Sandy Hook Survivor also survived Michigan State University shooting

[RennisDeynolds]

Sandy Hook was completely downplayed and used to belittle Obama for having emotions about small babies. It was all over after that

Smh I feel really sorry for this kid

 

[Windows 91]

Nothing will change unless we treat gun violence like a public health problem. But I can't see it happening. If dead Kindergarteners in Sandy Hook and Uvalde can't sway lawmakers to fix the issue, then I don't think anything will.

 

[Wildin]

The government should mandate tracking devices in guns. Simple rfid chips that don’t give any actual information except where they are and a number correlating who they belong to. Force manufacturers to build them in a way that renders the gun useless if it’s removed, or at least costs too much or is too difficult for the average person to remove and reassemble. Then they should increase punishment for someone’s gun being used in a crime if they don’t immediately report it stolen/lost, which should be easier since they could track the guns. They should also have random gun registration check-ins and fine people who don’t have access to the guns they own.

If people claim to be such responsible gun owners then let’s hold them accountable and punish them if they can’t prove it.

What would an rfid chip do?

Not every gun is used in a crime. It's not going to do anything to have an rfid chip inside a gun after a person shoots up a school or a store then kills himself or gets killed. Are you suggesting tracking guns that just sit in a safe or in someone's attic or basement? There's a ratio like 7 out of 10 people who buy a gun never use it, never take it to the range, never carry. Just buy it and it goes into a safe or the box/case it came in, or a shoebox and into the attic or basement.

Rfid isn't going to prevent one crime.

How is rfid going to stop me from going to the gun range, shooting paper, then turning 45 degrees left or right and shooting the person in the next stall in head intentionally? How would rfid stop one from driving to the gun range, to shooting people on the interstate/highway or driving through a residential or commercial area and shooting people in a drive by?

Rfid isn't going to help someone who's gun is stolen from their house or car when that gun has been used to shoot or kill someone.

 

[Fillerguy]

Kids surviving more shootings than the average cop. Freedom

 

[BobbyWojak]

Nothing I said even suggests taking away anyone’s right to own a gun. And what makes it impractical? The only obvious thing would be cost, but when you’re talking about lives and safety, who cares about the cost. It’ll be cheaper than finding a war in Ukraine.

Also, what makes it immoral? That doesn’t even make sense. It’s immoral to be able to track the location of guns? It’s a damn gun. Guns aren’t a natural right to life, it’s granted by the government. Tracking the possession of a weapon primarily used to kill is not immoral and I’m not sure how you could twist it to be such. You’re making statements to oppose the suggestion with not one statement of substance to support your argument.

I'm gonna leave the political ideology out of this, you haven't thought this through. It's impractical because the majority of Americans do not want to track guns or have them forcibly confiscated, it's that simple. You have these plans to infringe on our rights, but they're all conveniently after you've somehow changed these ironclad laws. And let's say you change those laws; have you only lived in dense liberal cities? Do you seriously imagine a scenario is which the police or military march house to house forcibly collecting guns? Or even worse, selectively targeting people based on a registry and fining, jailing or killing them if they don't give up their guns? I find it hard to believe people actually think this could happen without a massive violent conflict that would cause more deaths than could ever come from mass shootings, that's immoral, what you're proposing is so insanely tone-deaf I wonder if you've ever been around these kinds of people. The idea that, on an individual level, the police and military would even agree to do this is a stretch.

Guns aren’t a natural right to life, it’s granted by the government.

Please, what's a right that isn't granted by the government?

You're only so casual about this because you think it doesn't affect you, just 'gun owners'

 

[BobbyWojak]

Shes not the first Sandy Hook victim to be in two mass shootings. What are the odds.

ight that's kinda crazy

 

[$cam-U-Well_Jack$on]

So gun restrictions.
In what capacity?

That ship has sailed a long time ago.

 

[Bigblackted4]

We need to know her every move so I can stay far the fukk away from her respectfully.

 

[Prodyson]

I'm gonna leave the political ideology out of this, you haven't thought this through. It's impractical because the majority of Americans do not want to track guns or have them forcibly confiscated, it's that simple. You have these plans to infringe on our rights, but they're all conveniently after you've somehow changed these ironclad laws. And let's say you change those laws; have you only lived in dense liberal cities? Do you seriously imagine a scenario is which the police or military march house to house forcibly collecting guns? Or even worse, selectively targeting people based on a registry and fining, jailing or killing them if they don't give up their guns? I find it hard to believe people actually think this could happen without a massive violent conflict that would cause more deaths than could ever come from mass shootings, that's immoral, what you're proposing is so insanely tone-deaf I wonder if you've ever been around these kinds of people. The idea that, on an individual level, the police and military would even agree to do this is a stretch.



