            Most of the attacks were carried out by far-right violent extremists.

            Your myopic denial and cognitive dissonance is astounding.
            Get a clue

    2. Actually they are not uniquely American. They have happened in many countries from Israel to Japan to Germany.

      About one third of Americans own firearms and are holding the other 2/3rds of us hostage on reasonable gun laws and regulations. Until crazy/disturbed people can no longer own or buy a gun, this problem will remain. Not one of the people who have committed such crimes were mentally right.

      1. There have already been eight shootings this year in American schools resulting in death or injury and we’re only half way through February. There have been around ten further incidents of guns being fired within or near American school premises.

        I don’t know of any other country which has a school shooting problem of anything remotely like that magnitude and I can’t think of any civilised country which would let such a situation continue without taking significant action to stop it.

        Almost exactly a year ago, a law banning the sale of guns to known mentally ill people was overturned. Admittedly there might have been flaws with that original law, but it was simply overturned instead of being corrected. On what planet is it a good idea to allow mentally ill and disturbed people to have any sort of access to high-powered, semi-automatic weapons?

        One day sanity might gain a foothold in the USA, but until that day, hearses will take away more American schoolchildren and staff.

        1. Brad, DavGreg – such bullshit. No other western nation has anything like this gun murder rate… nowhere remotely close… in spite of ALSO having many people who are mentally ill.

          1. It really is. What’s strange is that after the assault weapons ban ended in 2004, the rate didn’t go up until 2006. Now it’s a complete shit show. Children being murdered doesn’t seem to be a big problem, as it keeps happening. Is it possible to reinstate the assault weapons ban and doa buyback so we can get these things out of people’s hands? And why is it easier for a 19 year old to buy an AR-15 than a beer? It’s nonsense.

          2. Why have these mass murders increased in recent years? Note the correlation to the widespread use of psychotropic drugs.

            Of course, there’s a lot of money in these drugs. The drug makers don’t want this to be discussed. So, note also the lack of such discussion in the mainstream media.

            Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications. A few of the most high-profile examples, out of many others, include:

            Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s one in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.

            Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.

            Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

            In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.

            In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

            In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.

            In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.

            Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”

            John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.

            Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.

            One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. “I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.” Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.
            image:

            Paxil-TWPaxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others. The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others.

            Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can – and occasionally do – push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer, bears a “black box” FDA warning label – the government’s most serious drug warning – of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.” Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts – especially in a very, very angry person – homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time.

            Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/media-ignoring-1-crucial-factor-in-florida-school-shooting/#RGIhVCwLLsobsocy.99

            1. That’s one fine post, Doc! Mentally disturbed individuals on or off their meds are responsible for the overwhelming majority of mass shootings in ALMOST ALL CASES IN gun-free zones. Got it …

        1. Didn’t say it did. Have many gun and rifle owners among my friends and go shooting with them from time to time.

          My problem is not with firearms- it is with 2nd Amendment absolutists.

          The right of anyone to not be exposed to undue harm by mentally or emotionally unstable people with firearms “trumps” any right you may have to carry one as you please.

          The Amendment says a “well regulated militia”. Further the Constitution also charges the Federal Government with promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty, which covers maintaining public safety and peace.

          For most of American history the term Peace Officer and Police/Sheriff/Constable/Marshal were synonymous.

        2. True. However buying dozens of them, as well as high capacity magazines, is a damn good indication that someone is up to no good.

          Why don’t you and botfuck pick a school to guard with your military grade weapons?

          1. “True.”

            First sensible post response from you.

            “However buying dozens of them, as well as high capacity magazines, is a damn good indication that someone is up to no good.”

            Guess your back on the wagon quickly. I own dozens of firearms and NO CLUELESS, your post is 🐂💩!!! …

    3. If you are displeased with present gun laws, you have a constitutional remedy, however it requires 2/3 of congressional approval and 2/3 of the states approval. It’s called repealing the Second Amendment. It was done on Prohibition and it can be done on private ownership of guns.

      good luck, bitch.

      1. Actually, there is a much simpler remedy: convince five Justices on the United States Supreme Court to reverse the 2010 5-4 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. For 142 years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal and state courts almost uniformly held that the Second Amendment was not applicable to state or local government action. Gun control was a matter committed entirely to the states by the Ninth Amendment. McDonald reversed all that precedent.

        From 1791 until 2008 and the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court and most other federal courts had equally uniformly held that the Second Amendment did not create any rights for individual Americans other than to participate in a “well-regulated” state militia without federal interference.

        Heller reversed that, thereby effectively amending the Constitution by judicial decree… to the resounding applause of people who normally hate judicial activism and legislating from the bench. They loved a decision that did exactly what they claim to hate—increasing the power of the federal authorities (and specifically non-elected federal judges) at the expense of states’ rights.

        The notion that the Second Amendment prohibits the states from regulating their own “well-regulated” militias would have seemed absurd to most legal experts (and most Americans generally) in the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, and first decade of the twenty-first century.

        Here in Texas, the law that prohibited most individuals from carrying a firearm was adopted by the same legislators who had voted three years earlier to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. The 1881 Gunfight at the O.K. Corral was about whether the Clanton Gang had to comply with a Tombstone town ordinance that required residents to keep their firearms at home and visitors to check them at their hotel or with law enforcement immediately on arrival.

