Thanks for sharing i will done upvote

I don't really believe that anything I hear anymore is true. Ya really have to be discerning about the info floating about!

It's just a political idea ,thank for sharing buddy.

nice post i like it. thanks for sharing post.

The main stream media is trying to do everything they possibly can to get the people against Trump. It's non-stop bashing of him 24/7. It sucks for people over here who actually turn on the news for news, we have to open our laptops to find out what's going on.

Since Fox has been the number one rated news network for many many years, I guess when you say main stream media you must be referring to Fox News?
Here’s some news for you, right from a Fox Senior Vice President:

“An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion,” Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, “and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.

“So with all due respect to anyone who might still be confused about the difference between news reporting and vibrant opinion, my suggestion would be to talk about the stories and the facts rather than the attack the messenger . . . which over time has never worked.”

As Trump said and I agree with how come all the other years when these mass shootings where happening no new gun laws where put into place. Its not his fault everyone keeps looking for someone to blame. The best defense is knowing people around you if everyone looked out for each other treated each other a little better well shit that could make a huge impact right there. But instead all we do is fight and blame everyone else.

“Looking for someone to blame?”

Man are you lapping up the propaganda. If you would turn off Fox “News” for 15 minutes and hear what is REALLY being said you’d know that everyone blames the shooter for the shooting. You’re being fed a line of bull for purely political gain, and gobbling it up.

What the vast majority of Americans are saying is not “who do we blame?” But HOW CAN WE STOP THIS? Or at least reduce it? What CAN we do as a country to help fix this problem?

Wake up from your Fox News brainwashing...

Because of NRA money and lobbyists, same as now. You're working to prop up a big industry that has you under their thumb in every way.

I verified...this is the real @benswann :-)

yeah...
:D

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmcoX93MxQ5oWWxuz87XfZ1ERKZf2Aw9AtynGus3jTM7Hk/U5dsCrGRGDdyUSYWbjXNo6UFQDvo1V9.gif]

Agree !

100% upvote for being the real @benswann....Keep using Dtube my friend!

I went to Stoneman Douglas a few years back so this sits hard with me, BUT it is not the GUNS fault...I think the sick people target safe zones (aka gun free zones). What do movie theaters, schools, churches ,night clubs, concerts and military compounds all have in common?! They are all SOFT targets, meaning law abiding citizens CANNOT carry a gun in these free "safe" zones. They are not "safe" at all, BUT instead EVERYONE above are locations of mass shootings.

I think we need to arm ALL our teachers and staff. It doesn't need to a be gun, but pepper spray and tasers can work if teachers do not feel comfortable carrying a gun. They even have firearms that discharge pepper spray bullets.

I was going to walk past this but I can’t. The last thing you want in a live shooter situation is a teacher with a gun. There’s so many reasons but here’s the two big ones for me:

1. It’s really hard to shoot accurately with a short barrelled weapon. Unless you know what you’re doing, at any range beyond about 20 feet most people can’t hit the side of a bus with a pistol let alone a shooter armed with an AR 15. Soldiers and police train constantly to develop and maintain these skills. Unless the teacher is a gun enthusiast themselves, then they have no chance of mastering this. It’s made worse by the fact that the type of weapon needed in that situation would have to be large caliber. You need to drop the shooter with one shot. Anything below 9mm is pointless. If you hit the shooter with a 22 (or pepper spray or a taser) and your just gunna piss him off you’re not going to stop him. You might slow him down but it’s 5-10 minutes before a small caliber round will bring the guy down. So best case the teacher hits him, draws attention to himself and his students who now become the shooters primary target. So you give em a bigger caliber weapon that’s even harder to control and they are less likely to actually hit the guy anyway. It’s pointless.

2. Even teachers who can shoot straight aren’t trained to react in a live shooter situation. They’re teachers, not warriors. They’ll be scared shitless and are more likely to shoot themselve or their students than they are the other guy with the gun. They’d be a liability not an asset in that situation.

My daughters teacher is miss Wallace. She’s a lovely, middle aged woman and a fantastic teacher. Even still the last thing I want in a school shooting situation is Miss Wallace drawing a 9mm. I’d rather she just hid in a cupboard. It’s safer for her and my daughter.

The idea NOT for the teachers to walk around looking for the hostile shooter. The goal would be to first secure the classroom, lock the door, take a defensive position with your students behind you, and guard it until police arrive. I can't think of why this isn't a better solution than waiting helplessly for the shooter to break in and spray bullets at people.
The thing is this subject will always be open to Monday morning quarterbacking. Suppose a teacher did end up killing an innocent while trying to defend his classroom. Are we going to scream about how arming teachers was a horrible mistake? How can you know if despite the 1 child, 17 others were saved?
Also not every teacher should be armed. Only those who feel confident enough to take up that role.

I get where you are coming from. However, this isn't like Miss Wallace is going to throw on her plate carrier and start clearing hallways while engaging hostile targets. Miss Wallace isn't going to be trained in close quarters combat tactics.