Please, what's a right that isn't granted by the government?

You're only so casual about this because you think it doesn't affect you, just 'gun owners'

The problem is that you’ve already decided in your head that the gestapo are going door to door to take people’s gun when I haven’t implied anything of the sort. I also didn’t suggest that it would be easy or that it would even have enough support today. I suggested an idea that if implemented would be relatively effective. And killing them. What in the hell are you even talking about? You’re so clearly biased that it’s laughable. You’re even making up things to argue against that I didn’t say. Other than fines, I didn’t even mention a specific punishment. You’re calling something immoral based on a response that you made up in your head based on an approach to the solution that you also made up in your head. Lol

All of your adverse points related to it not being feasible are due to the emotional response it would garner (again, based on an approach that you imagined in your head), not anything related to the actual solution. A lot of landmark decisions are largely opposed during inception. Hell, the most obvious examples are civil rights. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. And again, any confiscation of guns I mentioned involved replacing those guns with new guns that meet regulations. Any any other guns, people would receive payments just for turning them. So either get money or get a replacement gun.

What would an rfid chip do?

Not every gun is used in a crime. It's not going to do anything to have an rfid chip inside a gun after a person shoots up a school or a store then kills himself or gets killed. Are you suggesting tracking guns that just sit in a safe or in someone's attic or basement? There's a ratio like 7 out of 10 people who buy a gun never use it, never take it to the range, never carry. Just buy it and it goes into a safe or the box/case it came in, or a shoebox and into the attic or basement.

Rfid isn't going to prevent one crime.

How is rfid going to stop me from going to the gun range, shooting paper, then turning 45 degrees left or right and shooting the person in the next stall in head intentionally? How would rfid stop one from driving to the gun range, to shooting people on the interstate/highway or driving through a residential or commercial area and shooting people in a drive by?

Rfid isn't going to help someone whose gun is stolen from their house or car when that gun has been used to shoot or kill someone.

it’s would serve as both a deterrent and a way to get more gun offenders off the street.

1. Often times people commit crimes with guns because they are untraceable. If you have an rfid in it you would theoretically be able to determine whose gun was used, and where that gun is at this moment. Otherwise, it would simply limit the amount of guns that could feasibly be used for crimes.

2. An rfid chip would have absolutely no impact on someone storing their gun in a safe. It’s not supposed to.

3. You could also determine if guns are in places they aren’t supposed to be. If gun rfids were in a unique frequency, you could theoretically be able to determine if these guns are at a certain location when they aren’t supposed to be allowed

With that said, I’m order for this to work, most guns without chips would also need to be taken off the street and/or replaced. So it would be a two part problem/solution, at minimum. Furthermore, some of the scenarios you mention aren’t even common. There is no solution to stop ALL gun violence.

This is all theoretical. A thought experiment, if you will. I’m sure there are flaws, but I’m also confident that many (if not all) of those flaws could be solved for if people really wanted to fix the problem.

 

[BobbyWojak]

The problem is that you’ve already decided in your head that the gestapo are going door to door to take people’s gun when I haven’t implied anything of the sort. I also didn’t suggest that it would be easy or that it would even have enough support today. I suggested an idea that if implemented would be relatively effective. And killing them. What in the hell are you even talking about? You’re so clearly biased that it’s laughable. You’re even making up things to argue against that I didn’t say. Other than fines, I didn’t even mention a specific punishment. You’re calling something immoral based on a response that you made up in your head based on an approach to the solution that you also made up in your head. Lol

All of your adverse points related to it not being feasible are due to the emotional response it would garner (again, based on an approach that you imagined in your head), not anything related to the actual solution. A lot of landmark decisions are largely opposed during inception. Hell, the most obvious examples are civil rights. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. And again, any confiscation of guns I mentioned involved replacing those guns with new guns that meet regulations. Any any other guns, people would receive payments just for turning them. So either get money or get a replacement gun.

My bad, I should've known you meant you were going to replace the old guns with your RFID plasma pistols

You brought up jailing people, not me, do you think mfs are just going to go to prison for something they view as an inalienable right? Your solution is fukking laughable, I was trying to explain how dangerous it is to you without being an a$$hole, it's like something a small child thought up. Bolded is a big lie.