        What the Supreme Court gave it can equally take away.

        1. Gun control is “hitting your target.”

          Unlike the Wild West, today, any law abiding citizen passing checks should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to pack and carry a concealed weapon into Tombstone, but more importantly, into GUN-FREE ZONES. Without a scintilla of doubt, the outcome of mass shootings would have been much different.

          We already have over 200,000 gun control laws in place in the U.S. What we don’t have is Mental Health Control …

    4. Try this conversation:

      Liberal – It does not matter what inconveniences we cause law-abiding citizens. If gun control saves just one life, its worth it.

      Normal thinking person – How many lives are taken by violent criminals with guns?

      Liberal – I don’t know. (of course not, because liberals don’t do any research before forming a conclusion)

      Normal thinking person – It’s estimated by the gun control people to be 30,000 a year. Would you accept that number for the sake of this conversation?

      Liberal – Yes.

      Normal thinking person – So, if guns are used to save 30,001 lives, its worth it, right?

      Liberal – Uh? Uh? Uh? (lots of drooling)

      Normal thinking person – The CDC estimates that law-abiding citizens use guns 150,000 times a year to stop violence crimes. Other criminologist stat that the real figure is 1.5 to 2.5 million times a year. So since guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save far more lives with guns than violence criminals kill with guns, gun control makes no sense, right?

      Liberal – HEAD EXPLODES as they realize their stupidity.

      1. There is a major flaw with your discussion: the CDC is prohibited, by law, from studying gun crimes, specially mass shootings. Secondly, if it’s 30,001 yes it is worth it, especially if those crimes are committed with military grade weapons. There is no logical reason for a 19 year old kid to be able to purchase an AR-15 easier than they can buy alcohol. It’s backwards.

      2. Most excellent post!

        Interesting factoid: I heard on a local national award winning AM radio news program today, can’t remember the source cited, but newsman said mass shootings going back to 1950, get ready, over 90% have been in gun free zones.

        Gun control Libtard brains set to explode in 3… 2… 1…

        1. Could that have been because most state laws prior to the 2010 SCOTUS decision federalizing gun laws made almost everywhere a gun free zone? Mass shootings do not generally occur in private homes, which were almost the only place where ordinary citizens could carry a handgun prior to the wave of “concealed and/or open carry” laws beginning around 1990. Shootings are much more common in places where alcohol is served (still gun-free in most states) or where large numbers of vulnerable targets assemble.

          As recently as 1986, Vermont was the only state with no restrictions on carrying firearms. As recently as 2008, the ruling Supreme Court precedents still made gun control a purely state matter and most states had regulations in place. So any mass shooting that occurred would necessarily be in a gun free zone.

          1. No thanks for the tired TEDIOUS breakdown of how SCOTUS defined in what year, and where and when gun-free zones were either created or repealed or what not. Sheesh.

            You have a talent for going off on MEANINGLESS TANGENTS that are totally IRRELEVANT to the POINT.

            Pay attention, I’ll explain this slowly and very simply like I am talking to my six-year old niece. THE POINT: Gun-free zones attract the overwhelming majority of mass shootings. Got it? …

            1. Say something false once is a mistake.

              90% of mass shootings between 1950 and 1990 cannot have happened in gun-free zones, because there were no such zones in those years.

              Say it twice and it is a lie.

            2. You need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

              For the third time. I posted a snippet of what an award winning journalist reported on his news program. Those are his words, not mine. Gun free-zones have been around since Dodge City in the Wild West …

    5. We protect money with people with guns…
      We protect banks with people with guns…
      We protect politicians and celebrities with people with guns…
      We protect government facilities and other high importance facilities with people with guns…
      We protect schools and our children with “gun free zones” and signs…
      What’s wrong with this picture??

      1. Db is getting TDN protection by disallowing this post:
        (From public Wi-fi)

        We protect the general populace by locking up criminals and removing them from society.
        We protect the financial system by removing counterfeit currency from circulation.
        We protect the food industry by monitoring environmental pathogens and removing them from the production line.
        We protect the health of the nation by removing diseased individuals to an isolation unit.
        We protect the general public from gun crime and school children from mass shootings by the promotion of more guns for everybody, even in schools.

        What’s wrong with this picture?

        1. What is wrong with your picture is it’s pathetical twisted lack of logic.

          Demented criminals will always thrive. You can stop them with a gun or a “gun free zone” sign. Your choice.

          1. Most excellent point and one that is universally MISSED.

            Painted letters on a sign do not stop criminals.

            Printed letters on a congressional law bill do not not stop criminals.

            Printed anything and anywhere do not stop criminals.

            Only good guys with guns stop criminals …

          1. Boy…you two are just dumb and dumber.
            Putting up signs is not effective in protecting schools and nobody thinks otherwise.
            Proper gun control is coming and ‘you’ and your buddies will be reined in by common decency. Bet on it.

            1. “Boy…you two are just dumb and dumber.
              Putting up signs is not effective in protecting schools and nobody thinks otherwise.”