What Miss Wallace having a gun means is the final line of protection. That shooter actually enters Miss Wallace's classroom and is going to kill everyone in there. Miss Wallace, even though nervous and with some inaccuracy, has a chance to eliminate the threat. At the very least she has caused the shooter to change their current focus to the immediate threat that is Miss Wallace crouching in the corner with her 38. Even potentially causing the shooter to run from the classroom. A mass shooter is looking for easy targets.

But Miss Wallace doesn’t want this job. She wants to teach our children, not defend them from violence. That’s why she’s a teacher not a cop. The focus should be on putting her in situation where she doesn’t need a gun and can focus on teaching rather than expecting her to solve other problems created by societal failings.

I don't believe anybody is suggesting that you just give teachers guns and say "here go protect the students." I don't believe anybody in their right mind would suggest such a thing. The only way that the above points could be valid is if that's exactly what you did.

What people are suggesting is that you train, and the key word being just that "train" teachers who desire to be armed for the purpose of protecting their students.

Teachers as you describe them sound like wilting flowers weak and defenseless. I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that insinuation. Teachers are tough. Just think what a teacher has to go through on a daily basis.

Again I am sorry for saying this, but it needs to be said, in an active shooter situation your daughter would be much safer if she, or another trained staff member, had the ability to fight back.

There's also the psychological aspect of it. The fact that her school would no longer be a gun-free zone would in and of itself be a deterrent. Murderers target gun free zones. So because the fact that staff is armed would mean but they would probably never have to use their weapons. Murderers are cowards chances are great that they are not going to go shooting people in a place where they themselves can get shot.

Remember the key to arming staff is training. And I'm sure there's a lot of teachers out there that would willingly go into training for it.

Screw that, we have all the guns in the world lets train our kids like in the old days how to fire a weapon in school shooting/range class, in turn teaching the next generation of teachers and women.

It’s got little to do with teachers being wilting violets and more to do with the difficulty of what you are asking them to do.

Nothing I posted suggested the teachers would be roaming the the school. I think the problems I describe are the same in the situation of a class locked down with a teachers standing between them and the shooter.

But we can agree to disagree.

>The only way that the above points could be valid is if that's exactly what you did.

Have you even been in combat or in a situation where someone is trying to kill you? The above points are totally valid. Regardless of the scenario you come up with you are asking someone to effectively operate a weapon against a hostile asssialant. It’s not a shooting range with a paper target at the other end.

I agree with you to an extent about psychological deterrence but this seems a band aid solution that doesn’t address the deeeper issue. The issue I have with this whole issue is that this shouldn’t be a problem for teachers to solve. When the system is so broken that you have to give your kids teacher a gun to keep them safe, you got a big problem.

This was a pretty good argument. And poor miss Wallace. Hopefully she'll never have to hide in a cupboard!

Well of course its not the guns fault, however criminals will tend to use the easiest tools to get the job done. This tends to be true even if they are not thinking clearly. Having easy access to these weapons, AR-type weapons and the like, allows for criminals to do more damage and kill more people then if they didn't have access to them to begin with.

Bombs are quite easy to build now that we have the internet. People who want to kill people will find a way to make maximal casualty...by buying weapons legally or illegally.

The real issue is cultural, Switzerland is armed to the teeth and every citizen has a gun, yet no mass-shooting issue. There is a big discussion to be had about mental illness, the education system, fatherless homes, etc. But all we talk about is the weapon these sickos use kill people.

Bombs aren't that easy to build and aren't as easy to control the outcome of the attack. But if it were so easy to build bombs, why aren't there more bombings as opposed to shootings. Simply because to the availability of these types of weapons.
In my opinion, you've brought up two different and distinct issues. The availability of guns and the crimes those guns allow for in the hands of a criminal, as well as issues of education and mental health. Not all gun crimes are committed by the mentally ill and not all mentally ill commit gun crimes.
So to help lower mass shootings, limit the sales of these firearms. Its true that criminals will always find a way to do what they intend to, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them.

You are missing one little nugget of information in your mental reasoning...the availability of guns for self protection actually, on-the-whole, reduces the number of shootings and other severe violence. In most cases, without anyone getting shot.

Not having any guns also has in all cases nobody getting shot.
But in the US, you need a gun for self-defence because of the potential that you're assailant will also have a gun.
I'm not suggesting banning all guns, even if in my opinion that would be the better option, but to add limits on the sale of guns through licencing, background checks and the like.

We have universal background checks now for any new gun purchase. Other limiting factors are in place on a state-by-state basis. Bad people still get them.

If you are advocating for a more-stringent system where a person must in some way prove their worthiness in order to purchase a gun...be careful and ask yourself: Who watches the watchmen? Whoever enforces limits on guns will have the power to abuse those without guns.

That is the reason the US Constitution (AKA: our protocol for playing nicely with each other) uses the specific language to say that you are born with the right to have a gun and others must prove you to be unworthy in order to take it away.