 

[Prodyson]

My bad, I should've known you meant you were going to replace the old guns with your RFID plasma pistols

You brought up jailing people, not me, do you think mfs are just going to go to prison for something they view as an inalienable right? Your solution is fukking laughable, I was trying to explain how dangerous it is to you without being an a$$hole, it's like something a small child thought up. Bolded is a big lie.

1. Quote me. Maybe you’re confusing me with a different poster. Or maybe I’m wrong. Just quote it.

2. Plasma guns? Strawman. Rfid chips aren’t some complex technology, lol

3. You still haven’t given one adverse point other than reiterating how you feel about it. You are being an a$$hole because that’s the only response you have other than being in your feelings… which I guess is still kind of you just being an a$$hole.

 

[Wildin]

The problem is that you’ve already decided in your head that the gestapo are going door to door to take people’s gun when I haven’t implied anything of the sort. I also didn’t suggest that it would be easy or that it would even have enough support today. I suggested an idea that if implemented would be relatively effective. And killing them. What in the hell are you even talking about? You’re so clearly biased that it’s laughable. You’re even making up things to argue against that I didn’t say. Other than fines, I didn’t even mention a specific punishment. You’re calling something immoral based on a response that you made up in your head based on an approach to the solution that you also made up in your head. Lol

All of your adverse points related to it not being feasible are due to the emotional response it would garner (again, based on an approach that you imagined in your head), not anything related to the actual solution. A lot of landmark decisions are largely opposed during inception. Hell, the most obvious examples are civil rights. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. And again, any confiscation of guns I mentioned involved replacing those guns with new guns that meet regulations. Any any other guns, people would receive payments just for turning them. So either get money or get a replacement gun.

it’s would serve as both a deterrent and a way to get more gun offenders off the street.

1. Often times people commit crimes with guns because they are untraceable. If you have an rfid in it you would theoretically be able to determine whose gun was used, and where that gun is at this moment. Otherwise, it would simply limit the amount of guns that could feasibly be used for crimes.

2. An rfid chip would have absolutely no impact on someone storing their gun in a safe. It’s not supposed to.

3. You could also determine if guns are in places they aren’t supposed to be. If gun rfids were in a unique frequency, you could theoretically be able to determine if these guns are at a certain location when they aren’t supposed to be allowed

With that said, I’m order for this to work, most guns without chips would also need to be taken off the street and/or replaced. So it would be a two part problem/solution, at minimum. Furthermore, some of the scenarios you mention aren’t even common. There is no solution to stop ALL gun violence.

This is all theoretical. A thought experiment, if you will. I’m sure there are flaws, but I’m also confident that many (if not all) of those flaws could be solved for if people really wanted to fix the problem.

Yeah there are lots of flaws.

You can't stop a crime before it happens.

There's no way an rfid chip would be able to determine whether a person not supposed to have a gun (violent felon, or innocent child).

Maybe you're thinking of a chip that would notify some hub whenever it's fired and it's location therefore if someone shoots someone in one location then drives 20 miles away that gun is still sending its location so it can be pinpointed, before it's ultimately tossed in a river or sewer drain or field, dumpster. Then at best they can say "well it's registered to Ron Stevenson at 1234 Jones street, let's find him."

I'm a grown man. My library says "no weapons of any kind." I still carry my gun concealed in the library. No one knows I have it. I've never threatened anyone with it. I'm not even afraid of a threat at the library. It's just on it me when I do errands and I don't bother to take it off. So what's the appropriate response to me carrying where I shouldn't be carrying? Lock down the elementary school and high school that are right next to the public library, send in the swat team? All for a man that is simply carrying where he isn't supposed to be?

You say it could limit. Any gun at any time could be used for a crime. A good cop could say "fukk it I'm sick of this shyt...then start shooting people". I could say " fukk it." and kill my whole family right now. The presence or nonpresence of rfid isn't going to stop anything.

 

[Left.A1]

Wow.. Sandy hook was when I realized they aren’t going to do shyt, If like 27 little kids get shot & killed and nothing gets done there’s no hope for the rest of these kids today

That’s a fact

 

[MidwestD]

The NRA has been pretty well neutered for a couple of years now. It's crazy that we STILL
can't get forward motion on some common sense shyt. Sad as fukk.

 

[Rekkapryde]

People need to hold something hostage. Votes. The economy. Something.

Because the NRA isn’t THAT big of an organization. But gun advocates spend money and they are vocal.

Those of us who want sensible restrictions just tweet shyt for a week.

And no. Gun restrictions won’t stop all mass shootings. But just because we don’t have the total cure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything at all.

Restrictions ain't stopping shyt though.

The only answer is one that won't happen.