              So we agree signs are meaningless.

              “Proper gun control is coming and ‘you’ and your buddies will be reined in by common decency. Bet on it”

              Define “proper gun control.” Of course you can not and are just blowing smoke.

              Gun control is hitting your target. Somehow I suspect you do not have the mental capacities to understand …

    6. Sorry, snowflake, the real world has no safe place to curl up with a furry doll and cup of hot cocoa when evil and calamity arrive at your doorstep. Time to grow up and grow a pair, or leave it to adults.

      1. You think sane people are interested in your vigilante justice ????

        There is a reason society has chosen to employ professional trained police officers that are checked by a judicial system. The average internet blowhard with a gun is the least reliable form of justice anyone can imagine.

        Don’t quit your day job of Apple bashing, Fred

    1. “Why is this news?”

      Tim Cook is Apple’s CEO which makes this, by definition, Apple-related news.

      Most news stories quote the President as he is the leader of the country (and of the free world). I thought adding FLOTUS statement was a nice touch.

      Why are you upset that Cook’s prayers for mass murder victims and their families are covered here?

        1. If you want more quotes, simply go to Twitter and search for them.

          Here’s a couple to start you off:

          https://twitter.com/Fuctupmind/status/964102349886316545

      1. Trump is not Apple news. Until he was provided one for security reasons, he was a dedicated Scamsung fan.

        Trump= Samsung/Android

        If you look at his tweets, they come from two phones. The early AM Tweets are commonly from his Android. The “official” Tweets come from a government iPhone.

  2. The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America… Our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal. —  Ronald Reagan

    The reason so many Dem/Lib/Progs become so incensed over petty politics is because they have shunned God, their creator, and replaced Him with political ideology. Their religion is politics, about which they are fanatical.

    These mass shootings are the spawn of the leftist revisionists’ incessant push for the secularization of America based on misreading the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Americans are frequently reminded of what the revisionists deem our greatest achievement: “Separation of Church and State.” Crosses are ripped down in parks. Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today. — Bill Flax, Forbes, July 9, 2011

    America has lost her way and these are the consequences.

    No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. — Thomas Jefferson

    It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. — Patrick Henry

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. — George Washington

    You’ll never see these quotes in the mass media or even on most college campuses.

    God is the answer.

    Cue the clueless secularist lib gun-grabbers. Their “solutions” are always the wrong ones for the actual problem. They’d rather pick off leaves, accomplishing nothing, than cure the roots.

      1. If there were only a “loving gawd” to pray to.

        I imagine that all the peoples wronged in history have cried out to the Skyspook and never got saved from peril realized that at some point. Nothing like selling an invisible product.

        1. Your limited POV is from one who thinks the time spent on this planet is all there is. I pity you and hope you can someday see beyond this existence and revel in the glories of the universe.

          People often ask, if there is a God, why do bad things happen?

          What if, to God, the time humans spend on earth isn’t for enjoyment or long life, but for some other reason? What if, to God, humans’ time on earth is a miniscule blip in eternity?

          What if, to God, your entire human life is either a “1” or a “0?” Just a binary result. Positive or negative.

          Naturally, those people who think this life is the be-all and end-all, would question why God lets “bad” things happen to good people, to the point of questioning whether there is a God at all, and even to the point of typing “gawd” as if they know anything at all. In other words, those headed for a “0.”

          What if there’s a much, much bigger existence for us than the blip of time spent on this rock?

            1. Sarah. Maybe so, in the simplistic judgmental mind of the poorly educated. I have a large family with CofE, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu members as well as the uncommitted and non-believers in the mix. Our weddings and family gatherings are like the UN.
              Guess what? Nobody of faith would consider criticizing a fellow family member for their choices or lack of. Nobody pulls rank, dumps on anybody else or subscribes to the one true faith mantra which many use here in divisive form. We respect each other and harbour no ill feeling to anyone else based on religious persuasion.
              Interestingly, there are two ordained ministers in the mix who would not subscribe in any way to the sentiments of some here who are only too willing to conflate politics, religion and gun rights.
              They have no clothes.

          1. When I was getting my theology degree, one of our most popular professors was killed in an accident. The day after the funeral, the substitute teacher asked his class on Death and Dying, “Why did Chuck die?” Every one of the class gave the right answer: “Because his car was hit by a truck.”

            Humans want better answers than that. They want to be told that all those kids from Columbine to Parkland died for some more profound reason than just “Because somebody shot them.” They want to hear that it was God’s Will or that good will come out of it.

            They want to hear that there is a simple cause with a simple fix like gun control or better mental health services. They don’t want to look into the abyss, contemplate the face of human evil, and wonder if it is their own reflection. Why?

            Unfortunately, we just don’t know. Does God will the outcome of sinful acts? Are the benefits of human freedom worth the costs? We may have faith with St. Julian of Norwich that “All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well,” but it is faith, not knowledge.

            All we can do is give it our best shot. As St. Teresa of Calcutta put it, “I’m only responsible for the effort. I’m not responsible for the outcome.” Doing our best at keeping guns out of the hands of people who have expressed the desire to use them unlawfully, who have demonstrated ill will towards others, or are mentally unstable seems a good place to start. To me, throwing up our hands and saying “That is impossible, so we all need to arm ourselves” seems less satisfying.