If you produce an immutable blockchain for gun registry and licensing that no government or entity can abuse, co-opt, or manipulate...I might then be convinced of some of the viability of what you are arguing.

As someone who isn't from the US it seems to me that you simply don't have faith in your government and that even the chance of a scenario where there could be an abuse of power is unacceptable even if such systems work outside the US. It comes down to the type of political system that only has two parties that creates such polarising opposition to one another. But that's another issue entirely.
Just because Americans are born with the right to own a gun doesn't mean they can own any weapon they like. There are already limits of what types of guns you can buy, so extending or retracting those limits shouldn't be out of the question if it has the potential to limit damage and death to members of society as a whole.
Essentially nothing has been done to address gun violence in the US other than encouraging the purchase of more guns as protection and that doesn't seem to be working.

You sounded reasonable in the beginning...now, you are beginning to sound like a propaganda bot that isn't able to directly engage in a reasonable conversation.

First off...if you aren't from the US, then how is it you have so much experience of the operation of our communities that you feel you are qualified to offer suggestions as to how to fix things? Your opinions are based on generic observations and principles and are not specifically applicable. Unless you have a greater depth of the functions of the US Republic system of government...you should probably refrain preaching your solutions to the problems.

Second...I don't trust the US government, not any other government that currently exists or any government that has ever existed. You are a fool if you trust your government. History shows that all governments will eventually become corrupt and fail.

Lastly...You are mostly correct that not much has been done to address gun violence...that is partially because people keep focusing on the gun and not the real source of the problem. But it is also because, gun violence is minor compared to what actually causes the deaths each year. Cars, Doctors, and falling each kill more people that guns each year...yet guns prevent more people from getting hurt than all of those combined.

This is my last post on this subject with you.

1) I made a remark about your stance of inability to trust in your government which you agree with. I made no claims as to being qualified or offered any expertise with regards to how your government should be run. You're right, I did make generic observations, but are they wrong? If so how?
2)If you don't trust your government then why bother voting? Its fundamental for democracies for their citizens to engage in government which in a majority of cases is through voting. There is a required level of trust that a government needs from its citizens for the whole thing to work. If your opinion is in the minority then do something about it.
3)Your defence of guns comes down to the fact that guns are tools being used by criminals and that you should stop criminals as opposed to stopping how they commit crimes. That doesn't take into account how much damage guns do when used by criminals. Yes there are less deaths due to gun violence than the examples you gave, but that doesn't mean you should not do anything at all to address it. And your claim that guns prevent more crime is only applicable because of the expectation that your assailant could have a gun. Most of the industrialised world get by just fine without their use for self defence.
4)Since you aren't going to be replying anymore you're the one who's refusing to engage in discussion. Bye then and take care.

Gas bomb? Not easy to built or control? Please keep those myths spinning.

How many gas bombings have been used in mass killings?

Why do you want to know? Will that make a gas bomb any less complex?

You do make it easier by disarming people and giving the criminals the superior armament almost by default. What sense does it make to limit guns if guns aren't the problem, and true that criminals will commit their deeds either way, why are we trying to mitigate the symptom again when the root cause is making things such as property rights and inherent nature of the state towards it's sovereign people completely trivialized and meaningless. People will act more unjustly the more and more society is unjust to them, inherently, overtly, and covertly. More tyranny is not going to make the recipe of tyranny taste any different.

Taking guns away doesn't take the criminal motive of criminalizing everything under the sun and running false flags every other week from the FBI and the CIA, what happened before columbine, we've had 20 years of school shootings started with one that had been FBI tainted and preceding to numerous ones, didn't that sandy hook principal die at boston bombing also? nobody noticed that lolol.

This is far from funne but still.

How is limiting you from buying a gun trivialise your property rights? Your property rights are defined by law.
Its true that taking away guns doesn't take away the criminal intent but not doing anything doesn't either.
If limiting the sale of firearms lowers the occurrence of mass killings then you have to ask yourself whether your right to buy guns is more important than stopping mass shootings and gun crime in general.

>How is limiting you from buying a gun trivialise your property rights? Your property rights are defined by law.

Property rights come from the principle of Self Rule>Self Ownership>Owner of your acts and words.

If someone manufactures rifles they are the owners of the products.

>Its true that taking away guns doesn't take away the criminal intent but not doing anything doesn't either.

You cannot take away intent. Doing, not doing, you're going to keep running headlong into the wall. Look at the uk, australian and nz statistics on crime.

>If limiting the sale of firearms lowers the occurrence of mass killings then you have to ask yourself whether your right to buy guns is more important than stopping mass shootings and gun crime in general.

If it raises the occurence of all other crimes and makes easy victims of people by stigmatizing the gun instead of recognizing that the state DOESN'T define rights or GIVE rights then we might as well Nerf the world. Not a peep about the state false flag history? Not a peep about them orchestrating these mass shootings?

