(February 16, 2018 at 3:57 pm)wallym Wrote:(February 16, 2018 at 1:58 pm)Shell B Wrote: Well, given that he did get his hands on guns legally, if I have the right information, this isn't a question of stopping illegal gun trade. This was clearly a problem with existing law or application of law. The type of profiling that would be necessary is perfectly permissible under the constitution. We already put restrictions on gun ownership. We have precedence to do it where necessary. Now, the type of profiling appears to actually have been done in this case, which is sad. If a kid says he's going to shoot up a school, we take away his guns/rights to have them. /story If a kid says he's going to shoot up a school, we go to the parents' house and ensure that either A. they are complying with safe storage of their guns that keep them out of their kids' hands or B. we impose penalties if they do not.
It's a fair idea. The practicality of investigating every threat made on the internet is where I think things go awry. But when the next guy doesn't threaten to kill kids on the internet, we'll need a new plan for him.
And what seems inevitable, is that the rules are going to end up disproportionately disarming poor people and minorities. Maybe that's okay theoretically, but I'd be surprised if it goes over well in any other way.
Having plans for different situations is fine by me.
I'm not sure that's true. Affluent white kids are pretty trigger happy. I can't even think of a single minority school shooter.