            1. “Why did Chuck die?” Every one of the class gave the right answer: “Because his car was hit by a truck.”

              Correct.

              “Humans want better answers than that. They want to be told that all those kids from Columbine to Parkland died for some more profound reason than just “Because somebody shot them.”

              Profound reason? Well, since you advocate a higher reason than pure common sense, please, by all means write sentence after sentence of “profound reason.” I breathlessly await your response.

              “They want to hear that it was God’s Will or that good will come out of it.”

              Arrogant and insensitive TXuser — please do not attempt to speak for others you do not know because you have no idea what they want to hear or the depth of their grief …

            2. GeoB,

              You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I wasn’t offering a better answer. I don’t think there is one on this side of eternity. I was just pointing out that trying to answer ultimate “why” questions is a waste of time. It is a diversion of energy from doing one’s best to avoid the repetition of a tragedy.

              It is holding out “pie in the sky when you die” as a way of avoiding the responsibility for feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked, and all that other Matthew 25:31-46 stuff.

              Of course, you will just reply that Jesus was a libtard.

            3. TX user:

              Nothing good comes from discussing religion on the internet, especially with political trolls.

              Nevertheless, it is worth stating that Jesus was a liberal in his era. History (including nonbiblical sources like Roman texts) show that Jesus was thoroughly a Jew, but a peacenik that wasn’t trusted or accepted by the increasingly militant Jewish establishment. Only after Jesus was martyred was Paul able to, for unclear reasons, rebrand the Jesus image as a new, antijudaic force, recruiting a bottomless supply of abused slaves to exponentially grow a new religion into its own military and political power, reforming the character of Jesus into whatever was needed to herd the masses. Today people who worship Jesus run the full political spectrum, cherry picking whatever gospel suits their needs. Those who supposedly honored Jesus include characters as evil and self serving as any atheist villain. The only difference is that they are dishonest with themselves, unable to see their own hypocrisy. Thus most religious zealots have even less credibility as the political showmen in office today.

    1. “The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America…”

      Where was this turning to God when the Tea Party that rallied for well over a year against Obama after he was elected carrying racist bigoted and hateful signs against Obama.

      Where was this turning to God when republicans condemned the poor, sick and handicapped as criminal and takers while praising the rich. While supporting GOP politicians who campaigned on such.

      Where was this turning to God when the religious right sued the govt. over Obamcare becasue it provided coverage for birth control. Only a relatively small percentage of birth control pills are used for preventing pregnancy.

      Where was this turning to God when ICE began rounding up illegal immigrants without warrants denying these people any due process of law.

      Where was this turning to God when Trump was elected while exhibiting racist, bigoted and sexist actions and comments. Not to mention the porn star Trump banged while married and was paid off with the personal money of one of his attorneys.

      The GOP spells GOD* the same way the spells Freedom*, Liberty*, Family Values*, Christianity*

    2. First Whatever:
      I seem to remember a New Year’s post on this site from you about being a little less incendiary which was obviously just bullshit. So I will go over this once again.

      All Democrats are not Progressives or Liberals.
      All Liberals are not Progressives or Democrats.
      All Progressives are not Democrats or Liberals.

      Stop lumping people together in you ad hominem straw man attacks. You deal in guilt by association an almost McCarthyist way instead of dealing with facts directly.

      On your false posit regarding Gawd and our nation’s founding:
      Read the Treaty of Tripoli. Everyone involved in the treaty was a Founding Father and the Treaty passed the Senate by a Unanimous vote.
      “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

      There is no more proof of God than there is proof that the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man climbed a building in New York except in a fictional work called Ghostbusters.

      1. Yet lumping anyone right of center is fine? I do see hypocrisy when you may want to make distinct difference of people on the left but yet those same people on the left wand to broadbrush anyone with a different opinion

        1. I do not lump Right Wing people unless they lump themselves together. Exactly where are the mythical Moderate Republicans that have not fallen into lockstep with Trump? How many stonewalled Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court? How many voted to blow a massive hole in the debt with a multi Trillion Dollar Tax Cut? How many will now support Ryan and Trump’s use of the deficit they created to gut Medicare and Social Security- which Trump Promised never to touch?

          1. We support those policies because the are right and great for the country.

            Don’t, worry snowflake, it does not matter how stupid you are, Trump will still be your President. LOLOLOL

            1. So when the Democrats block a Trump nomination to the court will you be singing the same tune?

              Not a snowflake. And what makes you think the destruction of comity is right or great for the country?

    3. Wow. You do know that God’s just a story don’t you? Or do you think he didn’t make the world the Aztecs lived in? Their God was pretend too! But I bet you don’t believe in that one. Ain’t it fun.

    4. There is so much hypocrisy in this post. Equally amazing is that nobody has replied.
      Funny how you accuse “The reason so many Dem/Lib/Progs become so incensed over petty politics is because they have shunned God, their creator, and replaced Him with political ideology. Their religion is politics, about which they are fanatical.