So we punish everyone because some misbehave. Impeccable logic. Tell me again why we trust the gov with nukes?

For the greater good yes. Now I personally think that all guns should be banned but I understand that its different in the US as there are millions of guns in circulation. There are already limits on the types of guns that you can purchase. Making changes to these limits that take into account the changing reality that AR type firearms are used by criminals in mass shootings would help mitigate these sorts of events.

Except that nobody has a right to tell another person what they cannot and can own simply because of some arbitrary reason like "it's guns or children".

Wow, that’s awesome! I’ve been wondering if it was really him or someone just making a page and posting his clips. I’ve been a big fan of Ben Swann and his reality check segments for years! Stoked to see him on the platform. :-)

You might also like this..

Trump, on his hair: "I have tried with all my strength to hide this baldness"
https://steemit.com/news/@viralyard/trump-on-his-hair-i-have-tried-with-all-my-strength-to-hide-this-baldness

Politics is becoming something else, talking about the latest mass shooting in a school in Florida. Why would government issue gun licences to minnows without conditions? The government should look into what ever bill they passed into law, or better still withdraw it, if not the innocent once will suffer a lot.

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmcvUCMDbT4nTtvfWT5qKdQFXy9kdpL9m7TciAvRiGvSKB/DQmSbgyQbzuKArT6XntHi1VHSfEMuiiYDJAFQiV2eDpbGDH_640x480.png]

nice video@benswann
thank you for sharing

If this happens to be true, then it is really terrible for the people in US. Trump please re-think.

fascinating & significant!

I absolutely agree, you know i hate when people instrumentalize social catastrophies like that and the victims for their political agenda and propaganda

What about when the victims themselves do it?

The victims don't, they are dead. But if you mean the injured or the families, i understand their pain and there emotional drive to do something. This doesn't mean they act rational and out of personal needs like it is a must for doing real politics for the needs of all citizens. But i won't hate them because they don't instrumentalize what was happening, the act their way because it was happening, which is totally fine altough i might not agree with them.

Thanks for your informative post @benswann. I have archived a lot of important material related to the Florida school event at the following links. I hope they help your audience learn more about what has really taken place in regards to this event.

https://twitter.com/WhiteHelmetsEXP/status/966018894619136001

https://twitter.com/WhiteHelmetsEXP/status/966023596102574080

https://twitter.com/WhiteHelmetsEXP/status/966029973017546756

Now Playing on Dtube: Deterring Bullets - Florida School Shooting Victim States She Used Book to Deter Bullets From Hitting Her (post includes 5 videos with anomalies/strange behaviors)

https://steemit.com/news/@clarityofsignal/now-playing-on-dtube-deterring-bullets-florida-school-shooting-victim-states-she-used-book-to-deter-bullets-from-hitting-her

Caveat: White Helmets Exposed Twitter Page is a main distribution hub for articles I compose at my Clarity of Signal Wordpress site.

Always they blame it on the guns, blame it on the president, blame it on the others, but they will never admit their own guilt as part of a unhuman society with unhuman value, exception, prejudices... One must ask what caused that anger in the killer and how can we work on that issues on a large scale as a society. And they don't understand that actually those who are going to therapy are the less mentally ill, while most people have serious mental issues but just ignore them going untreated and acting like they where completely healthy and also as if they were supirior

Good information and reality

making a society more human, fixing prejudices etc, are things that can't exactly be fixed overnight - they are complex issues that will require years of analysis and at best, incremental improvements.

Taking weapons out of the hands of people is something that can be done overnight.

I'm in my 30s and I've never owned a gun, and never plan on owning a gun

Well i am from germany, we don't carry guns, still you can get a gun illegaly, an thats exactly what happend at our school shootings. Because if someone has the intention to do it, he'll find a way. These complex issues may require analysis and incremental improvements, yes and thats why discussion has to start. Always looking for the next easy to do task will get us nowhere as it are just things we consider to be helping but they are not, when we dont cut the roots. Look at Swiss they all have guns, they don't have any problem, why is that?

no doubt there'll always be a black market for guns - but making it harder to get guns will reduce the amount of times that guns are used by the wrong people - it is just logic.

yes there's other issues at play, but guns are the low hanging fruit - get rid of them and you save lives.

America's issue isn't just the existence of guns - it's the fact that guns have become such an integral part for much of the society. The society is sick - very sick - and taking guns away from sick people is the only logical thing to do.

In Australia it costs $30,000 to buy an AR15 style weapon on the black market. In the Us it costs about $1,000 or less. Do the maths. How many school kids and petty criminals have $30k to invest in a weapon. Not many.

yeah but how much does it cost in the US if you don't even need to go on the blackmarket? half of the time when you have these school shootings these kids are going in with an arsenal of weaponry that would suit a small army.

That's pretty much not possible in Australia.

How many school shootings are you guys having there? Is it anything like it is here? No? Probably because it's harder to get guns.

