[Mkx41]

So far,I am somewhat disappointed with the replies because nobody answered my 2 questions I posted (satisfyingly). Neither has any of the replies so far acknowledged that a shooting like last is too high a price to pay for the so called right to bear arms. Unless and until we can acknowledge that it is too high a price to pay can a dialogue be fruitful. If we do not acknowledge that, then one has to draw the logical conclusion that one agrees that it is a justifiable and acceptable price to pay (and that it was just an event that can be justified with a shoulder shrug and "move along nothing to see here"). It is therefore a basic philosophical premiss and requirement that needs to be fulfilled to be able to move forward in a constructive dialogue that tries to identify what aspects of the current gun ownership law(s) require to be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with the premise that the right to bear comes with the price or the consequence of violent school shootings. I'm not saying gun control laws and licensing laws can't be improved - I'm no expert but I suspect they can. But I don't see why we can't have a non-violent, heat-packing society. That being said, I don't own a gun and probably never will.