      These mass shootings are the spawn of the leftist revisionists’ ” ….and follow it up with your own cherry picked politicized zealotry.
      #ironydesert

  3. It is truly shocking to see such a tragedy. I hope that those involved find the strength needed to move forward through their grief.

    No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe at a school.

  4. Parkland is just one of many, many examples where strict gun control (“gun free zones” in and around schools) failed utterly to stop mass shootings or mass murder.

    It seems silly that I even have to state this, but we are talking to Dem/Lib/Progs here, so here it is in all of its obviousness:

    Mass murderers don’t follow laws, but they will use your silly laws to maximize the number of murders they can commit. The more “GUN FREE ZONES” you create, the more helpless lambs you line up for slaughter.

        1. What facts?

          Murder is illegal, not true. If you murder, then you pay a penalty. That is the law.

          Murderers are not stopped: wrong. Most laws cannot premeptively prevent anything, nor is it expected to be 100% effective. However given enough resources, the laws assigning penalties to murderers are almost 100% effective in preventing future crimes from the culprit.

          Some legal eagles can cite statistics that show some penalties can dissuade criminals from committing a crime, but nothing is perfect as there is a balance between individual liberty and public security.

          The only way to prevent all crime would be to exterminate the human race. Someday when the resource wars escalate high enough, that is what bloggers will discuss. Ironically, libertarians have no answer for the anarchy their proposals always lead to.

      1. It does. In countries where firearms are properly regulated.

        No other country in the world has the problem of men with guns killing children in schools. None. Not one single country. Not even Liberia, Nigeria, Mali, Sudan, Chad, Congo…

        Only in America can a person simply buy a military-grade weapon, plus as much ammunition as he pleases, then go to his school (or place of work) and start killing other people.

        We are now barely seven weeks into 2018. In America, there have been EIGHT school shootings so far. There were already over 30 mass shootings (that is, schools, as well as other places). In eight weeks. Four shootings per week.

        It is remarkable how the entire country seems to be willing to pay this massive price in innocent life, in order to preserve its right to own firearms without ANY restriction or regulation. For any person with some common sense, this looks absurd, illogical and sad.

            1. Lots of studies prove it including from the CDC.

              Are you stupid because you can’t research before making conclusions?

              Or, you can’t research because you are stupid?

            2. We have here an excellent example of fake news (or, as GeoB would put it, FAKE NEWS!).

              As mentioned, Congress has prohibited the CDC or any other federal agency from funding studies on gun violence. There was a survey of the scanty available literature published pursuant to an Obama executive order, obviously since rescinded. I suppose that is the CDC report of which you speak. It does report the studies showing that there are more lives saved than taken by firearms.

              However, the only primary source I can find for that claim is a study (often cited by the NRA) by Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University that concluded that 645,000 crimes/year were thwarted by the use or threat of firearms.

              As Kleck himself explained, that includes instances where teenagers trespassing on an old guy’s front lawn ran off when he shouted, “I’ve got a gun.” If you are going to include those cases, you should compare it with all the crimes committed by somebody who just claims he is armed. That is obviously far more than the cases in which someone is actually shot and killed.

              Kleck did not conduct any original research, but relied on the results of a 1981 poll of 1228 individuals who were asked if they or a member of their family had used a gun to prevent a crime in the previous five years. 50 of them said yes, and Kleck extrapolated that to 4% of the entire US population. Because of the federal funding ban on gun research, that survey (now 36 years old) was the best available data.

              That is a pretty thin thread to hang our national gun policy on. It seems equally possible that the reason that the media do not report these hundreds of thousands of cases where a gun has saved a life is that the actual number is far lower.

              In terms of the actual use of firearms as opposed to threatened use, a 1986 study called “Protection or Peril?,” by Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a University of Tennessee professor of medicine, and Dr. Donald Reay, chief medical examiner of King County in Washington, concluded that for each defensive, justifiable homicide there were 43 murders, suicides or accidental deaths. Out of 398 gunshot fatalities in homes in King County between 1978 and 1983, only nine were motivated by self-defense. One assumes that the ratio between those justifiably and unjustifiably wounded (or missed entirely) would be about the same as those killed.

              In 2001, Time Magazine published a list of all the Americans who had died by firearm in a particular seven-day period that year. Only 14 of the 464 gun deaths resulted from defensive firing by citizens or police; 216 were suicides; 22 were accidental; and many of the rest involved homicides among people who knew each other well rather than citizens gunned down by strangers.

              in 2010, there were only 230 “justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of “criminal gun homicides” in the same year: 8,275. Again, you would expect the ratio of total legal vs. illegal gun use to be roughly in line with the death toll.

              A fairly balanced view of the gun question comes from Prof. Kleck himself: “The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for defensive reasons,” he says. “A tiny fraction has a great deal of reason to get anything it can get that might help reduce its victimization.”

              Somehow, I don’t see the Trump Administration throwing much weight behind “Guns for Ghettos.

            3. “We have here an excellent example of fake news (or, as GeoB would put it, FAKE NEWS!).”

              The only FAKE NEWS here is TXuser annoying deflective and tedious tangents.