You are right, there a less than in America but consider Germany to be much much smaller than the US and consider we have more stabbings than shootings. But Death is Death. Maybe there will be less rampage without guns, i can't tell. But I always liked your constitution because it ensures the people can stand up against a totalitarian takeover or a government turning against the people.

Can someone kill more people with a machine gun or a knife? Do you really have to ask that question? It doesn't take a double blind study...

Also, you say that it "ensures the people can stand up against a totalitarian takeover." But does it? We don't have tanks, RPGs, fighter jets, bomber jets, drones, nukes, etc. We just have some pop pop machines that can't even pierce tank armor. If the government wanted to "turn against the people," whatever that means, how would a few million rifles do anything to prevent or even deter that?

Ofcourse guns can kill more people than a knife, i was only talking about the amount of rampages in Germany, not the number of victims. But with the same logic, they may have drones and tanks but very limited and they still would need manpower to control it, so an army. And against that army, what do you think are you more efficient with a nife or with a gun?

there is no way of taking out a totalitarian government without the help of a military group or the actions of a paramilitary movement, one already have the gun power and the other is way more difficult to assamble than to find the guns. I'm from Venezuela and the goverment is still in power not because there are no guns but because at the end most of the people doesn't have the will to use them.

The problem with make it easier to buy guns, in any country, is that the victims are allways gonna be the people who doesn't have or never had the idea to use a weapon. There are allways the hot headed people that happens to decide to have a gun which for me is a pretty bad combination and can be easly avoidable by mental health tests before buying a gun.

That trully determined people to cause harm will find a way to get a gun, Yes, but at least make it hard for them...

What i do agree is that the security personel should always be armed, and it would be a good idea to have trained people in charge of the security of public places.

Neither are efficient. I spent 15 years in the army. I commanded a company of 100 soldiers. If you want to bring your militia with your guns against the government, then the army Is going to wipe the floor with you. It’s not just the tanks and the planes and the heavy machine guns that give the military the advantage. It’s small unit tactics, effective command and control systems, it’s training, it’s the works.

Your gun is not protecting you from the government unless you live in a country that’s so poorly governed the military is ineffective. Germany is not that country. You’ve got one of the best armies in the world. Good luck with that fight. You’re going to need it.

I’ll bet you would have a hard time finding one article where a mass shooting was “blamed on the gun.” It gets OLD reading people mischaracterize gun control arguments down to basic generalities that almost on one is advocating.

Almost every story that I have read or seen on tv asks exactly the questions you suggest that no one is asking.

And such ridiculous generalizations as “those who are going to therapy are the less mentally ill, while most people have serious mental issues but just ignore them ...” illustrate your complete lack of understanding of the mental health conditions of millions of Americans.

Finally, on the OP’s original subject, it’s a fact that President Obama’s put a rule in place that would restrict certain mentally ill people from acquiring guns under specific conditions and that Trump removed the new restrictions. This is easily searchable. You don’t have to take my word for it.

First of all articles are not a reliable source neither where articles meant, may be only in the way the propagate gun control as they first talk about the shootings and then about gun control, this way linking the the topics to one another. I mostly talk about people and politicians.
Second thing is i did not generalized anything, thats just another false accusation of someone who did not exactly read what was written, but only reads what he wants to read. For me this is exactly the behavior of those with mental issues who ignore them. Best evidence: you accuse me of a "complete" (THIS BY THE WAY IS GENERALIZATION) lack of understanding of the mental health conditions of millions of Americans while you can't even give an argument for that.

Okay. Change “articles” to factual, investigative reports.

As soon as you start parsing words to win an argument, you have lost that argument.

Wow you totally proved my point regarding to you. There is no need to win an agrument here, as no real arguments were presented by you, only false accusations. And i have better things to do as keep pointles conversations going. So i wish you the best luck and a good life. Write what you want.

This is both 100% true and also used as a throw away line bybthosecwhomadvocate against gun control. Couldn’t we work on both at the same time?

I don’t think anyone needs a gun unless they are using it in their profession. I spent 16 years in the army and I’ve seen what guns can do first hand. No civilian needs that tool. But I’m not American and it’s not my country, so if American want guns then that’s their choice. I still can’t see how this justifies regulations that are so lax that even criminals and the mentally ill can walk into Walmart and buy an AR 15 is just ludicrous .

very nice i really enjoyed this.

Things happening ,I pray for God's love in this present world, nice bro God bless you

I fail to see the logic here, according to the video Trump did repeal a law banning people with mental health problems from buying guns, so what is the point of the video?

There is so much fake news coming out of the left related to this tragedy. They have no solutions to offer, so instead they're just setting their hair on fire like angry children. If you have real solution or suggestion, by all means make it. If you don't, however, please be spare the rest of us.

Please list all the fake news coming out of the left. Or even some of it. Share a few quotes, a few links, a few video clips of all this left fake news.

I think they mean the corporate media running Democrat propaganda. There's almost no media actually representing leftist perspectives in legacy media.