              I heard the survey results on an award winning news station by a 40+ year reputable journalist I respect (he is a lifelong Democrat, gawd!) driving to work and caught the broadcast after the source was cited and I simply missed it. Tough sh*t if that is not good enough for a JUDGMENTAL CLOWN like you.

              “That is a pretty thin thread to hang our national gun policy on.” Thin thread? As you stated, “the best available data.” Please make up your mind. Gary Kleck is a fine man, patriot and respected in his field of work.

              “It seems equally possible that the reason that the media do not report these hundreds of thousands of cases where a gun has saved a life is that the actual number is far lower.”

              “It seems.” TXuser code MEANING I don’t know but will steer interpretation to fit my opinion.

              You OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING regarding what the media, will or will not report.

              The MSM only reports what fits their agenda and no one on earth can claim it is PRO-GUN 24/7.

              Studies come from a variety of sources whether from government, universities, private firms, political parties (Fusion GPS), non-profits, private individuals, et al. For accurate survey results, you need fair and balanced DATA. Certainly not doctored data as contained in the Trump dossier.

              If I used a gun or just a phrase to stop a crime from occurring on my lawn, the absolute last thing on my mind is to make it public on a survey or appear on the evening news. Hence, the inherent problem with accurately recording how many times GUNS FOR GOOD have prevented crimes EVERYDAY.

              I don’t know, but I can admit it unlike you, what the real numbers are. But I venture a guess now that SCOTUS has properly ruled on the Second Amendment the last few years, that more citizens are packing, particularly in the inner-cities, are preventing LESS CRIME than ever before in the history of the U.S.

              Just because it does not show up on a government survey or the evening news does not mean it is not taking place.

              Parallel construction example: just because a CDC survey does not exist as to how people are smoking pot at night in their Colorado homes, does not mean it is not taking place.

              And in some major cities murder rates are indeed dropping, so I suspect good guns may play a small part.

              “Somehow, I don’t see the Trump Administration throwing much weight behind “Guns for Ghettos.”

              Wow! A new low for the FAKE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!

              Totally contrived, ridiculous, unfair, untrue, partisan Libtard cheap shot that adds NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE to the conversation.

              Any law abiding citizen can exercise their constitutional rights and buy a gun, wherever they live …

            4. The best available data are almost worthless. That isn’t contradictory. If you think that a single survey of just 1228 people in 1981 is an adequate basis for making policy decisions for 327 million Americans in 2018 (in the face of overwhelming conflicting evidence), there is nothing else I could say to convince you.

              I won’t even try.

            5. Goeb cites Google as an acceptable reference. A new low has been reached in credibility. He doesn’t understand that Google doesn’t provide a comprehensive verified pile of data about any issue. Google spits back, based on your search terms, a popularity- biased list of sites that advertise with Google. You and most people are too lazy to scroll down several pages to the nonprofit, unsensational, boring real data necessary to fully assess anything. That’s why many companies hire consultants to do studies and surveys to get data. Google is more than ever garbage in, garbage out.

              Sherlock and Watson used to have some promise on the Mac before Apple gave up.

            6. Conflate much? Extrapolate much?

              Show everyone where I specifically said Google is a 100% non-biased and always an accurate source of information? I’ll save you the trouble — doesn’t exist.

              So no kidding, you really have to be wary and careful on what you read on the Internet? Wow, I had no idea … 😆

    1. Again
      All Democrats are not Progressives or Liberals.
      All Liberals are not Progressives or Democrats.
      All Progressives are not Democrats or Liberals.

      Many are Gun Owners- I am not, but qualified Expert with the M-16 8 years in a row in the US Army and can clean your clock on any range.

      The School has Armed Security Officers- it was not a Gun Free Zone. If the answer to a nut with an AR-15 is a “good guy” with a Gun you lose- again.

      Do you want shootouts in the Cafeteria?
      Didn’t think so.

      1. Staggeringly bad logic. The rule is good, the enforcement is hard. In public courts and airports, extensive security screening is done. To me, it’s all theater, but the underlying premise is that people are so distracted today that the general public can’t be counted on to stop the psychos.

        Here’s why guns in schools is a bad idea:
        It is expensive
        Teachers aren’t interested or capable in most instances
        Police posted at schools would be underutilized 99.9% of the time
        Time commitment to keep people trained is significant
        It is nearly impossible to discern between a packin’ parent with no training, a well trained plain clothes officer, a domestic terrorist, and a teacher until the bullets are flying
        Escalating security with TSA or military measures creates a stressful environment not good for learning
        Like the TSA, security measures relying on the strength of a gun become complacent and easily defeated by terrorists who study and defeat the gun with alternate weapons (like McVeigh in Oklahoma City)
        Desensitize kids to the gun at a young age and some will lose respect for the enormous responsibility that the ownership and operating of a deadly tool carries.
        If only some people are allowed guns, how does an already understaffed and underfunded school administration keep track?

        When you think through all the scenarios and logics, it’s much better to have every law abiding person surrender his weapon at the door. The new problem that schools have today is that kids can legally buy firearms with massive killing power. That needs to stop.

        You think it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun because you’ve never been in the military or police force and have no idea what a gun encounter is like. We are trained to deescalate.l because the Hollywood ending is not assured. Against a premeditated terror event, you are on your heels. You don’t have the upper hand until reinforced. Bot, You show with your every post that you think escalating conflict is the right way. You are wrong.