If the MSM is once again spreading that lie that would explain all the idiots I have been having to disabuse of that notion today.

Thank you for the post , very good

Thank you for the post , very good

GREAT to see you on here! When I saw the announcement and the info on Dash, I was wondering if you would venture on Steemit.

Recent posts:
Evanna’s Story, Part 1

Evanna’s Story, Part 2

Why I've Committed to Steemit...

Upcoming New Podcast: Go Rogue!

but he's literally doing nothing to prevent mentally ill people from getting firearms, so...

Less than nothing

There is something fishy about this story. I think Julian Assange explained this kind of thing very well: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/915903148681830400?ref_src=twcamp%5Ecopy%7Ctwsrc%5Eandroid%7Ctwgr%5Ecopy%7Ctwcon%5E7090%7Ctwterm%5E1

Who watches TV?

He is also just a next president in line not to do anything to address the gun violence problem in America.

True, but you can't say Obama and Clinton didn't try. We actually used to have an assault rifle ban.

guns should be kept only by police and the security forces and not ordinary people

They tried that in Germany once.

A lot of developed nations currently have this as law. So whatever happened in Germany, it was an outlier.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control

But now they have a required psychiatric exam. In fact, its probably very much in the social fanric that guns are for our fourlegged friemds rather than protection

In my country teachers don’t have guns. We’ve also never had a mass shooting at a school that I’m aware of....

May I ask what utopian country you are from?

I’m from Australia. It’s not utopia, It’s just normal, like the rest of the world.

Ha ha ha ha!!! THAT was classic. And I'm from the USA. But I gotta tell ya, I think our downfall here is how often we broadcast the shootings. No other country does that. And other countries DO have shootings. But you don't hear about them. So they aren't a thing. It's not publicized. It is quickly dealt with and handled quietly and appropriately. We get such an obsessed craze going on like we need to know it's going on, when we don't NEED to be informed of every incident. As a matter of fact, this feeds the frenzy rather than solving it.

People who make insurance claims are outliers too; does that mean that nobody should carry insurance?

Why should individual people not own guns?

Well, there is a country that has socialism. Guns are banned for citizens. Only government and criminals have guns and it is a complete shit hole. Venezuela... no thanks.

Nice informative video! Thanks.

Congratulations @benswann, this post is the second most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Dust account holder (accounts that hold between 0 and 0.01 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Dust account holders during this period was 12530 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $3361.56. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.

If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.

Trump did it for himself. He's the mentally ill. He's preparing for his own war..

Boom! We need more content like this on steemit.
@benswann very professional!

The only thing he did was make it easier for people with severe mental health problems to become president!

This video is ASS!

Ah, a anti-Trump dig.

Welcome to Steem. I'll get this resteemed to 30k followers and try to help the next few posts get started like that too. Glad you're here. I'm a fan of your work, and please don't get shot for sharing some truth or questioning bullshit narratives!

[IMAGE: https://i.imgur.com/GU9jFP9.png]

This post has been resteemed from MSP3K courtesy of @aggroed from the Minnow Support Project ( @minnowsupport ).

Bots Information:
- @lovejuice
- @minnowsupport
- @msp-lovebot
- @msp-nomad
- @msp-shanehug

Join the P.A.L. Discord | Check out MSPSteem | Listen to MSP-Waves

Why are you resteeming someone who does not need help with visibility. Isn't MSP supposed to help out minnows who don't otherwise get noticed? No offense to benswan, but he's rather large on here already, and will have no trouble getting a vote.

his post is nice, I like

Weapons can only be owned by the special authorities of the army and police @benswann

very good

No, thats not what people are saying. They are saying that he undid a law from Obama and that he has taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA

My daughter goes to Stoneman so I have a view from my family perspective wich just went through a trafgedy. As my ex wife the mother of my children is a teacher there as well. The issue I with this president and the politicians in charge is as follows. They will in know way make it more Difficult for troubled people to get guns. There afraid of the NRA !!! Anyone who doesn’t see that is not in reality. Do we really want the gun industry having that much control ? Any industry. Some day it may be an industry you know is wrong. Does an 18 year old really bead that kind is weapon. ??? Kid can’t buy a beer. ? My child can’t drive past 11pm but she can by an AR-15 ? Does that really make sense ? We put some restrictions are every thing else ? Driving ,flying , work related safety. Why not guns ? The killings have doubled since the restrictions on semi automatic weapons expired ? When is enough killing enough to make reasonable restrictions.

i think that was great shooting. beautiful post @benswann. You are good one. i upvoted and resteemed your post.
thank you

I really hate debating politics because at the end of the day, it's unlikely anyone will change their minds. People think he is smart, people think he is stupid...blah, blah, blah. If everyone just minded their own business and didn't encroach on other people's rights it would be unlikely we'd have to deal with these same issues at all. But it seems like when one person shits their pants, people rush in to try to force everyone to wear a diaper. How about you do you, and I'll do me and we'll get along just fine?!