        Simple logic test: if you change the noun and the simple sentence becomes blatantly untrue, you better rethink your logic. “It takes a good guy with a pit bull to stop a bad guy with a pit bull.” See how stupid that sounds? A bad guy with a gun can be stopped by many means. look past the NRA sponsored solution. Or if you truly believe that every person must defend himself, then please write a letter here requesting congress ant federal, state, and local levels to slash the budgets of law enforcement. Go ahead, make my day. Oh, yeah. Eastwood played a cop.

        1. “You think it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun”

          Your stupidity is staggering. Of all the mass shootings lately, WHO STOPPED THEM? Donald Duck with a green emoji squirt gun?!?

          Gun-Free Zones are kill zones, PERIOD. In the military they are called “soft targets.” Everyone is disarmed and helpless EXCEPT the packing criminal students. Forget the wishful intent — embrace REALITY.

          Your illogic is the same as a miles per hour sign on a highway. You probably think by painting a lower number on a metal sign keeps you safe and prevents speeding?

          You probably also believe words printed on a piece of paper saying opioids are illegal will prevent abuse and eliminate a national epidemic?

          The loons on the LEFT need to forget mindless dogma, shouting slogans and get REAL! … 🤔

    1. Next week Tim Cook prays for Chinese workers who commit suicide, and Chinese citizens whose human rights are abused. Good old Timmy, paragon of virtue and a well developed actor and propagandist.

      1. Aren’t we clever. You do know that in order to own a truck, you must have a license? And have it registered? And have liability insurance?

        Let’s see: what is the main purpose of a truck? Shall I answer? To transport stuff (and sometimes people) from one place to another. You may notice plenty of them on the roads everywhere around the world. They are used to move stuff.

        What is a purpose of a firearm? To kill an enemy. The only time one wants to use one is when one wants to kill someone else.

        So, let us not ban guns. Let us regulate them exactly as we regulate trucks. Require special training and license, require registration, regular government inspection, require liability insurance (in case you kill someone with it accidentally), let us institute very strict and complex rules of how, where and when they can be used, and let us give users tickets if they violate those complex rules. Let us not even consider the fact that guns are, by definition, far more lethal than trucks (or cars), let’s just treat them like cars.

          1. As I said… aren’t we clever…

            Main purpose of guns: to kill someone.
            Main purpose of cars: to move someone from place to place.

            You can use your gun to scratch your back. You can use your car to store grain. Neither is originally designed for either purpose.

            And most importantly, beside the point. Let us for the moment work on the premise that guns are designed with the same purpose as cars (to kill people). Let us treat both in exactly the same way. After all, the total number of gun-caused deaths is quite close to the total number of car-caused deaths (around 35,000 per year), even though 90% of households own cars, and only about 30% own guns. So, let us require gun registration, gun license (with proper testing), require insurance, annual inspection… It worked for cars (drastic reduction in car deaths after introduction or mandatory licensing and registration), it works for guns in the rest of the world, it will work for Americans. Obviously, nobody in America is prevented from driving a car, as long as they possess a valid driver’s license, and as long as the car is registered and has passed the annual inspection.

            Let’s take another tack on this. Murderers have been murdering people using cars for a very long time. People have been deliberately ran over, ran into, run off a cliff, cars blown up with victims inside, trucks blown up near buildings. So, why do we bother with all the onerous regulation (registration, licensing, inspections, insurance, traffic laws)?? After all, murderers will simply steal someone else’s car, drive it without a license and kill others. Aren’t we punishing law abiding citizens who simply want to drive cars? How did the population of America agree to the government imposing such onerous, restrictive, privacy-infringing, freedom-encroaching, intrusive regulation on driving cars? How is it that freedom-loving Americans aren’t up in arms over this completely ineffective and useless government intrusion?

            1. I haven’t killed anyone with any of my firearms that I have owned. It wasn’t because my firearms were registered or I was licensed to own them, it because I have made a conscience moral decision not to murder.

            2. Well bully for you, now how about addressing the problem of those with ‘no’ moral compass but armed with a gun? You can’t stick your head somewhere very dark ….forever.

            3. Whoa. For once I agree with you. Well said!

              Don’t expect a rational solve the problem answer from PreDrag or TXuser, they are only interested in fanning the political flames …

            4. Fred, give it a rest. You have claimed your moral superiority and have convinced yourself that everyone else will also be moral or be killed by a good shooter. Got it. Go watch the olympics and stop pretending you give a shit about human life.

    1. You obviously are forgetting about, don’t live in, know about Switzerland? Possessing the weapon isn’t the problem.
      I could sarcastically say, greetings from Scotland where “just” 16 children were senselessly whacked by a nut legally possessing the weapons used. Realign the direction of your argument, get to know the map, and learn the proper capitalization of your continent.

      1. Aaahh, Switzerland…. The most popular, and frequently misused argument. I don’t think anyone who, in America, pulls Switzerland as the argument how a well-armed population (30% owns firearms) can have low gun-death rate (6.5 per 100,000, vs. 10.5 per 100,000 in USA) would ever like to have the same gun laws in the US as they are in Switzerland.