If only it were that easy and people weren't inclined to murder as many other people as possible ...

That's the point I hopefully made in my other reply. I think society has been desensitized to violence and that is the root issue that needs to be addressed. Not so much "let's ban another gun component or write another law that will be ignored by criminals".

It depends on your definition of what it means to infringe on people rights. The more people who own guns, the more they infringe on my right to safety. What’s more important? Some 19 yo old kids right to own a gun or my right to send my kids to school safely?

kids buy weed and it's illegal. Making guns illegal won't solve the problem...The US issue around mass-shooting is cultural issue that won't be solved via legislation. If these sickos can't find a way to buy guns, they will build bombs with stuff you can buy off the shelf.

What do you think the issue is? If it’s cultural, what aspect(s) of your culture causes this to happen so often?

Respectfully, I disagree. Owning a gun does not infringe on your right to safety. Using a gun in an illegal manner to inflict harm infringes on your right to safety. Guns have been around for hundreds of years, yet now all of a sudden it's a problem and something needs to change? I think there are much deeper societal problems at the root of violence.
I believe we need to address the issue of violence in general versus worrying about changing gun laws just to make people feel better, like the government is addressing the issue.

I totally agree about the societal issues. I think a failing to address these issues is a failure of a lot of governments, not just the US. I don’t think you can ignore the role of guns though. The US has the second highest rate of gun violence ownership in the world and the highest rate of gun violence (amongst modern western democracies). You also have one of the highest rates of homocide in the western world. That seems to be a pretty bit coincidence.

There may be an answer to the gun debate, but I don't think it stems from a ban of any kind. I feel like a lot of the legislation of the last couple of decades have done very little to solve these issues and have just been a legislative bandaid used to garner political favor under the guise of "doing something". I'd be interested in hearing a creative solution that doesn't rely on penalizing the law-abiding gun owners. And I'd be interested in hearing what percentage of gun-related homicides are from legally-obtained guns. It certainly doesn't help things when government officials drop loads of guns across the border for gangs to use. High probability they wound up back in the US with those gangs. Excuse the pun, but this government is shooting itself in the foot.

Just so you know... In the US you DON'T have a right to safety. You DO have a right to a gun. The idea being that, as an individual, with a gun, you are best able to make decisions that maximize your safety.

and I think that’s crazy! But hey! It’s your country so your choice as to how to live your life. It’s just not a culture that I find easy to understand.

But politicians can't "mind their own business" because its their job to enact laws that effect everyone more or less. Laws should be able to effect the greater good in a society and when taking this into account, guns allow for a greater ability to cause death and damage then if they weren't allowed by the populace to begin with.
Now I understand that guns in the US are a cultural thing and peoples' right to bear arms is in the constitution, but this right should be balanced with the damage that they can potentially cause. Most of the rest of the industrialised world have enacted laws that limit this sort of problem and I don't understand why even an attempt to do anything in the US is almost scandalous or blasphemy.

Yes, politicians have the responsibility to enact laws that effect everyone, this is true. Laws "should" effect the greater good, I also agree. Yet congress is exempt from the laws they make, so would they really care how it effects their constituents? I try not to generalize, but the last few decades it has seemed like members of Congress care less about the people and more about their own well being. They play lipservice to the issues and do nothing. But I don't want to get off track here because that is a completely different issue.
Society in general, I feel, has eroded in the last 20 years. When I was growing up, I learned (and felt) the consequences of my actions. As a result, I slid down a hill on ice and hit a parked car. I went door to door until I tracked down the owner so I could take care of the problem and exchange insurance info. Conversely, kids in the parking lot of my work were playing around my car. I walk out later and find a huge dent in the panel. They ran into my car (or leaned on it or whatever) and they caused damage. They ran away. Now I get to pay for it. There is a general lack of respect in much of the latest generations. Many kids are not brought up to understand there are consequences to there actions. This is a problem with society where people either don't understand or don't care about how they effect other people. I'm talking about individuals minding their own business. I'm talking about individuals respecting each other.And I'm talking about individual's freedom. Freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm anyone else's life or property.
I understand guns are an emotional issue, but they aren't the source of the problem. Murder with any other item is still murder. So let's address the societal source of violence and lack of respect for life.

I agree with most of what you said, but I still think societal issues are separate from gun control. There will always be criminals but giving them easy access to firearms only makes the crimes they commit easier to commit and amplifies any damage they can do.
Now I personally am for an all out ban on firearms, but I understand that its an American thing that guns are part of the culture and it would most likely never happen as there are millions of guns in circulation. If firearms were harder to obtain, through either stronger background checks, licencing or having a documented need for one as examples, you could lower the impact of crimes committed with firearms. Addressing only societal sources of violence doesn't take into account the damage of firearms in crime that will happen regardless.

If the gun crime is going to happen regardless, how would legislation limit anything? Criminals, or would-be criminals, will be able to get guns with or without laws against a semi-automatic weapon or high-capacity magazine. When you enact laws, only law-abiding citizens are affected. Want to require gun licenses? Most states already do. Want stricter background checks? We can discuss that, though background checks are already in place as well as mandatory waiting periods in many states.
I think the societal issue is overarching because if you take away a person's inclination toward violence, then you can hand them loaded guns all day and they won't harm someone else with them. But if some element of society has caused their brains to cross a wire and snap or have some desire to cause harm out of past rejection or whatever, then they will use that tool for harm.

youtube is dead

Trump should control the gun buying law. And it’s make hard

Hey, @benswann, can you bring the (Watching the) Hawks team over here?

Keep up the great work Ben!

I like your style man!! keep up the good work!

Grick Rhymes on Gun Control
Florida teacher, Ernest Rospierski thought that the shooting was an active shooter drill, because earlier in the day, he heard there was going to be a code red drill.

Welcome to Dash and Steemit @benswann!

Nice post sir .....

Why even have military assault weapons available in the first place

yeah... definitely real

Typical republican NRA payed crook. saying everything is fake news...everything but their own fake news is supposed to be real. brainwashing really works on the usa for decades now. totally isolated from the world and real facts it seems to them like fiction and in fact is reality. they still think they are no1, but in fact they became the worlds village idiot everybody laughes at. and this is really sad.

Its not about blaming Trump for this particular school shooting but how he blames shootings in general on mental illness but removes laws enacted by his predecessor to attempt to limit gun sales to individuals that suffer from some sort of mental illness.

Hey everyone! So glad to be here. Yes, this is my official DTube channel! Some of you may have seen me link to it on my last couple of newsletters.

Oh my God but you just joined steem and you so high in rep how come

It's because he's already famous on youtube, so he brought his followers over here on steemit. Also, there will be plenty of people on steemit who know who he is. He has several "whale" votes, and that gives him a huge boost. And often celebs have money to invest in steem, giving them higher steem power, and the ability to boost their posts.

Basically, the celebrities always trend. That's how it goes.

All my solidarity with USA citozen for the sad event that took place in the school from north afrika tunisia,I think trump made a good decision to make guns under controll and focus on that subject, wish you all th sucess a a secure futur

Hi everyone! Yup this is my official DTube channel. Really glad to be here!

Looks like Dtube is working pretty good.

Welcome to Dtube, Ben Swann 🙌

This debate has been coming in the US ever since 20th April 1999. Actually, it may have come to the correct President or one who will be brave enough to make a decision. The question is - will he make the correct one that the American people will accept?

I am a professional Astrologer, and I found an inherent link between Columbine, Sandy Hook and now Parkland. The following post is complicated (as real bonafide Astrology is complicated) but through it I hope you can get the gist of what I was trying to explain...

https://steemit.com/astrology/@solarisastro/america-and-guns-the-astrological-link-between-columbine-sandy-hook-and-parkland

the possession of weapons is a fairly extensive and controversial issue, not all of us should have weapons and less to buy them as well as when we go to the super for bread, it can not be that easy; I think the permits should be a little more strict and with tests to see if the carrier can really get this kind of things in their possession, and have seen things that happen in all parts of the world for this cause you have to raise awareness a little more it is lives that are at stake.

Glad to see you are back Ben, and even better, on Steemit! Bought some Dash as soon as I heard you were supporting it.
Looking forward to see more from you, even tho I am Canadian. Now we just need a Canadian version of you to highlight the ignored issues here, since all our news does is focus on the US, cause it gets better ratings.

Yea! Ben Swann back on the internet!

i am not even from america but this is so one sided, i doubt a lot of the things that are told here... (not the quotes though) - gets a vote down

I have is nice very god

Hey suparman! I think you is nice very god.

https://steemitimages.com/DQmQgCwa7v8Vwb4iwMCT9utcVDBZbhRSxsvoCGTAdBJ75zr/image.png

thanks you for vote @benswann

Trump is a businessman in the first place, we're living in capitalism ideology, that's why it's hard to ban a gun from the seller. That's the result of democracy, we have free will and there's positive and negative result in the environment we created, unless you are living in communist country where everything is being controlled. :)

Hey it's great to:
1. Have you back on the airwaves
1. Have you on steemit!

Life is a boomerang! And every rash act or decision will turn first against you. Everyone will reap the fruits of his actions

Good going once again breaking the narrative that Trump is "strong on gun rights." Yep, he's showing his true colors now!

I think trump go to a bad decision. Its high time to change this decision..

A lot of people don't this but Obama actually made it easier for legal immigrants to buy guns by removing the proof of 90 residency requirement. This happened around 2012 or 2013. Prior to that, legal immigrants were required to show proof of legal status and documentation showing they had been living in the US for at least 90 days. They could do so by showing things like utility bills or lease agreements.

Because Obama was not known for his pro-gun attitudes, I can only imagine that the move also made it easier for illegal immigrants to steal these weapons from relatives/friends who purchased them legally.