        Swiss laws require background checks (and there are no gun show or private sale loopholes), guns cannot be purchased by people with criminal or mental health history, the state can disarm a person with a valid legal reason, etc.

        Let us not forget, while considerably lower than in the USA, gun death rate is still higher in Switzerland than in many other countries (with stricter gun regulation).

          1. Non sequitur and not true either. All you need is a job or a large bank account. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/before-you-go/11178168/Country-guide-moving-to-Switzerland.html

            Let’s just cite one celebrity example everyone knows: Phil Collins. Born in UK, moved to Switzerland, now lives in Miami, with who knows how many residences elsewhere.
            Easy as pie for him to immigrate into both Switzerland and the USA. Somehow the isolationist wing of the GOP hasn’t yet mounted a campaign to ouster Europeans from coming to America, but we will stay tuned for botvinks anti Europe rally.

            Just because something is hard for you doesn’t mean others can’t do it easily.

        1. was? A society can’t control what an indi does to themself…gun, knife, or drug.
          There are no legal loopholes…the people that obtain via that means are purchasing from someone not following the law.
          A backgound check is required when purchasing in the US. Again, the seller needs to follow the law.
          The point is, those prone to break the law, will break the law and that includes heinous crimes like the recent. The comparison is relevant as it notes a gun nearby doesn’t necessarily mean gun crimes are more likely. One has to the internal catalyst to bring such terror on oneself, or another. A gun is w/o AI.

          1. It is not true that “a background check is required when purchasing in the US.” If the firearm is transferred in a private transaction, such as a gun show sale or a transaction between non-dealer gun collectors, no check is required.

            After its worst mass shooting ever, Australia closed all those loopholes over twenty years ago. They have not had a mass shooting since, their gun homicide rate has declined by 40%, and their gun suicide rate by 65%. There has been no increase in homicide or suicide committed by other means.

            While it is true that not having a gun nearby will not stop someone determined to commit a premeditated gun crime, it is likely to delay him for long enough to have second thoughts about it. If he lashes out in immediate anger, it is likely to be with a less-lethal weapon.

            1. Well, just maybe you need a gun right away in a bad neighborhood where your life and family has been threatened, citizens are terrorized and prisoners in their own homes, Property vandalized, daughters raped, drugs sold openly in the streets, kids terrorized by gangs and thugs. And we all know police have their hands tied up until a crime is committed. So, get REAL.

              I see no reason to deny a person in that situation immediate purchase of a gun for the greater good …

  5. A whole lot of willful ignorance on here this morning.

    The Onion makes the [same] point after every one of these senseless assaults and has run their semi-facetious headline again today:

    “No Way to Prevent This,” Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

    Sad…

        1. ..then, by all means, move to once of the “majority of the rest of the developed world.” In the United States, the Bill Of Rights guarantee that a citizen can defend his life, his family, his property with firearms.

          1. Although it doesn’t specify what kind of firearm, does it? I mean, there are firearms and then there are FIREARMS. Is there an implicit right in the Constitution for assault rifles for the general citizenry? For heavy machine guns? For RPGs?

            No, I think I’ll stay right here and attempt to argue in favor of a vision of “the right to bear arms” that makes this country a better, safer place. And if you don’t like that, then maybe YOU should move away.

            As it is, I’m not suggesting we take your gun[s] away so quit your whining. I guess it’s just so much easier to argue an all-or-nothing position; the world is a bit more nuanced, I’m afraid.

            1. “Although it doesn’t specify what kind of firearm, does it?”

              uh, how could Madison possibly know what kind of firearms there would be in the future?

              fúcking dolt.

      1. Mistakes were admitted. Therefore, Fred concludes that less gun regulations would make kids safer. The parade of armed Trump Militia volunteering to be school guards to underfunded schools will solve everything. Kids taught in fortresses are better equipped to handle the big bad scary world.

        With all the sh!t parents and teachers have to put up with in a society hellbent on profit and war, can we not agree to raise children in a nonviolent environment? Selling semiautomatic guns to teenagers is sick.

        1. “Fred concludes that less gun regulations would make kids safer.”

          I read you are conflating and extrapolating AGAIN, as well as putting words in posts that don’t exist.

          Guess some people just can’t help themselves …

        1. I should clarify: military weapons have progressed far beyond simple ballistics, so the term “military” or “assault” is meaningless. In the scope of public gun ownership and use, the rabid fringe of the NRA has undermined their credibility. No rifleman yearns for bigger magazines. Only criminals and you.

          1. I am a proud gun owner and lifetime NRA member. Your unhinged LEFTIST VITRIOL is not new. You caricature one side of the debate you do not UNDERSTAND or SUPPORT. Now tell me who is clueless and what side supports the constitution …

    1. If you have murderous desires you shouldn’t buy any weapon. I strongly recommend that you turn yourself into proper authorities for treatment and segregation from society.

      1. another bright and very instructive comment from Fred’s dead head. All fitting Fred’s description listed are now forming a single file line in prep to march towards the nearest law enforcement compound. We’re all set.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.